Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 December	4 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spill Magic[edit]

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

Article reads like an advertisement and is sourced only by its own website, press releases, or closely related websites and directory-formatted websites. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not pass WP:FAILN guideline threshold. This is self-promotion of the highest kind. Yet another of thousands of chemical cleaning concoctions without any nuance. This isn't nano-technology or something unique -- this is just another cleaner. -Ventric (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:12, 9 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) 16:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Erickson (politics)[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, mainly. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sending one email does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see a potential notability claim here if there were a lot more substance and sourcing about his overall record of activism — but JPL is correct that merely sending one e-mail, even if temporarily newsy because of its context, is not in and of itself grounds for a standalone BLP. It just makes him a WP:BLP1E at best, not a person who's earned a permanent encyclopedia article yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear notability issues. WP:COATRACK probably applies too. Peacock (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- In agreement with all previous comments.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, very little if any coverage of his activities beyond sending an email. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:18, 9 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco World News[edit]

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

Deleted by me as A7 a few days ago. Restoring for full AfD so the issue can be fully settled. I personally don't think this meets either WP:NNEWSPAPER or WP:GNG, despite having a claim of being the largest English Moroccan news source. It fails all the criteria of NNEWSPAPER, and although it is sometimes quoted in other articles, I have been unable to find any in-depth reliable sources about it which would indicate it meets GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hereby, I will post all references and links and international media mentions of Morocco World News as a prime source and as an established news tabloid from Morocco that will establish its credibility and the reason that earlier editors had approved it for so many months it was not removed, it is the only english national paper of Morocco:

1. Centre for International Media Assistance [1]

"Anthony Abate is one such stakeholder. Abate, a current Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco and CIMA alum, is part of a team working on Morocco World News Junior, the youth platform of the country’s largest English-language news website, Morocco World News. Slated for a February 2015 launch, Morocco World News Junior aims to involve Moroccan youth in news production and, as Abate says, “realize that news and media is something that can be interactive and fun.”

2. Atlantic Council: [2]

3. Energy UK: [3]

4. Used Wikipedia as source but now link is missing because of sudden deletion: [4]

5. AlArabiya quotes it: [5]

6. AL Jazeera has MWN founders profile: [6]

7. Some more links: [7] 8. [8] 9. [9] 10. [10] 11. [11] 12. [12] 13. [13]

14. International Bussiness Times: [14] 15. The New Arab: [15] 16. [16] 17. [17] 18. [18] 19. [19] 20. [20] 21. [21] 22. has AFP subscription: [22]

Gamesofwikithrones (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NNEWSPAPER criterium 4: The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works. This is the link to backup my claim. It is also routinely quoted a lot by regular papers, see for example 1 or 2. Worldwide really. Listed #13 among Moroccan news sites but getting more international attention since in English. gidonb (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have re-opened this discussion per a discussion on my talk page in the hopes of getting a little more participation. While the consensus to Keep did exist, with only two votes it was fairly weak.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep e-newspaper is a fancy word for "website". However, it's English-language, which makes it easier to evaluate. [23] is good secondary coverage, the other references are trivial and the article would probably be better if written entirely based off the IBTimes article and primary sources. This is a borderline case; I default to keep here simply to aid in situations where the site is used as a reference. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fair speaking the sources provided above clearly passes guideline WP:GNG. User Gamesofwikithrones did a terrific work, sometimes things are deleted because nobody is willing or able to mine for sources (which isn't easy for some topics). I opended all the contents and believe some are trivial indeed, but some are not. Such combination is acceptable way of meeting WP:GNG. I concur with what Power~enwiki said above, despite the name it is actually a website. Then finally it should be clearly said here that WP:NNEWSPAPER is an essay not policy not guideline. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:57, 7 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) 16:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One World Drivers' Championship runners-up[edit]

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

Pure trivia. The only thing that really matters is the World Champions. No evidence of notability. T v x1 21:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, only the winner really matters XyzSpaniel Talk Page 23:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTTRIVIA and WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it's a war, losing isn't notable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose", and so only winners are notable enough for their own list. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – there is clear evidence of notability, especially for multiple-times runners-up – most famous probably being Stirling Moss. The fact of being a runner-up even a single time is often mentioned and noticed in the sources discussing the drivers in question. cherkash (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moss is known for it, as he's arguably the best driver never to have won the World Championship. But most others aren't. And so it's not a list we need to have. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And so are Massa, Coulthard, Irvive, Frentzen – this is only in the last 20 years (while everyone else in the same period has been a World Champion at some point). So it's not quite an unimportant, and definitely a notable thing. cherkash (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frentzen didn't even come second, he came third but was later upgraded..... Joseph2302 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your last point is moot: this is the official result cherkash (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet he isn't very notable for it. He is more notable for his wins in 1999. The 1997 season was notable for Villeneuve winning the title and Schumacher getting disqualified.T v x1 19:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because a few people were famous for being 'always the bridesmaid, never the bride' does not make this a suitable list. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with WP:NOTSTATS. And I enjoyed the previous editor's quote of, "always a bridesmaid, never the bride." It rang humorously true. - Ventric (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:21, 9 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) 16:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One World Constructors' Championship runners-up[edit]

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

Pure trivia. The only thing that really matters is the World Champions. No evidence of notability. T v x1 21:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it's a war, losing isn't notable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – unlike the case with the drivers' runners-up (where notability is fairly widely established), I personally am not aware of much importance given in the sources to a constructor being a runner-up. Most likely because (and I'm speculating here on the reasons) most runners-up – indeed, all of them except Ligier, BAR, and Sauber – have also won the Constructors' Championship at least once. The case of the three teams mentioned is important to the three subjects, but the whole prominence of being a runner-up constructor is typically not so well established. cherkash (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, and same reasons I posted at List of Formula One World Drivers' Championship runners-up. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. A list of champions are notable. A list of runners-up is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:21, 9 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 per WP:SNOW at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2019, which will obviously be the case here too. Closing this before anyone else's time is wasted further. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2020[edit]

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

List that is set 2-3 years in the future with no sources (because it's the future...) so clearly fails every criteria. Okay with a redirect until the time something is available but it seems silly to have that considering it's still 2017. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL, obviously. Nate • (chatter) 22:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2019. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Crystal too far in advance XyzSpaniel Talk Page 23:13, 3 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) 16:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D+ (album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM: only one review. No indication of charting or significance. Recommend redirect to the D+ band page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see little point in making it into a redirect, as it's eponymous so anyone searching for the band by name will use the same search criteria. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Redirect is redundant as User:Dom Kaos states. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:25, 9 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. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 16:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdication of Emperor Akihito[edit]

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

This event appears insufficiently notable to deserve its own page. The Emperor will abdicate due to old age and to pass the title to his son. This isn't, say, the forced abdication of Napoleon. The emperor is a figurehead and this doesn't have any major impact on Japanese government. This event can be mentioned in the relevant biographies and other Japanese pages as needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They had to change around a whole lot of legislation to allow this, and the first abdication of title in a fifth of a millennium is a pretty big deal and unprecedented in the modern era. We've got the sources for this for sure. Nate • (chatter) 22:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You have to remember that the 1989 change of reign was a HUUUGE deal that cost nearly a billion dollars. This is something unprecedented in the modern era. As Mrschimpf said above, they had to change a whole lot of legislation to do this, and it's a HUUUUGE deal in Japan. They've scheduled it in the middle of the "Golden Week holiday season, so this is going to be one of the largest celebrations Japan has ever seen. The social event of the decade. Not notable! Were the abdications of the Pope and the King of Spain notable? Heck Yeah!!!!!!! Japan's going to shut down for a week because of it. It's notable as notable can be.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. It is A++ notable. Top of the list, gold standard, 136 hard bitcoins in golden bag notable. scope_creep (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there's a WP:CRYSTAL argument to delete this. There's also a WP:NOTNEWS argument. That said, better to have the details here than on Akihito or Naruhito, Crown Prince of Japan. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Considering there hasn't been a change of reign at all in 30 years (by the time this is complete), and there hasn't been a change of reign that does not involve The king is dead, long live the king in over a century, this is significant. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 15:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about the objections a bit, I have changed the title to Japanese imperial transition, 2019. This will permit us to include the the "Farewell Jubilee" in January, the enthronement ceremony of the new Emperor in May and all the other events like that there in what's going to be remembered as "the mother of all Golden Weeks." I hope this helpsArglebargle79 ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|t

Delete, as this event is scheduled to occur about 17 months from now. Should the emperor die before that date? this planned event becomes moot. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)alk]]) 15:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay Please remember that we have articles for events such as the 1940 Summer Olympics. If the old man dies next year and next year ONLY, then we will reconsider, but there's no reason to get rid of it and then have to start from scratch.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. , as a major event reasonably likely to occur--and even if he should die in the interval, the planning for the event and the discussion of it will still be enough for notability. And this would be true even without the change of title. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG - many high-quality, in-depth sources directly on point. Neutrality^talk 22:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think CRYSTAL applies as it seems like it's pretty much going to happen and the details are more or less in place. Outside of CRYSTAL or NOTNEWS arguments, it's not clear why this would be here. South Nashua (talk) 22:09, 8 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. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hollywood actresses by nationality[edit]

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

Article subject is vague. There is no List of Hollywood actresses or List of Hollywood actors or inclusion criteria for who is considered a Hollywood actor vs. an actor in general. If this is to be kept, then it should be renamed List of non-American Hollywood actresses. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. You may as well list every single actress that's appeared in Hollywood films. There's no reason why the list cannot be separate lists per nationality. Ajf773 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Way too many of them out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first sentence is "The list contains only non-American actresses of Hollywood, who are foreign", but many of the entries are for American-born actresses who currently reside in the US. Some of the linked articles even open with "(Name) is an American actress..." Major cleanup would be needed if kept. –dlthewave ☎ 03:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails its own title and will most likely be untended one day. Issues at article top pretty much covers it. — Wylie pedia 09:59, 5 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) 16:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of item numbers in Indian cinema[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. There is no inclusion criteria, no stand-alone notability for any of the items included (sans a handful). What is this? An indefinite guide to all supposed "item songs" that seriously contradicts policy against indiscriminate lists of loosely associated items. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as per nom. A WP:SAL containing blue-linked songs (not movies) probably can be constructed, and that would be fine to keep. However, there are only about 10 blue-linked songs (including Phir Milenge Chalte Chalte and Kajra Re), but some (Lazy Lamhe) aren't described as "item numbers" on the article page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This has all the hallmarks of an indiscriminate list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the item number terminology is discussed in books, there are no books that focus on listing every single item number out there. This would be like trying to maintain a list of songs in films or films that have post-credit scenes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas it is very hard to say what is an "item number" and what is not. Critics often disagree over it and there is no particular authoritative source for it. I think it is best to keep this information in the song article itself. For example, if Sheila ki Jawaani is considered an item number by critic A, it can be mentioned in that article.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:12, 9 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) 16:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mysonne[edit]

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

Non-notable musician lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLPCRIME - the only significant sources are the arrest reports. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 4 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. Opinions are roughly divided between keep as a notable topic and delete as a POV fork of existing articles. These are both defensible arguments that depend on editorial judgment, and so we have no consensus for the time being. Editors who want to keep this should try to develop the article such that it is more clearly distinct in scope from other articles, or it may be renominated for deletion. Sandstein 08:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the Labour Party[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)

This article lacks notability and is an attack page recently created. Despite the title, it is almost entirely about enquiries in 2016, sourced to news articles. It notes that an enquiry into anti-Semitism in the UK found "no evidence" that there was more anti-Semitism in Labour than in any other political party. TFD (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deleteI cannot help but feel this is a POV fork from Antisemitism in the United Kingdom an article that most of the material for this one was cherry picked from (and it still mostly duplicates). It is hard to see how and why we need an article on this when far more antisemitic parties can get away with just an article about them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ridiculous nomination, TFD figures it's not a notable subject, when it so obviously is, to such an extant in fact there are an entire book on the subject, The Left's Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti-Semitism as well as hundreds of newspaper sources to be found, This topic is independently notable in it's own right and needs an article on the subject Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9/10ths of that book is about "the left" (incuding Liberals and far left), even when connection is made to the Labour party, it is largely post-Corbyn. If kept the title needs to reflect a very recent 'scandal'. Pincrete (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG, is not an attack page as alleged by the nominator, and none of the other reasons for deletion given so far are reasons to delete the article (any POV issues can be dealt with by editing to make the article better). Iffy★Chat -- 17:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the article could and should be more carefully and thoughtfully written, but the subject definitely meets GNG. Ralbegen (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have changed my mind per arguments below that any useful material from this article is better placed in other articles (such as the Chakrabarti Inquiry, Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and the Labour Party (UK). Ralbegen (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A classic "X and Y" type micropage/fork which is in reality a barely disguised blog post, sourced mostly to one-sided comment pieces and commentary. Why not "Anticapitalism in the Labour Party", "Sexism in the Labour Party", "Drinking culture in the Labour Party" etc? It also includes a clear BLP breach in the current last sentence of the lead, which claims that an MP literally proposed transporting Israelis to the US (they didn't). N-HH talk/edits 17:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source says he did Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But it's a broad claim made in a comment piece on an obscure website. Even if it was in a better source, that wouldn't avoid BLP issues. And the MP in question was not a "he", which shows the level of effort and proper research you've put into assembling this attack page. N-HH talk/edits 17:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my typo, it's not a broad claim, it is covered in other sources and she apologised 4 times for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She apologised for posting a flippant cartoon/image, not for literally suggesting transportation, regardless of what this obscure columnist says in his polemic. Anyway, this is off-topic for a deletion debate. I only mentioned it as an aside, and as evidence of the wider problem with the page. WP needs fewer pages that are basically political debates masquerading as encyclopedia entries, not more. N-HH talk/edits 17:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC

Nor was any mention made of the author of the maps comments (I had to add it). In fact it sums up nicely just how POV this article is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork. Much of this information is already covered in the articles about the Chakrabarti Inquiry and Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. Given enough information on the topic, a possible alternative here might be an article about antisemitism in UK politics. But, while it's true the media have discussed this topic in relation to Labour, we shouldn't be giving undue weight to it. This is Paul (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Antisemitism in the Labour is an ongoing high profile issue in UK, Jewish, and Israeli media. It is far from "the same as every other party" when 83% of UK Jews think that Labour has an antisemitism issue.^[1] Jewish publications have been treating this as front page material for quite some time.Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Over 80 per cent of British Jews believe Labour is too tolerant of anti-Semitism within its ranks, poll finds, Independent, 19 Aug 2017

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork of Chakrabarti Inquiry. I don't know whether the subject of "antisemitism in the Labour Party" is sufficiently notable for an article apart from Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but even if it is, this article doesn't cover that topic. The party is 117 years old, for god's sake, and this article covers barely two years! Talk about WP:RECENTISM. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Livingstone's track record on anti-semitism allegations extends back to 2005 or so (he was just recently expelled from the party - the allegations, based on things he said and did, stretch back to then). If the internal Labour inquiry is of note for an article, certainly the long-running phenomena (which continues post inquiry) is too.Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, you're still talking about 12 years out of a 117-year history. Second, whether there's a long-running phenomenon is questionable. While "Labour" appears 35 times in Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and "Conservative" or "Tory" only five times, Antisemitism in the United Kingdom#Perceptions of political parties goes back as far into history as Ed Miliband. If this is a long-standing phenomenon, neither of the relevant Wikipedia articles say anything about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really, is this how we define RECENTISM, occurrences relative to how long something has been in existence? In that case, why was there an article Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording? Shouldn't it have been only in the Donald Trump article since he's been around for nearly 80 years and that incident was only a few minutes? The Kingfisher (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That comparison makes sense because Trump has been president for 80 years, hasn't he? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless we're also going to have articles on Antisemitism in the Conservative Party and Antisimitism in the United Kingdom Independence Party etc etc, then there's no justification for this. It's simply a POV pushing fork. Any content of this sort should be covered at Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. The very title is non-neutral, as it implies that the Labour Party is in some way antisemitic in its leanings or policies. G-13114 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an obvious and egregious POV fork as a result of arguments on Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, and the only content is covered at Chakrabarti Inquiry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has all the indicators of a POV content fork. Too much weight is given to what is already more neutrally discussed in other articles, and I have to agree with MShabazz -- talk about WP:RECENTISM.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard to believe that we're all talking about the same article. The scope, breadth and number of sources that directly address the topic in the article demonstrate that the topic merits notability on a standalone basis. Just looking at the four delete votes that precede mine, and all I see is claims of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and unsupported claims of a POV fork, while the keeps appear to be based on the content of the actual article under discussion. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As one of the four votes you refer to, I agree that It's hard to believe that we're all talking about the same article. This article, which arose after somebody was complaining about the coverage of this topic at Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, appears to only discuss matters from 2016 and 2017 that are discussed at Chakrabarti Inquiry, presumably to allow somebody to promote their POV. It's a clear example of WP:DEL5. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, if multiple comments suggest this page is at best duplicating and covering the same ground as, and at worst a POV fork of, the Chakrabarti Inquiry page, it might be an idea to explain in what way it is not – when it rather obviously is to anyone who spends two seconds checking – rather than simply asserting that such a suggestion is "unsupported". N-HH talk/edits 00:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The internal, issue ridden, Chakrabarti inquiry is limiited to 2016. This article arose after discussions in Antisemitism in the United Kingdom where the issue of over emphasis on recent (past 10 years) events was raised. The amount of sourcing for Labour antisemitism available is copious, this is an on going issue that receives very wide coverage (and this is not the case for other parties) easily meeting GNG, e.g. these incidents in November [24] [25] are but a small sample of the on going high profile incidents receiving coverage in high quality RS.Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pardon my French, but I don't give a fuck if people want to scrap-book every Labour councillor who express anti-semitic views (and I believe there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of Labour councillors, suggesting that individual councillors are not notable). I'm not sure what the POV being pushed here is, though I assume it's that "liberals hate Jews". Regardless, it's not welcome on Wikipedia unless it's supported by secondary references, and the "news-of-the-day" coverage references clearly aren't that. Apart from the news-of-the-day coverage, you just have the Chakrabarti Inquiry POV fork content here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It is supported by copious secondary references - beyond news of the day. Chakrabarti was limited to events up to summer 2016 - and was an internal inquiry which is subsequently being questioned. This political scandal of the Labour party harboring officials who engage in hate speech - has been a major on-going scandal - garnering international coverage. This is much more significant and systemic than a "sexual miscounduct of politician X" article - which we've had several. We have public opinion polling on Labour antisemitism - [26] (Yes - 83% of British Jews think Labour is tolerant antisemitism - in August 2017 a year after Chakrabarti). Jews have stopped voting for the party (and just like the US, where Jews have been traditionally Democrat leaning - this was the case until recently in the UK - Jews traditionally leaned Labour) - [27] [28] - down to 13% support by Jews in the UK. We have copious on-going news coverage - google news, a few books [29] [30], some scholarly sources - google scholar. This issue clearly meets GNG by any notability guideline - being covered extensively, as an issue, for more than 2 years. Your French aside - on Wikipedia we work according to the sources - and in this you case you might "I don't give a fuck" about this - but the Jewish public at large (which is quite alarmed by the rise of antisemitism, as evidenced by polling) and the sources disagree - this is being covered.Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        No one disputes there is news coverage and acres of often partisan commentary. No one disputes this is, to an extent, an issue. What is up for debate is whether an *encyclopedia* should be discretely documenting one single political debate in the polemical way this page is trying to do, under this loaded title, and whether it adds anything to the Chakrabarti page (to which there is no reason relevant post-inquiry material cannot be added, with due weight). N-HH talk/edits 09:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We also have the issue of re-writing sources to make perceptions or vague assertions facts. The blatant cherry picking now is just a joke.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meet WP:GNG widely discussion in WP:RS.Widely discussed in scholarly literature [31],[32],[33]--Shrike (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though the phenomena meets notability, the article's name is incredibly provocative and in contrast to the findings. As is it's lead, which is cherry-picked and simplified version of the events. I.e it doesn't even mention how media-frenzied the findings were. The Chakrabarti Inquiry isn't even cited in the article, acting as a substitue for it though conveying the exact same information in a less encyclopaedic tone and in a less specific article scope. Information in this article should be neutrally incorporated into Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and a paragraph into the history of Labour Party (UK). Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN upgrade needed, but it should be an easy job. Looking at the article as it stood an hour ago, I can see where the delete iVoters are coming from; it was a sort of laundry list of anti-Semitic statements made by MPs (to be sure, there have been an appalling # of such remarks by Party leaders.) However, editors should not judge the available sourcing by the state of the article. A great deal of serious writing (SIGCOV) exists on this topic. Editors who want to take a more serious look might start with the 2016 book The Left's Jewish Problem, or, for the short course, with some of the reviews linked from the page on that book. There is a lot more out there, serious journalism as well as academic consideration of the topic in peer-reviewed journals. I remind editors that our job here is to evaluate the notability of the topic, not of the page. Nevertheless, WP:HEY I made a small start on improving the page just now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With sources like this book: The Left's Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti-Semitism, which started as a doctoral dissertation at the University of London and was instantly revised and published as a book, it is hard to see any justification for this deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Delete or rename, much as I hate to see an article that clearly has been written with the intention of attacking the Labour Party based largely on Israeli and pro-Israel sources, there has been analysis and coverage about anti-semitism and the 'left' ongoing. However, the new article currently lacks any sense of balance and does, largely, dwell on many of the issues covered by the Chakrabarti Inquiry. The issue has continued to be of interest beyond the conclusion of the report (though I'm yet to see any evidence it was a major issue prior to 2016). I don't know quite how the article can be made less one-sided (or who will have the appetite for the inevitable edit wars) ~~but the subject clearly has some legs~~. Sionk (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote to 'Delete' because the article is quickly becoming a POV collection of instances (from largely one-sided sources) about anti-Zionism, anti-Israel and synthesis of sources to create a connection to the subject. It has become unrescuable. Even renaiming it "Antisemitism on the Left" would be problematic, unless the tangential stuff is removed. Sionk (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic "antisemitism in the labour party" as been thoroughly addressed in a large variety of news outlets because of several scandals in the last few years. The focus in these news stories is political, which is quite a bit different from the topic of the Wikipedia article "Antisemitism in the United Kingdom", which has a much larger scope, including the full history of antisemitism and various antisemitic attacks. As an article about a political scandal/dispute which has attracted a lot of attention, I think that this Wikipedia article is independently notable. OtterAM (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any substantive comment into Chakrabarti Inquiry. The article lacks any attempt at balance, uses too many marginal or non-notable sources (a single book by a marginal figure is used as "History" of anti-semitism in the left - apparently it's all Peter Hain's fault, who of course wasn't even a labour party member when he committed this 'sin'). Ruth Deech's opinion, (she is a noted bioethicist, but her opinion as to what motivates Labour figures is no more notable than "the guy in the pub"). It reeks of an "attack page" PoV fork. The article title gives no hint of the actual content, which is entirely focussed on post 2010's. I'm old enough to remember far-left commentators being accused of anti-semitism in the '60's and 70's! The accusation is not new. . There is extremely tenuous use of sources, the article uses a single source with one quoted interviewee using the term "whitewash" (from the Board of Deputies of British Jews), to justify this text: "the report was widely criticised and described as a 'whitewash'." Why is Chakrabarti joining the Labour party relevant, except to imply that there was some sort of 'deal'. AfD is not clean-up, but there is no indication in the article or in the votes above WHY the subject is notable outside of the same subject as the Chakrabarti Inquiry - if necessary as 'aftermath' or 'criticism' sections. Pincrete (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the "History" section, which traces Labour party's antisemitism back decades, to funding from Libya that allowed Corbyn & chums to take propaganda junkets to the West Bank back in their student days (a sort of Khadafi-funded birthright to teach antisemitism to young Brits,) Libyan funding of the early activist groups in London that created the Israel-practices-apartheid, and more remarkable material going back decades that is explored in The Left's Jewish Problem, an entire book about antisemitism in the Labour Party.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it rather difficult to claim Pincrete ignored the book when he explicitly described and critiqued the source? Still waiting for that page number by the way, Gregory.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the source "Chakrabarti, an MP who recently authored a much-criticized report on anti-Semitism", the source supports both Darkness Shines (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Events in 2017, e.g. these from the last month - British Labour Punishes Member for anti-Semitism, Reinstates anti-Zionist, Labour member suspended months after councillor reports anti-Semitic posts, Jewish councillor accuses party of failing to discipline Labour member over antisemitic posts, BBC Presenter Won’t Host Holiday Special After Making ‘Fat Jewish Guy’ Comment are clearly not related to Baroness(future) Chakrabarti inquiry in summer 2016. And the inquiry itself is clearly an admission there is an issue to be inquired - the issue - antisemitism in Labour - clearly more significant and notable than an internal Labour inquiry.Icewhiz (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, I would only support keeping this if there are also corresponding articles on Antisemitism in the Conservative Party etc etc, otherwise it's just a party political attack piece, we could find plenty of material for that: Conservative candidate makes vile Jewish racist slur against Ed Miliband Top Tory councillor suspended over claims he made antisemitic remarks Senior Bradford Conservative official suspended by party amid probe into allegations of anti-Semitism The antisemitic traditions of the Tory Party. G-13114 (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to Antisemitism in the Conservative Party, if it meets GNG. The situation in Labour - which is treated by copious secondary sources (including scholarly research, and widely covered in the international press) - does.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Chakrabarti Inquiry as a WP:FORK or the latter. I note that the current version of the article does not even link the Inquiry’s article. The page consists mostly of polemical and original research and is not suitable for inclusion at this time. The name is a valid search term and the relevant content is already presented in the Inquiry page. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does link to the Chakrabarti Inquiry, have you actually read the article? And the is no OR in the article that I can see, please give an example. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do sentances such as "In his 2016 book, The Left's Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti‑Semitism, Dave Rich traces the origin of antisemitism in the Labour Party to the early 1970s, " and "James R. Vaughn traces the origin of Labour antisemitism to..." pass NPOV? They seem to assume that there definitely is antisemitism in the labour party, rather than claim it. Anyone can weigh in on this? Egaoblai (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Labour MP John Mann said in a tweet that the report showed there "definitely is" a problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party reckons there is Darkness Shines (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not make it true, it makes it his assertion. Hell the only study has said that it is not more antisemitic then anyone else.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the words a Labour MP's over you, Lucy Powell “There clearly is an issue with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party otherwise we wouldn’t have spent the best part of the last six or seven days talking about it,”[34] Darkness Shines (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? The one which says "the failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with anti-Semitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic" Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this is what is meant by cheery picking. It does not say "the labour party is antisemitic" does it? Would you (buy the way) like the quote form the report that says (explicitly) that the labour party is not more antisemitic? This is the whole problem with the article, and why I think it is beyond real fixing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "Antisemitism in the Labour Party" not "the Antisemitic Labour party" - all that is stated by the title is that there is some antisemitism in parts (possibly small) of the Labour party. This is possibly true of other parties as well (who may be more or less antisemitic) - however in Labour's case the antisemitic speech clearly rises to GNG per the copious SUSTAINED coverage of the phenomena in RS. Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH - but about what appears in the sources.Icewhiz(talk) 17:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so the article needs to reflect that, and not the idea the Labour party is antisemitic, agreed?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article should reflect the degree of antisemitism as reported by RS, yes.17:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying the article should say the Labour party is antisemitic?Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The collation of this material doesn't appear to be supported by the sources used- it's mostly a bunch of WP:SYNTH. Would support splitting material into the relevant articles, such as the books cited. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out any synth in the article, I've seen none Darkness Shines (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not combine material from multiple sources (or different parts of one source) to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." seems apt. From the WP:SYNTH link, first sentence. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I asked for is it, but telling you are unable to give an example of synth from the article Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; from what you said, it seemed that you didn't understand why I found the material synthesis (e.g. you were unclear on why I was citing the policy), not that you couldn't see the material itself. The conclusions drawn by the article (e.g. a history of alleged antisemitism in the labour party, the focus of the wikipedia article) do not appear present in the sources used- instead, it is original research (synthesis, specifically) that is used to draw this conclusion independent of the sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding possible synth, does James R. Vaughn or June Edmunds actually speak of anti-semitism? The only bits I could access spoke of opposition to Israel in various forms, the article gives some fairly silly examples. Is being opposed to selling weapons to Israel in 1972 intrinsically anti-semetic? It is what the present text implies. Regarding the book cited by EMG, this is a single book written by someone with no track record of writing on UK politics. Can any serious commentator on UK politics believe that Peter Hain was somehow responsible for introducing anti-sem into left-wing discourse, especially when he wasn't a left-winger. The claim is so fringe as to be laughable, yet is here presented as 'history'. A single non-notable book does not become fact because one editor believes it. Pincrete (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source A says X source B talks about X in relation to Y, thus source A is talking about X...Synthesis.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of the wikipedia article is the same exact subject of a topic covered substantively in the British press, let alone the world press. The fact that the article has some synthesis is not at all a basis to delete the entire article. I see a lot of attempts at whitewashing masquerading as legitimate policy arguments.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When all else fails, accuse those with different policy-based views of "whitewashing". I guess we should expect nothing less.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that the article persuades me of is that there was a great deal of controversy - immediately preceding and following - the Chakrabati Inquiry, most of the controversy was focussed on a fairly small number of individuals or local constituencies, some of those individuals have a longer history of 'moral' support for Palestinians, or opposition to Israel - neither of which are intrinsically anti-semetic, though the aricle is happy to equate the two at times. If the inquiry article did not exist I would support keeping this one (with huge clean up), but it does. At present it is very difficult for me to conclude that this is anything other than a PoV-fork, everything from the title onwards reeks of an 'attack page', without - for example - any attempt to indicate the scale of Labour's problem (how many, what percentage of labour activists criticised?), except from very partisan, and sometimes marginal sources who think that labour is 'rotten from top to bottom' and whose opinions are repeated without any attempt at question, balance or context, sometimes in WPVOICE. Pincrete (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment opposing merge on the grounds that this page is not about the Chakrabarti Inquiry and not limited to that event, would be UNDUE at page on the British Labour Party (where it is more appropriately a linked subhead,) and is shown by sourcing to be a major, independent topic. Nor does is this topic confined to 2016, as these two books demonstrate.
Comment on sources I want to point out that there are two recent books about antisemitism in the British Labour Party, in addition to a remarkable number of deep dives by journalists and academic article now on the page and not yet on the page. Although the page is not surced to either book, the chaper titles give some idea of what they contain:
Contemporary Left Antisemitism by David Hirsh. Note that Hirsh begins his narrative of "contemporary" antisemitism in 2006.
Ken Livingstone and the Livingstone Formulation

The rise of Jeremy Corbyn and how tolerance of antisemitism came to function as a marker of belonging

The crescendo of antisemitism in Corbyn’s Labour Party and the Chakrabarti Inquiry
The campaign for an academic boycott of Israel
Struggles over defining antisemitism
Ronnie Fraser v UCU: taking the union to court for antisemitism
Antizionism: discourse and its actualization
Jewish antizionism: being drawn towards the logic of antisemitism
Sociological method and antisemitism

The Left's Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti‑Semitism by Dave Rich Note that Rich begins his narrative in the 1960s.

When th eLeft Stopped Loving Israel
From Anti-Apartheid to Anti-Zionism
Creating Palestine or Destroying Israel?
When Anti-Racists Ban Jews
The New Alliance: Islamists and the Left
Anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and the Left.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY I caved and walked all the way to the library, where I took out a copy of David Hirsh's book. I also figured out who "borrowed" my copy of The Left's Jewish Problem and made them give it back (I threatened to delete his Wikipedia page unless he returned it immediately. It worked!) Since I had read it last year, it was easy to begin the WP:HEYMANN upgrade this article has needed. I probably won't have time to read the Hirsh book until after Christmas. So I did what I could; I read Hirsh's brief "epilogue", written after this summer's election, and added a little material from the epilogue. but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why isn't the book called "Labour's Jewish Problem?" TFD (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Four Deuces because then we would have less to discuss on the talk page! Considering the editor's history, I wouldn't be surprised if Rich's book was "appropriated" to fit with this POV article. Regardless, to put it in a history section as historical fact is ludicrous and would need adjustments if this article is unfortunately kept.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that while article needs improvement, Antisemitism in the Labour Party continues to be in the headlines: Dec 6, 2017, The Guardian: Labour leadership in UK has antisemitic views, says Israeli minister], Dec. 7, 2017: Times of London: Labour is veering towards antisemitism, warns Gilad Erdan; Dec. 8, 2017, Jerusalem Post: Israeli government minister: British Labour Party leadership holds 'antisemitic views'; The Times. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the headlines, the first article quotes Erdan as saying, "I didn't say that." You need to distinguish between opinions expressed by politicians about their opponents and facts. Some people think that the U.S. government is controlled by the illuminati, but we don't have an article called "Illuminati control of the U.S. government." TFD (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has been subject of much debate including governmental Chakrabarti Inquiry and Baroness Royall's report. Trichinosis (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Books have been devoted to this subject per DarknessShines and it's regularly discussed in the media. Two recent inquiries commissioned by the Labour party on anti-semitism in the party.Crystalfile (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Amazing Trichinosis and Crystalfile that you have both been gone for three years and spontaneously reappear to !vote at this AFD in rapid succession. Closing admin please take that into consideration; I for one don't believe in such coincidences.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it does need to be expanded and improved upon, e.g. more discussion of George Galloway and his breakaway party, RESPECT, Ken Livingstone's mayoralty, and Labor's appeal to Muslim communities like Tower Hamlets...Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- POV Fork as others have mentioned. Just read the lead, it has a bunch of non-cited allegations and an non-cited poll.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errr you do realise that George Galloway is not a member of the Labour party (thrown out years ago) and neither is Livingstone (thrown out recently). Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NOTE: Guardian TelegraphChannel 4 Daily Mail Tablet The Tower BBC NBC Financial Times The Times Daily Mail The Times Sky News The Mirror The Jewish Chronicle The Times of Israel Haaretz LBC Huffington post The Kingfisher (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete votes amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much discussed issue that has received significant media attention. -- Evans1982 (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - there was some canvassing on the Delete side - Labour Party (UK): diff - an article which is more heavily watchlisted by editors with aligned POV.Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There also appears to be Stealth canvassing and Meatpuppetry happening on twitter: [35] for keeping the article. Note how having the discussion itself is described as "aweful"Tontag (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering about this uptick in voting... However one must note that denying well established antisemitic incidents could be fairly viewed as "awful".Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is denying anything? The guy linked attacks the institution of having delete discussions not those actually denying incidents (and that doesn't seem to happen in the first place). Btw thanks for the "single-purpose acc"-tag (the discussion started weeks after I joined). So much for WP:NOOB and WP:GF.Tontag (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete a fork that fails to adhere to WP:NPOV Tontag (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC) — Tontag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Icewhiz (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable topic as evidenced by the large number of reliable sources addressing it in detail. Delete arguments such as "why not 'Drinking culture in the Labour Party' or 'Antisemtitism in the Conservative Party'?" should be ignored because there is no reason not to create those articles should a similar quantity of sourcing be found. Regarding Chakrabarti Inquiry, I am of the opinion that that article could be merged into this one, as it covers one aspect of this subject. The only other main Delete argument seems to that his is a WP:POVFORK but having actually read that policy, I don't see that as an argument for deletion here - people arguing for Delete based on that should clarify what this is a fork of and why it's irredemably not WP:NPOV. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major issue in the UK for more than two years which has been neglected on Wikipedia. The title of the article is not ideal, but we are beyond "allegations" now, a couple of dozen people have been expelled, and several prominent figures, including Ken Livingstone, remain suspended. In other words, the allegations have been partially accepted by the Labour Party itself. A possible title therefore would be "Labour Party (UK) and antisemitism". The Chakrabarti Inquiry is only part of the narrative and the issue has continued to develop since its publication. Philip Cross (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re "a couple of dozen people have been expelled", I think the number is lower than that, but regardless, you do realise that the party has around 300,000 members? Do we have an article on Corruption in the X party because a small number of people are accused of 'helping themselves'. The Labour party as I understand it has outlawed certain perjorative terms (like "Zio"s for Israel supporting members), to that extent it has outlawed 'offensive' criticism of Israel or Israel's supporters, that isn't an admission of anti-semitism, it's an admission that some members had used needlessly offensive terms for their political opponents - which it has now outlawed. There is evidence of a notable scandal concerning - mostly fringe elements - in recent years, and if kept the article title should reflect that recent scandal, not fire 'grapeshot' at a party with a long history. 'Keepers' don't seem willing to admit that this scandal is very recent (the Labour leader before Corbyn was a secular Jew), because to do so would mean that the article was covering exactly the same territory as the Chakrabarti Inquiry. Pincrete (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chakrabarti was in summer 2016. We have a year and half of subsequent copious in depth coverage of numerous incidents and of the phenomena as a whole. Chakrabarti should perhaps be merged or redirected to here - but it definitely does not cover the wider issue (that led to the launch of the internal inquiry) or events following the internal inquiry.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Response to Pincrete) My "couple of dozen" point is based on sources like this one. Labour Party membership has risen sharply under Corbyn, so 300,000 is actually an underestimate by several hundred thousand (see Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn#Growth in the Labour Party). Words like "z--" may have become disciplinary offences a few months ago, but that does not necessarily mean the Labour Party will enforce the new rules. In fact, because of the incomplete way Labour has dealt with the issue so far, the prospect of it effectively doing so in the future has been disputed. Philip Cross (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the depth of the coverage, this meets notability requirements. I would support Philip Cross's retitling proposal.LM2000 (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only policy- and source- relevant arguments above for "Keep" are supported almost entirely by a raft of articles related to a recent event and WP:NOTNEWS applies. It is also a clear WP:POVFORK as documented by This is Paul and others above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to an article sourced to 2 scholarly books; multiple scholarly articles, and a series of events dating back to the 1980s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Philip Cross's observation/summary of the topic's notability is correct and I support his retitling proposal. Alfietucker (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic's notability is obvious, and the article well-written and extensively sourced. This deletion nomination is ridiculous. Atchom (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to repeat a point I made earlier: the reason to delete isn't that it's not notable (it clearly meets GNG), the reason to delete is that it is a POV fork of Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and Chakrabarti Inquiry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki it is pointless. These recent keep voters were canvassed here. You won't convince them to change their POV or stop tainting this AFD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of your political beliefs, this is an important article about an important subject. Strongly recommend keep. Peanutbutter1230 21:33 10 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peanutbutterwikipedia1230 (talk • contribs)
Keep This is an important subject recorded in many articles in many newspapers & periodicals. It was so serious that the Labour Party were forced to carry out an enquiry but unfortunately chose a Muslim Labour Party member to carry it out which makes the results suspect. But even if the report was pukkah the entry should still be maintained on Wikapeadia as a historical record, anti semitism is too serious to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.197.240 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chakrabarti Inquiry and include a precis in Labour Party (UK)#Realign_and_in_opposition,_2015-present This is a reliably sourced matter of public interest, just presented with an obsessive level of detail here that lends itself to seeing the page as intended mainly as an attack rather than a reference work. Several people have noted the main topic is Chakrabarti Inquiry. It's true that there's a little more context outside the inquiry itself, but not much. The key points could be made to live in the "Background" or "Controversy" sections of the inquiry page without difficulty. I note also that the Chakrabarti inquiry is not mentioned at all in Labour Party (UK). It seems respectable enough not to be WP:ONEWAYed. Rhoark (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chakrabarti Inquiry is far from being the "main topic" of this page, It is on the page exactly where it belongs, as a "main" link under subhead 2016 inquiries, where it can be discussed within a page that begins with the origins of modern Labour Party antisemitism in the 1980s - when it was a minor phenomenon involving a handful of members, and continues through the decades, and, unfortunately, necessarily also covers antisemitism within the Party since the 2016 Inquiry. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been a contentious issue for years; there have been two (three?) formal Party investigations as a result; there are numerous publications and discussion groups based around it. Merging it with the Chakrabarti article would be silly; this is an ongoing issue with historical antecedents, not a necessarily-brief inquiry made for political reasons. Joe in Australia (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is little more then a WP:COATRACK attack article for content that didn't gain consensus for inclusion on the main article Antisemitism in the United Kingdom which is basically the definition of a WP:POVFORK, and the issue of off-wiki canvassing should certainly be looked at by admins. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a well-referenced phenomenon and extends beyond the Chakrabarti inquiry. FOARP (talk) 06:47, 11 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 draftify. There's no consensus over whether this car is notable, or whether it will become notable if it isn't. However, given that there is a decent chance it will be launched into space, we ought to keep the article around somewhere. The relevant content can be temporarily merged to Tesla, Inc. or something like that and a better title can (and probably should) be discussed. ansh 666 09:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk's midnight cherry Tesla Roadster[edit]

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

An individual car. Fails WP:GNG. Was briefly in the news because Musk tweeted that he'd launch it to Mars, which turned out to be a joke. Still, this is the WP:BLP1E equivalent for cars, as there seems to be little else to say about this specific car. Sandstein 15:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it until further, official info is given - It's only been disproven by one news outlet, everyone else says it's true. Just keep it until we learn more from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanThePineapple (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Changed to Keep now it is confirmed - I agree that if this is a joke the car is not notable. However there are still reputable source such as Space News or the twitter account of Eric Berger which say the story is authentic. See here for I think a reasonable view of the current status. There is only one source I have found which says the story is a joke; The Verge. So if a joke, Delete, if it is on board Falcon Heavy, the first commercial car launched beyond Low Earth Orbit is intrinsically notable so Keep. Anyhow, any payload launched to Mars is notable per se. So for the moment my advice is Wait. Hektor (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's not a joke, this doesn't make the car notable. It's just an inert payload. What makes it particular is that it is supposedly to be shot into space. This means that the rocket launch, not the car, is the notable thing here. The launch will get an article, as these things do, and the car can be covered as part of that article if it's indeed aboard. Sandstein 19:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree on that point. All payloads to Mars have their own article, and the car has powerful battery so is not an inert payload at least during the first days of its flight. Hektor (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the vehicle notable is that it is the very first production vehicle that was manufactured by Tesla Motors. That Elon Musk is joking about flying it in space is some additional information useful. I agree the title could change and the notion that this is a spacecraft is something to hold off on, but the vehicle itself already has plenty of notability with more sources to flesh out an article than many articles that routinely pass muster with AfDs. I also agree that this tweet by Elon Musk does not, by itself, grant notability to the car though even if the car is notable for other reasons. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. All news outlets (including Ars Technica) report it is true, except for The Verge. I say wait. If correct, and if approved by the FAA, the vehicle will be quite notable and popular, so it has to become a keep. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never have I ever. Fails the GNG, belongs in a short little mention in either the Falcon Heavy Article or in Elon's own article under the "Plum Loconess" heading. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good chance this will be notable, but not until after it launches in January as we have no proof the vehicle even exists right now. TOOSOON L3X1 (distænt write) 19:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it is he said she said about whether it is a joke or not ^[1] this really is toosoon. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nuke the article from orbit. A joke by Elon Musk on Twitter is not enough for an article, and there's not enough reliable coverage to believe this farce to be true. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://electrek.co/2017/12/02/elon-musk-tesla-roadster-space-really/

Comment/Move to Draft This is precisely why the Wikipedia Incubator was created. The idea that this is a joke or not is still in dispute and I suspect a more complete story about this will come out next week. Still, that is a solid WP:CRYSTAL argument. There are sufficient reliable sources to avoid deletion, but it really needs to move to some sort of draft article status for now and heavily watched. Please move this at least out of the main article space, no matter what else happens. As a side note, this vehicle actually is already notable because it is literally serial number 0001 off of the production line for the original Tesla Roadster and quite literally the very first Tesla automobile sold to anybody (Elon Musk contractually purchased it when he originally invested into Tesla Motors). And yes, there are reliable sources for that trivia. As to if in that condition it needs to remain a separate article is something to debate, so in that case.... Merge to the Tesla, Inc. article for those little tidbits of actual information in terms of this genuinely historical vehicle. If it turns out to be a real thing (with Elon Musk, it is hard to know), then something far more substantial can be written. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy incubate Whatever the community decides and how and when, this article should not be in mainspace right now. Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. The car isn't notable until it's attempted to be launched. Until then, it's just a car. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait If the car is actually launched into space, then it will become notable. EDIT: Bloomberg says that it's real.^[1] --Puget Sound (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-04/elon-musk-isn-t-joking-about-sending-a-tesla-to-mars

Wait It is really being planned to be launched into Mars orbit, assuming everything works with the Falcon Heavy. If it launches, then it is notable. If the plan is changed without a launch, then it is not notable. The article should just be called Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster if kept. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a draft — A car drifting in space around the Sun is —to say the least— weird, unique, extremely expensive, and the mass media considers it notorious. If the rocket and car blow up during launch, I reckon a one-liner somewhere will suffice. Having said that, I agree to take this article into an invisible "draft state" until more information is released. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information contained in this article could be a potential sub-section on the Tesla page regarding Musk. As the car has not launched, and there is little information beyond some Twitter comments from Musk, this page does not meet notability requirements. Per WP:TOOSOON, Musk's Roaster does not yet deserve it's own page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename – Multiple sources have confirmed that Musk's car is the real payload and that it is intended to demonstrate trans-Mars injection by the Falcon Heavy rocket. If indeed this car also happens to be the first production Roadster, then the article should include some details about this fact and be renamed Tesla Roadster #1 or something similar. Hopefully Musk will assign a spacecraft name to the car when it flies (he already picked Heart of Gold as the name of the future BFR spaceship intended to carry the first Mars colonists). — JFG ^talk 04:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a draft until it actually launches, and find a better title, for example if the payload is given an official name of some sort. In the meantime, all this deserves is a mention on the Falcon Heavy and Tesla Roadster (2008) pages. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously. This is just an inert payload on a test flight. I'm a huge fan of Tesla, SpaceX, and space in general, but this just seems silly. Any relevant information on the car can be included in the flight article. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is we don't have a separate article about the maiden flight yet. And even if we did, the convention is to have spaceflight articles named after their payloads. — JFG ^talk 16:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We write the article about the notable component, in this case the spaceflight. It can be created at any time. My point is there's simply no reason for *this* article about the Roadster to exist. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under the same criteria, do you also propose the deletion of the Ratsat article? It also is an "inert payload on a test flight". I am sure there are many other examples. Plus, with cameras confirmed, this is hardly an inert payload. Keavon (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Or since this is space related maybe Hold would be more appropriate... If this is true, this car would be the first item launched beyond Earth's SoI by a nongovernmental enity. The furthest anything launched on private rocket has gone so far is DISCOVR to earth's L1 point with the sun. As stupid as this sounds, if it's real, this car could very well be man's first steps into becoming a two planet species. So let's just wait till the faring pops off.Metropod (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and possibly rename once a more official mission name is given). This is now very much confirmed and its launch window is literally next month (assuming the targeted launch date holds). Musk announces lots of crazy things on Twitter, but that doesn't make it a joke. Lots of reliable news sources have independently confirmed with Musk, SpaceX employees, and the SpaceX PR team. Although there was initial confusion, this is now absolutely confirmed to be a real payload (and it's slated for launch sooner than many other upcoming space missions with articles). Also, being the first consumer automobile in space, this is *very* notable. Let's keep the article and remove that "considered for deletion" banner soon. And rename it when an official mission name is announced. Keavon (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG guideline. -Ventric (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it's the first ever vehicle by Tesla, as well as the primary payload of a Mars mission. Easily enough for this article to be considered notable. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:52, 10 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 speedy delete. CSD G11 BethNaught (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mononlogue (Brand)[edit]

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

Spammy article about a one-year old Russian company that is not likely to meet WP:CORP. eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: the SPA creator may also represent a COI. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just noticed that there's also a disparity between the spelling of the page name and the text: Mononlogue / Monologue. If the consensus is to keep the article, it will probably require a page move. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (propose speedy G11): An indigestible lump of WP:SPA advertising: "MONOLOGUE is all about the infallible integrity of style, in which austere silhouettes and exquisite décor mutually complement each other ...Our exacting approach", blah blah. Product placement to serve the company, not the encyclopaedia. AllyD (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 3 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. Clearly not individually notable, content is all in an overview article, and no need for a disambiguated redirect. ansh 666 09:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Reynolds (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia)[edit]

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

Unsourced for three years, OR issues and no evidence of notability. A merge to the TV series might well be in order, but this page should not exist. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looking at the talk page, it's clear that interested parties have had three and a half years to respond to the issues and haven't resolved the problem. I see no point making it into a redirect, since Dennis Reynolds already redirects to List of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia characters#Dennis Reynolds, where the subject is covered in detail. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: should we also be considering Charlie Kelly (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia), Mac (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia), Deandra Reynolds and Frank Reynolds (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) for similar reasons? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much it would seem yes.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable: shall we await the outcome of this AfD, and use it as a guide? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a character from a fictional work, the episodes of the show serve as an implicit reference. That doesn't fix that the article is a mix of original research and WP:COATRACK coverage of single episode plots. Procedurally, if there's a consensus to merge I'd ask that all the character pages be merged without further AfDs. A WP:TNT deletion will need additional AfDs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact that Dennis Reynolds already redirects to List of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia characters is a very bad sign for this page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThe fact that it redirects is no sign whatsoever. The reason the page has only been updated after three years is because it was formely a redirect. It makes abosultely no sense that Dennis, Frank and Dee Reynolds were not notable enough (as main characters) yet The Waitress warrants a page of her own? Dennis Reynolds is one of the main cast of what is now longest running live-action sitcom. Failosopher (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect -- popularity is not notability, and the absence of significant third-party coverage for the "individual" in such a popular show reinforces the topic's lack of notability. I agree the other lead characters' individual pages warrant redirects, too. --EEMIV (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all (Yeah, the others aren't up for AfD; consider this an editorial input) to List of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia characters per WP:ATD-M; the nom is actually proposing a merge, which is reasonable. Deletion is not for cleanup, however. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia characters No sourcing by secondary sources or analysis expected from fictional characters that get their own page. No character design, casting, development or background sections (compare Rick Grimes or Bart Simpson). If the only thing that can be written is a description of the character and major highlights of his activities, then the description paragraph on the list is good enough for that. Other character articles can be raised up for AFD for the same problems. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 9 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) 16:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Lee Watts[edit]

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

Non-notable academic - more of a CV then anything else. PRehse (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A clear example of WP:NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant prof., average citation metrics – there's nothing to indicate he passes the average professor test and there's no coverage that would count towards the GNG. The article itself is also overly detailed and promotion, and with gems like "at the age of 14, his martial arts instructor encouraged him to become a junior coach" and "he achieved the rank of Eagle Scout" there is no way that there isn't a COI here. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Early-career academics should use their departmental homepage for self-promotion, not Wikipedia. Famous _dog (c) 11:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 9 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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purefoods–Rain or Shine rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG without enough significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that discuss this as a rivalry. Even if it can be said as notable, it is still not worth for article creation. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references that suggest this is a notable rivalry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevance at all. Fails WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Ventric (talk) 20:00, 10 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) 16:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intro Crowd[edit]

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

Heavily promotional page about an unremarkable organisation, with no reliable sources demonstrating that it has significance. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Of the few available sources, some do not seem to be independent[36], and others look like press release coverage.- MrX 12:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources report to establish notability and this article is largely to promote this company. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:19, 4 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) 16:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Avenue, London[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Notability not established nor implied, WP:PROMO abundant. Kleuske (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looking at the edit history, I also have concerns about possible COI. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable building that is coincidentally in the process of being leased to commercial tenants.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 6 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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Powdair[edit]

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

Comment This article about yet-to-be established virtual airline was deleted via AfD in August. Now I am completing this second nom on behalf of IP user who cannot complete the process. The deletion rationale is: "The virtual airline deferred its ops until further notice according to its website due to a lack of funding, the relevance of this article is heavily questionable again."diff –Ammarpad (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and for the same reason the original article was deleted. There are a handful of news reports which appear to be based on the company's original round of press releases, and a few more recent ones about the financial backer pulling out, but nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. As the organisation's website acknowledges, "We expect to relaunch during 2018 as an airline", so the rationale for deleting or keeping the article is exactly the same as for the original AfD. Without prejudice, it boils down to WP:TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. It's WP:CRYSTAL to assume this will ever operate, and it's not notable as speculation/hype. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:TOOSOON. ww2censor (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The airline is yet to be established because the single benefactor changed his mind midway into arrangement, they are expecting to get funding from new source and relaunch in 2018." I found this reason very odd and seem this is just business venture struggling to even exists. And they have Wikipedia article before their full existence –Ammarpad (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And WP:TOOSOON. And the arguments put forward by Dom Kaos. Guliolopez (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 18:19, 10 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 Hadiqa Kiani. ansh 666 08:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rung (album)[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Hadiqa Kiani. Vorbee (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It appears that Kiani is a major artist in Pakistan, and was considerably popular at the time that she released this album. While I can't find any specific coverage about this album, I feel that it should be out there, but not easy to find online. Ross-c (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to the artist's article, because there is very little content here. Insufficient coverage for a stand-alone article about the album regardless of how popular the artist was at the time. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the artist article Hadiqa Kiani, then redirect as a categorized {{R from album}}, and edit the album entry at Rung. If the notability guideline for recordings can be met at a later date, the article can be resurrected. A solution like this could have been sought on the article talk page. Sam Sailor 01:25, 11 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 Hadiqa Kiani as an editorial decision. The given source is a WP mirror, so there is no evidence of any sourcing. ansh 666 08:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni (album)[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This album is mentioned in this Pakistan Times article, and appears to be an important, and charting, album in Pakistan. https://www.pakistantimes.com/topics/hadiqa-kiyani/ One of its singles is listed in the 20 best ever songs from Pakistan. It is hard to find coverage of this artist, but it appears that she herself and her albums are notable in Pakistan. Ross-c (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of this newspaper. @Saqib: if he knows about this source or consider as 'reliable'? Störm (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no newspaper named Pakistan Times, except now defunct Pakistan Times. This one looks like a Wikipedia mirror site. --Saqib (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest archive version of the Pakistan Times article dates back to 23 September 2015. So I compared it with a much older revision of Hadiqa Kiani, which dates back to 4 October 2014. The result shows over 98% overlap, which means that the website in question copy-pasted the content from WP. So it indeed seems like a WP:MIRROR. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know how to judge the notability of this album, but if not kept, the title should redirect to Hadiqa Kiani. Deli nk (talk) 14:31, 5 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. ansh 666 08:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wisecomm[edit]

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

Created for promotional purposes. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; no references found other than [37] (accusations of "grey-trafficking"), and the existing ones aren't sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources provided are not WP:RELABLE. Couldn't find any reliable coverage on my own. ~Kvng (talk) 04:43, 11 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. Now demonstrated to meet WP:MUSICBIO. ansh 666 08:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soo Jung Ann[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:MUSICBIO Item 9: "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." See: [38] [39] [40]. I'll be attempting to improve the article with these items in the mean time. Operator873^CONNECT 06:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would query whether Dublin International Piano Competition is a major music competition. The line on that is subjective. Good sources though, shows international coverage towards WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about that too... but tonight I learned something new. The Dublin competition itself is referenced frequently in more publications than local Irish news. The winners of the competition enjoy debuts in both London and New York. There is also this where several major musicians have recognized it as a "one of the top competitions in the world." I have no interest in the subject of this article... I just had some time to spend and found a lot of information and actually learned some on the way. I had fun. Wikipedia wins. It was a good day. Operator873^CONNECT 07:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not won a major competition and the sources are very subject specific and possibly promotional. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- She has won two major, international competitions. Which of the sources are "promotional"? Sam Sailor 02:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Dublin International Piano Competition has had significant coverage, e.g.: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music/is-the-dublin-international-piano-competition-lagging-behind-1.2225551 and hence is notable, and therefore Jung Ann's win establishes notability. Ross-c (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. Has won two international piano competitions: the 58th Maria Canals International Music Competition in Barcelona in 2012, an old and highly regarded competition, and, in 2013, Ann became the first woman to win the International Telekom Beethoven Competition Bonn. Featured article in Korea Economic Daily. Perhaps John Pack Lambert and PhilKnight would revisit the articel and reconsider? Their !votes were cast before the sourcing and expansion by User:Operator873. Sam Sailor 02:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 02:32, 11 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 defaulting to keep. ansh 666 08:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judah Miller[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NCREATIVE. WP:INHERIT also applies. John from Idegon (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has been nominated for two Emmys. Patapsco913 (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems shows he has worked on has been nominated for two Emmys, not his work in particular. Just because someone worked on a show that's Emmy nominated doesn't mean you're notable, there are plenty of non-notable people involved in every nominated show, some even showing up on screen. Canterbury Tail talk 12:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Well true. You know I just stumbled onto his brother Murray's wikipage because he is all over the news for alleged nefarious reasons. I then used an existing source to expand on his bio (I like to expand bios with early life info to show how they got where they are and let the enthusiasts flesh out the successes and controversies). Anyhow, in the process I saw that his partner in writing was often his brother so I created Judah's wikipage as well who has a similar Wikipedia profile. Of course, his filmography could be fleshed out better (where he is a writer and where he is a producer) but I kind of figured that as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, I would let someone else flesh that out. Anyhow, I am in the view that both nominees (as Murray Miller is now also nominated for deletion) are notable enough (or at a minimum should not be immediately deleted to let others work on the page): they each have been the writer for several important shows and they both have been nominated as part of a team for an Emmy. If a team wins an Emmy, everyone on the team gets an Emmy. Judah and his brother Murray are the sole writers for both nominations (and the writers are typically the bread and butter of an animated film). Also I added the table that was removed below. If you click on the link, a search will return both Murray's and Judah's names so I am not sure why the citation was removed. Here are the relevant citations: "Outstanding Animated Program - 2008". Television Academy. Retrieved 20 May 2017. "Outstanding Animated Program - 2012". Television Academy. Retrieved 20 May 2017. and here is the link to Judah Miller's exact Emmy profile http://www.emmys.com/bios/judah-miller I will duplicate this post for the wikipage on Murray Miller as well.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the subject's notability is based on a combination of his filmography (see the extensive list on IMDB which mirrors the Pages that link to "Judah Miller" on wikipedia) as producer and writer (and occasional voice actor) combined with his two Emmy nominations as one of two writers (along with his brother Murray Miller in an animated series (where writing is everything).Patapsco913 (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Patapsco913 (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Patapsco913 (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the information back that he was part of the team that was nominated for the Emmy. Over and over and over again I see people listed as winning or being nominated the Emmy for teams that they were part of (e.g. Bill Hader, Matt Groening, Vernon Chatman, Rob Sorcher, John Frink, Chuck Patton, Rich Moore...etc. I could provide more (I am just picking the most established articles to show that this is a well-established practice on Wikipedia to list someone as winning or being nominated for an Emmy when they are part of the team behind it). That is why I added Crew Roll to reflect that. Otherwise when Schindler's List wins an Academy Award for Best Picture, we could not say that Steven Spielberg won the Academy Award which we do (see List of awards and nominations received by Steven Spielberg#Academy Awards. Miller and his brother were the two writers of the script that won the Emmy. A writer in an animated series is pretty important, probably more important than all the co-producers. Patapsco913 (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Patapsco913 brings up some valid points why this article should be kept. Vistadan (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs sources to overcome the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think his being one of 20 people on a writing team that was nominated for an Emmy is enough to presume notability. Beyond that, the biographical coverage references appear to be largely focused on his wife Marissa Jaret Winokur; perhaps that is a redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was one of two writers not 20.Patapsco913 (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 20 people listed on the nomination at [41], the fact that only two have the title "writer" on that page is irrelevant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gerntrash (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the WP:GNG threshold. -Ventric (talk) 20:07, 10 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 all except for those withdrawn (and removed from the nomination). ansh 666 08:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Members of Bydgoszcz City Council[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pure boilerplate articles about almost every single person who served between 2006 and 2010 on the city council in Bydgoszcz, each only very slightly more substantive than "subject is a person who exists". All but one of these is referenced exclusively to a single primary source list of all the city councillors on the city council's own self-published website, and the only one with any more sourcing than that, Anna Zofia Mackiewicz, only adds routine tables of election results from her non-winning candidacies for higher offices (which is not a notability claim either.) City councillors only receive a presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #2 if they serve in a major, internationally prominent global city on the order of Toronto, New York City, London or Berlin — in cities outside that class, such as Bydgoszcz, a city councillor needs to be reliably sourced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to be deemed significantly more notable than the norm compared to most other city councillors. But none of these are, and none of them has seen any substantive improvement in the entire decade since they were first created. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all members of a city council of this size are not default notable. Even with larger cities I would argue we would need non-routine coverage, which we clearly lack in any of these cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably keep Piotr Marek Król (Member of Sejm), Zbigniew Antoni Fronczek (Officer of the Order of Polonia Restituta) and Edward Ignacy Hartwich (vice-marshal of the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship). --Teukros (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine on Krol and Fronczek — none of that content had actually been added to the articles prior to you adding them today, even though Krol was apparently elected to the Sejm in 2011 — so I'm going to withdraw those now. But I'm less clear on whether being a vice-marshal of a voivodeship is enough to pass WP:NPOL or not: does that title make him the deputy voivode, or is it more of a bureaucratic than legislative position? I can't find an article which clarifies exactly what that role actually is. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (with the exception of any withdrawn by the nominator) per John Pack Lambert. --Enos733 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except those withdrawn as noted plus see further comments on two more (I'd suggest withdrawing one more person). Also a good check is to see whether they have articles on Polish Wikipedia (which is more inclusive). If not, it is a big red flag. :Further comments:

Edward Hartwich - I don't think voviodeship vice-marshals are notable, and I've nominated him for AfD on pl wiki. I support his deletion.

Dorota Jakuta - recipient of the Golden Cross of Merit (Poland). Usually seen as auto-notable on pl wiki, I am not so sure, but should not be a part of a mass nom, at least.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to clarify what exactly the role of vice-marshal is in a voivodeship? It's possible that it might be a sufficiently important role to clear WP:NPOL even if you don't think it should be, but we can't really determine that without knowing what it is. And I'm willing to withdraw Jakuta if that statement (and a source for it) is actually added to the article, but not if it's just asserted in the discussion without evidence. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss possible withdrawals / exceptions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt a full WP:BEFORE has been undertaken, so this is what I'm trying to fill in in this set of extremely long comments. I could find no credible sources in Google News Archive, and here are the searches I have done for reference: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54] (result is entirely unrelated), [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], and [67] (I missed some due to a bad computer, but never mind). I'll do some more when I get home. J947 Public (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in The New York Times either. Results: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], and [96]. Will continue this mass. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot do a full search as it will take too much time but I could find this for Jacek Andrzej Bukowski, this mention and this quote for Drozd... I just can't do this so going with Piotrus—a Polish editor—'s recommendation. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}}04:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC) (and the weird bolding/italics because I could :))[reply]

None of those are notability-supporting sources for Drozd — a person does not get a Wikipedia article just because he was quoted giving soundbite in an article about something else, or because he has a routine directory entry in a professional database that would simply be expected to include everybody who falls within that database's professional and geographic scope, or because his name happens to be mentioned as an "invited guest" in a listing of a choir performance at the local concert hall. But you don't appear to be suggesting that they are notability-supporting sources, so I'm not too clear on why you actually bothered listing them at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they aren't notability-supporting and I didn't say that. Good job for seeing that. I listed them so that editors could see that there was a lot to wade through and perhaps separate batches of nominations across a month would be a better way of doing this. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Per WP:NPOL. Per nom. For those reasons. Ventric (talk) 20:09, 10 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 Tom Mulcair#Early life, family, and education as an alternative to deleting for WP:NOTINHERITED. ansh 666 08:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Pinhas[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only apparent claim of notability is that she's married to a former Canadian political party leader. Notability is not inherited, however, so this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- but there's no real indication here that she has any standalone notability of her own as a psychologist. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very in-depth coverage specifically about this person, not the husband, from reliable sources like The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and the Huffington Post [97][98][99] --Oakshade (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post is not a GNG-assisting source — it's fine for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that's already passed GNG on better sources, but not a bringer of GNG in its own right — and both of the others are covering her in the context of being Mulcair's wife, not in the context of doing anything in her own right that would pass a Wikipedia notability criterion. People who have no pass of any SNG are not automatically deemed notable-anyway just because we can find two sources that cover them in the context of nothing noteworthy — if that were true, our article subjects would have to include me. To be kept on just two sources, one or both of them would have to be covering her in the context of something that constituted an automatic must-include notability claim, such as actually holding political office in her own right. If you're going for "notable just because media coverage exists", however, then it takes quite a lot more than just two sources to get there. Bearcat (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, reported articles in HuffPost, like this one by their Ottawa Bureau Chief, are rs, just like reported articles in any newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that she passes WP:GNG because of her husband, but just that she passes WP:GNG regardless of reason the person got the coverage. GNG makes zero demand that someone had "already" passed GNG before a relative did. As for the Huffington Post, GNG makes no discrimination against coverage that is seen as politically biased. There could be an article entitled "Catherine Pinhas Totally Sucks!" and, provided that the coverage is independent of the topic and has editorial overview, that would still count as coverage towards GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the context in which a person received their coverage does matter. If GNG were simply a matter of counting the number of sources that exist, but we paid no attention to the matter of whether the context of what the person was getting coverage for was notable or not, then we would have to keep articles about many unencyclopedic classes of people: everybody who ever got into the Real Estate section of their local newspaper for talking to a journalist about their process of buying a house or showing off their taste in interior design; everybody who ever ran for their local school board or town council regardless of whether they won or lost; every unsigned band that ever won a high school battle of the bands competition; people who had "human interest" pieces written about them because they happen to have more or less than the standard number of toes; librarians; food truck owners; presidents of church bake sale committees; my mother's neighbour who once found a pig in her front yard; and me. So yes, a person's media coverage does have to be in the context of something that passes a notability criterion — just showing that some >1 number of sources exists is not in and of itself enough if the context of what the sources are covering the person for doesn't pass a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using a vague slippery slope argument comparing the topic of this article who easily passes WP:GNG from in-depth national coverage (not just "counting the number of sources") to local "food truck owners" and "everybody who ever got into the Real Estate section of their local newspaper" is a nonsensical counterargument that holds no weight. WP:NOTINHERITED is about individuals who are someone related to other notable people who do not pass WP:GNG as this person has. If the reason this person became notable it makes you angry, you can make your case WP:NOTINHERITED talk page that anyone who passes GNG who originally became notable because of a spouse should be excluded from having articles. In this case, as other have pointed out, the coverage is in the context of this topic's work anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "slippery slope" argument, nor is it nonsensical. It's a completely accurate and correct reflection of reality that if we simply counted the footnotes and kept any article that had two or more, but paid no attention to the context in which that coverage was being given, we would have to keep literally millions of articles about people — candidates for office, food truck owners, presidents of church bake sale committees, etc. — who our current standards deem not notable. I'm not making stuff up, either — we actually have seen people attempt in AFD discussions to assert that GNG had been passed just because the topic had Real Estate section coverage in the context of buying or owning a house, or Food section coverage in the context of sharing their favourite recipe for kale, or Wedding section coverage in the context of buying a bridal gown. To count toward GNG, coverage does have to be in the context of an accomplishment that simultaneously satisfies an SNG — to be notable just because media coverage of the person exists, without regard to the fact that the context in which it exists does not pass any SNG criteria, there has to be a lot more than just two or three pieces of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're giving a slippery slope argument. The fact that someone who's coverage is of sharing a recipe in a newspaper food section doesn't have an article only confirms someone who's received multiple national in-depth coverage specific to this person isn't going to lead to the former having an article. And as pointed out already, the coverage of this person is not in the "context" of another famous person but very specific to this person. Being related to another famous person doesn't magically make all the coverage they receive just being in the "context" of that famous person as you are repeatedly claiming. --Oakshade (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is derived from that of her husband, not indepdent to her in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTINHERITED states that while "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." And the fact is that Pinhas has the kind of profiles in major media that carry bios past WP:GNG. (Even spouses of no public or notable accomplishment whatsoever like Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio and Todd Palin.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NOTINHERITED means that spouses of notable people have to earn their notability through WP:GNG rather than being notable by association even when there is no in-depth coverage. It does not, however, mean there is any presumption of non-notability for them when the sources exist, and it does not make sources tainted by being "derived from" their association. In this case, if the only sources were like the Star and Huffpo links from Oakshade, or this one from the Journal de Montreal (in French) – profiles of her as a politician's wife – then she'd still pass WP:GNG (we have multiple major stories about her) but fail WP:BIO1E. However in the case of Pinhas we also have sources about her in a different context, her work with refugees: The Globe & Mail link from Oakshade, and this one from Métro (also in French). So she passes both GNG and BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the earlier votes have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Just because the motivation for those articles may be her relation to a leader, that's not a reason to ignore them. There is clearly sufficient information about her to write a verifiable article about her. The coverage is far better than anything on Savita Kovind, for example. The presumption of notability for "first ladies" and no other political spouses should not be interpreted as an iron-clad rule. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. it is accepted that we do not make articles for people whose notability is that of thespouse of a political leader, unless the position is Head of State (or sometimes Head of Government, but not such a position as Leader of the Oppposition). This is a good practice, because it could well be a slippery slope. The policy behind that sort of limitation is NOT TABLOID--we're a place of encyclopedic content, not just human interest. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the case if the person didn't become notable in their own right as this person has regardless of a more famous family member.--Oakshade (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid assertion, DGG's good faith assertion is untrue. We have articles on many political spouses such as Nikki Haley's husband Michael, on Marco Rubio's wife Jeanette, who receive INDEPTH press coverage due because of the person they are married to. Such pages account for many or most of pages that fill categories like Category:Spouses of Florida politicians, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spouses_of_United_States_Senators, and Category:Spouses of United States state governors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should delete them. Its a gross invasion of privacy for a non-notable individual. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a horrible argument. Pointing out that we require some of the strongest evidence of notability for BLPs is not an invalid argument. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is OTHERSTUFFSHOULDNTEXIST ("Then we should delete them"), but OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is still a horrible argument. Care to clarify? --Oakshade (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: we have pages that violate policy and guidelines all the time. This AfD is about this particular article. DGG has provided a valid deletion argument, and trying to rebut it by finding counterexamples in articles is not an argument to keep this article. It is an argument to assess whether or not those articles meet our inclusion criteria based on the valid issues that DGG and others have raised, not to keep this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a valid argument to make vague claims about the problem of other articles as reason to delete this one, just as it's not a valid argument to point to existing articles as reason to keep this one. Every topic needs to be gauged on whether it passes our notability guidelines. Many spouses of famous people do, many do not. This one has had in-depth coverage specifically about her. --Oakshade (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is making an argument based on NOT, not one based on notability. That is equally valid a reason to delete. I am adding the notability commentary to show that there is not a good reason to figure out how to save the content for BLP privacy reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? She gives INDEPTH interviews about her childhood, her parents childhood, and her personal life; flies around the country campaigning with spouse; poses for TV and news photographers; he jusband writs about her life in his campaign bio, and, in short, she does not seek privacy but, quite the opposite, leads a public life - and you argue that her privacy is violated?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. The only coverage she has is in relationship to her husband. The question is not whether there is enough verifiable information to write an article about here: there is enough verifiable information to write an article about the dog down the road biting the policeman. The question is whether there is enough coverage about her, because of her actions, that warrant the invasion of privacy that having a Wikipedia article entails. The answer her is clearly no. She is a living person. She is not a public figure. Her husband is a public figure, so she has received coverage in relationship to him, but none significant enough for there to be an article about her on her own. In cases like this, we side firmly on the side of not invading the privacy of a living person. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not independently notable. Name can be optionally redirected to Tom_Mulcair#Early_life,_family,_and_education at editorial discretion, since the subject is mentioned there. A straight "Delete" would be okay with me too. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not independently notable in his own right, and notability cannot be inherited on Wikipedia. Also spouse of opposition leader in this case is bit odd to say she is notable. Close scan of all the references used will show, had she not related to him, she will not be mentioned. Simple there's no significant coverage for her to be notable now, perhaps she can have article when she become next opposition leader herself. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources If you look at the hits on gBooks, you see that marriage to her is credited as the means by which the Anglophone Mulcair polished his French, a crucial skill for a Quebec politician. Non one is arguing that she is "independently " notable, only that there is sufficient INDEPTH to pass WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This source [cjnews.com/canada/new-ndp-leader-strongly-backs-israel], shows that Mulcair used his wife's biography to garner votes. I found it by scanning the page history for material deleted fomr article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the Canadian Jewish News has had quite a bit of coverage of her [100] over the years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

an excerpt form the husband's campaign bio, usually entitled The enchantment of Tom Mulcair ran in newspapers across Canada in 2015. I'm looking at the papers that ran it via a Proquest search, but here it in in teh Ottawa Citizen : [ http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/the-enchantment-of-tom-mulcair The enchantment of Tom Mulcair: NDP leader Tom Mulcair’s autobiography, Strength of Conviction, hits bookstores Aug. 1. In this excerpt, he describes how, as a young law student, he wooed his future wife, Catherine, despite the initial alarm of her well-to-do parents. Over the years, she would also become his most trusted adviser.]E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you, yourself agree that she is not independently notable then the best cake she can have on Wikipedia is redirect and little mention in her spouse page. See WP:NOPAGE. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTINHERITED. The context of the sources are essential to note and analyze before hastily coming to a decision. Had it not been for her notable husband, Catherine would not be mentioned in any sources. Her marriage certainly is not akin to being a First Lady, and I agree with Tony: we should be on the side of not invading an unnotable living person's privacy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid argument to delete. WP:NOTINHERITED does not and has never forbade articles on people who pass WP:GNG who are also related to famous people. It's for people related to more famous ones who have not received in-depth coverage, unlike this person who has. There's no "This person would be nothing without their wife/husband" clause. --Oakshade (talk) 01:23, 11 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) 16:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janine Krieber[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose primary claim of notability is that she's married to a former Canadian political party leader. Notability is not inherited, however, so a person doesn't get an article just because she's married to someone who has one, but there's no real indication here that she has any standalone notability as an academic. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the spouse of a party leader is not inherently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with JPL (for once): spouses of party leaders are not automatically notable. They can become notable, however, by having enough in-depth coverage devoted specifically to them rather than to their being the spouse of someone else. And finding that coverage can be made more difficult by all the non-notable coverage about being a spouse. But in this case, I think she passes, with sources like [101] (national-level long-form TV interview), [102] (local but in-depth, mentioning her husband only in passing), [103] (national, one of several pieces in multiple media sources about something she wrote), [104] (passing coverage of a panel she participated on, but doesn't even mention her husband when describing who she is), [105] (in French, looks to be more in-depth on some of Krieber's views; she's extensively quoted; again, Dion not mentioned). Not to mention tons of coverage explaining who she is in the context of being Dion's wife (for example) – if that were the only coverage we would have BIO1E issues but it's not, so it counts. I think she passes WP:GNG, even though she appears not to pass WP:NPOL and WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:David Eppstein writes exactly as I was going write.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I do not think she passes WP:PROF, I do think she meets the more general WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 3 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) 16:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially unique[edit]

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

Unsourced dicdef, unsourced since 2006, not notable Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Gpc62 (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now has sources. It's commonplace mathematical terminology (see the "books" and "scholar" search results), so the only real challenge in sourcing is to find the references that explain what they mean best. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter. Also the page was more than a mere dicdef even before XOR's improvements.– Gpc62 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following XOR'easter's laudable attentions, this is in good shape now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:29, 6 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) 16:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico–Utah football rivalry[edit]

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

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Rivalry is not establish via current citations which simply reflect game results. UW Dawgs (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; none of the references claim the rivalry is notable, or are anything other than news coverage of a single game. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches do not find multiple sources dealing with this 52-game football series as a true rivalry. Absent a true rivalry, a series between two programs warrants a stand-alone article in unusual circumstances where there have been multiple historic games, such as games impacting the national title, matches where both games were highly ranked, or games receiving ongoing coverage as being historically important. None of those criteria are satisfied in this case. If others come up with further significant coverage, I'm willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like the other editors, I could find no significant coverage in the search engines to show that this match-up is given much credence as an established rivalry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 9 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) 16:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O'Rourke–McFadden Trophy[edit]

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

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Article lacks citations and rivalry is not readily established via search. UW Dawgs (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just the annual game played between two teams in the same conference, ho-hum. No reason this is any more important than any other game played between ACC opponents. Ravenswing 22:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A preliminary search turns up this: "Historical Eye of the Tiger: Clemson vs. Boston College", SB Nation, 2015. Cbl62 (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this blogsite a reliable source? Ravenswing 08:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SB Nation has some professional staff writers with proper editorial control. Not sure if this is one of those or not. Not enough by itself for me to vote either way; will wait to see if other sources are uncovered. Cbl62 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Trophy has received significant coverage in the Boston Herald ([106]), The Boston Globe ([107]), the Spartanburg Herald - Journal, and The Greenville News ([108]) - Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough significant coverage of the trophy/rivalry in multiple, reliable, independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Such coverage includes: (1) Rivals now trophy hunters, Boston Herald; (2) There will be some new hardware in store, The Boston Globe; (3) Going old school: Clemson's 5 leading candidates to wear the leather helmet, The Greenville News; (4) History lesson, and a leather helmet, with Boston College in Clemson, The Post and Courier; (5) Clemson-BC burgeons into unexpected rivalry, Daily Journal-Messenger (Seneca, SC); (6) "Chowder, grits and a rivalry", The Post and Courier, Nov. 14, 2007; and (7) "Historical Eye of the Tiger: Clemson vs. Boston College", SB Nation, 2015. Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 9 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) 16:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno State–Hawaii football rivalry[edit]

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

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Rivalry is not establish via the current (lone) citation. There is some routine coverage in some search results showing slight, but not significant (or national), coverage. UW Dawgs (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not so easy. The Fresno Bee is a nationally recognized newspaper, and [109] this statement explains that Hawaii has played Fresno State more than any other team. The article itself is nothing more than a Wikipedia blog. I'm going to !vote Delete, as if there is no one willing to take on the large job of adding inline citations, this should not be on Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: The fact that the article can be improved, including adding inline citations, is not a valid reason for deletion except in the case of a biography of a living person (which this is not). The issue here is whether this rivalry is notable, and the extensive coverage dating back to the 1950s shows that it is. Cbl62 (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could go into a thoughtful policy based rebuttal with quotes and an IAR with reasons added to cover gray areas, but with no one working on this article, I wonder if the ARS has editors interested. Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Division I FBS series has longevity dating back to 1938, has been played 50 times, and has been evenly matched (26–22–1). Moreover, a preliminary search turns up multiple sources discussing this series as a true rivalry since at least the 1950s. Examples include: (1) "Hawaii, Fresno Resume Grid Rivalry Tonight", The Honolulu Advertiser, 1957; (2) "Warriors, Bulldogs have payback on their minds: Heated rivalry will play out before national audience", The Honolulu Advertiser, 2001; (3) "UH vs. Fresno spawns trash talk", The Honolulu Advertiser, 2003; (4) "Nothing rivals this football matchup", The Honolulu Advertiser, 2003; (5) "UH, Fresno have trophy to play for", The Honolulu Advertiser, 2008; (6) "Hawaii-Fresno State rivalry deserves a fitting prize", Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 2013; (7) "Fresno State & Hawaii: 50 years of football, screwdrivers and ... ‘odd’ elbows?", Fresno Bee, 2017; (8) "Rolovich recognizes, relishes the rivalry with Fresno State", Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 2016; and (9) "Should the Golden Screwdriver be an official trophy? Absolutely, Hawaii coach says", Fresno Bee, 2016. Cbl62 (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC) See also (10) "Warriors Host Rival Fresno State In 50th All-Time Meeting", Hawaii web site, 2017 (describing Fresno as Hawaii's "longest-standing rival"). Cbl62 (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Additional source: "No day at the beach for 'Dogs, Hawaii develops into fiercest football rival for Fresno State" Fresno Bee (2005) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing found by Cbl62 - although I would like to see some coverage from sources outside the Fresno/Hawaii area. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 9 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) 16:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa State–West Virginia football rivalry[edit]

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

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Rivalry is not establish via current citations. There is some routine coverage in some search results showing slight, but not significant (or national), coverage. WP:TOOSOON. UW Dawgs (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and possibly speedy as a hoax~~. Only 6 meetings, no reliable references, just a blogger who insists on commenting about previous riots in blog posts. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the hoax-y material, it's now just a non-notable stub. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches do not reveal multiple sources dealing with this six-game football series as a true rivalry. It might conceivably evolve into a true rivalry if both teams remain in the Big 12, but it's just not there at this time. Frankly, there's cause for skepticism that this series will ever evolve into a true rivalry given that it lacks the intangible characteristics that typically generate a rivalry, including geographic proximity (Ames and Morgantown are 871 miles apart and separated by four other states) and history (the teams first met in 2012). Nor are there unusual circumstances to this series that would warrant a stand-alone article such as multiple games impacting the national title, matches where both teams were highly ranked, or games receiving ongoing coverage as being historically important. Cbl62 (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This article, I believe, is too soon at best. In a nutshell, I agree with most of Cbl62's comments. -- Dolotta (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently, not enough in-depth coverage to show this nascent match-up rises to the level of gng necessary to satisfy it as a rivalry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 9 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. ansh 666 08:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Kashyap[edit]

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

Notability is unclear. I don't know of any SNG that is met, and the references don't suggest that WP:GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles about this person, including: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-lovers-or-criminals-gay-couple-deepak-kashyap-and-jerry-johnson-on-supreme-court-verdict-1933582 interviewed in a movie: https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/others/sunday-read//articleshow/16136055.cms Interviewed here: http://fiftyshadesofgay.co.in/fsog-exclusive-a-fireside-chat-with-psychologist-deepak-kashyap/ He's frequently interviewed as an expert on sexuality. E.g. https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/others/sunday-read/articleshow/25906060.cms I think that this adds up to significance. Ross-c (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consideration of the sources found by Ross-c is needed. Please note that this is not a vote and comments that do not advance the discussion or address opposing arguments, such as "per nom", will carry little weight in the close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete HINDWIKI • CHAT 00:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--No continuing covg./Such interviews in supplements etc. are common due to the media attention on LGBT issues etc.Nothing significant.Winged Blades^Godric 17:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Among the sources provided only DNA.india.com counts towards notability, others consists of coverage due to presence in a film(2), an unrelated article on LGBT(last),and an interveiw(3), no other coverage is found on Google- — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate the individual passes notability. MT Train^Discuss 15:59, 9 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 08:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet spitting[edit]

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

Deletion rationale is "No-content article. Concept has not been explored academically." diff
Comment –I completed creation of this AfD for IP user 2606:A000:6390:8700:C96:B107:61C1:1B71 (talk · contribs) who started it but unable to complete since IP cannot create new pages. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't notification of the article creator part of the AfD procedure? WWGB (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done (belatedly) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well-sourced with multiple reliable sources. There is no such requirement as "concept has not been explored academically". WWGB (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: of the cited sources, the first is an unnamed editor's response to a pseudonymous reader's letter, in an online health forum which acknowledges in its (mis-spelt - "physical exmanication") disclaimer that you shouldn't trust it as academic or medical advice: the second is just requoting the third, which only mentions the behaviour in passing as part of a general article about spitting: the fourth, like the first, is an answer to a reader's question, and acknowledges at the end of the first paragraph that (at the time of writing, in 2005) there's no scientific information on the subject: and the fifth, like the third, is a general article about spitting. I don't see anything that supports the notion that the specific subject of this article passes WP:GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Kaos has already dissected all your sources brilliantly. And you now clearly show you creates it just because it is verifiable that's either you don't know that not all verifiable information are encyclopedic material or you forget. See WP:NOPAGE. And your sources are not directly talking of what you wrote; see both comments below and above this reply. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The sources generally relate to spitting in general and list toilets as a place this might occur. If this is retained, we might as well start articles for Public spitting and Spittoon spitting. Mqst north (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not well sourced, and I can't find good sources on Toilet spitting, so I can't even suggest Merge and Redirect to Spitting, as TS does not appear to be a valid search term. Perhaps it's worth mentioning in Spitting? Sam Sailor 03:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references are lousy, and the content is largely just a re-statement of the title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:40, 11 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 Apple II games. Sandstein 08:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty (video game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable video game, no sourcing found, untouched since 2006 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure why North speedy kept the article on the previous nom less than a week ago... My inclination is to redirect to Hamurabi given the stated connection in the article, but the lack of any sources on Google gives me pause. --Izno (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to have existed based on those two links. I'm for a redirect to List of Apple II games. --Izno (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As WP:OR unless someone can bring forward a source that proves its notability (even for inclusion in Hamurabi)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [110] was the best reference I could find. We explicitly avoid having articles on hundreds of thousands of iPhone apps that are more notable (and have more verifiable information) than this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You guys really don't like to look very hard. There are under 20 games mentioned in the 70s here but you guys hurry to remove stuff from pre-Internet era. Good job cabals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.151.20 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no cabal here. It's an ancient game which makes it difficult to identify in a WP:BEFORE-worthy search that the game even exists and isn't a hoax. As it happens, Google basically IDs one solid hit, which is the one you found. The article looks like a thesis, so it's not the best WP:RS material, but I think it's enough for a redirect. --Izno (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Izno. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:30, 5 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E2e Supply Chain Management[edit]

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

Not much depth in coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Looks promotional article. Störm (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,,, Pitching us a sales gimmick is the last idea we need to take in here, corporate spam with no value. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 3 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 Speedy Deleted by Athaenara. G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 10:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking It To The Streets (organization)[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to be a notable organization. One of the refs is about a different organization in Missouri. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's worse than that -- the sources actually cover three different California nonprofits with different scopes and locations (Riverside for pets of homeless, San Francisco for homeless youth, and Oakland for partnership with poverty alleviation organisations). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I published the article, and would like to withrdraw it now as I'm still figuring out Wikipedia. I've blanked it hoping someone will now take it down. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Raz (talk • contribs) 04:56, 01 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 3 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. No evidence of sources despite claim that they must exist. ansh 666 09:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mera Naam Hai Mohabbat[edit]

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. A search for this article name on Google came up with nothing. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 12:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am concerned that the lack of information about Pakistan's music chart history is being used to condemn large amounts of notable music to the wikipedia dustbin. I think that there needs to be a check of the Pakistani charts before large numbers of album articles are deleted. This information must exist somewhere, but is likely to be in print not online. Just because material is in print only and is not available through google does not make something non-notable. Ross-c (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. HindWiki^Connect 02:18, 11 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. ansh 666 09:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tum Kaho[edit]

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. The artiste, SYMT (never deleted), took part in Coke Studio, and one of the sources write about this song "“Tum Kaho”, despite being a sweet, mellow number wasn’t worthy of being featured in “Coke Studio”." Sam Sailor 03:35, 11 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) 16:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Dil[edit]

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the claim of being #1 on "Pakistani Singles Chart" is unsourced and dubious. As IMDB says there's a movie [111] of this name, and other things like Do Dil Ek Jaan, a redirect isn't be appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete besides the unsourced claim and their own website there's nothing in independent reliable source to establish notability that can merit an article. No coverage found in search except this article and Wikipedia mirrors. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. HindWiki^Connect 23:44, 9 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. ansh 666 09:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G-Kaboom[edit]

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very non notable and has already been shut down. Actually in all my search only this stub and Wikipedia mirrors show up. And now being no longer in existences means no new information about it can ever come up. It is parent organizatio too is stub with single ref. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches failed to find significant coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sam Sailor 03:41, 11 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) 16:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel (Pakistan TV series)[edit]

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

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Fails to verify per WP:V in WP:RS. Störm (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is an obvious stub and doesn't conform to guidelines. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. HINDWIKI • CHAT 12:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 9 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. ansh 666 09:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Creamery[edit]

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

PROD reverted without improvement. No references since 2003. Lots of list entries today, but no reliable sources to establish notability for a twelve-store chain. Rhadow (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PROD is not an article-improvement service just as AFD is not cleanup. There are thousands of sources out there and here's a selection. See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Providence & Rhode Island Cookbook
100 Things to Do in Providence Before You Die
Secret Providence and Newport
Convenience Store News
Thoroughly Modern Milkshakes
Rhode Island Curiosities
Food Lovers' Guide to Rhode Island
Dairy and Ice Cream Field
You Know You're in Rhode Island When...
New England Historical Society

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are large amounts of decent quality references available, establishing corporate notability.198.58.171.47 (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added six decent refs.198.58.171.47 (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep None of the references suggest notability in the sense of fame or being on the Social Register. There are enough to prove the restaurant has existed for some time, and the article's references do support facts in the article. There's a general bias against having articles on corporate entities, but as there is no promotional content here, I don't see any policy reason to go along with that, so my vote is to keep. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. trivial references--mentions in tourist guides do not establish notability DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On his user page, DGG explains that "It is not possible to tell whether or not something is notable by the WP:GNG". His position is therefore not based upon policy but personal prejudice. But even that is invalid because his statement of the facts is false. The sources for this topic do not just write for the tourist; they also write from the perspective of the businessman, the gourmand, the historian and the lawyer. The topic is as rich as one of their cabinets. Andrew D. (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easy to find references for this sufficient to pass GNG. There's even a lot of coverage just for its best-known product, the Awful Awful milkshake. I've just added a couple sources and expanded it a bit. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources on the page and visible in searches establish that it passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on a review of the sources present and existing, the company meets WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 04:16, 11 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, defaulting to keep. Unsourced (though one provided here), but without a clear merge target, there isn't a clear course for action. ansh 666 09:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic dreads[edit]

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

uncited for 8 years of existence-does not meet WPN. Would support a merge if someone can find a target for this turkey Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Artificial hair integrations. There are some sources discussing this (e.g. [112]), but I doubt there's enough to support a separate article. --Michig (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Artificial hair integrations. Rhadow (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These aren't hair extensions, so that's not a good merge target. Also, unlike extensions, they're usually worn for one night, not semi-permanently. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comment: Andy Dingley, they're stated to be made from synthetic hair, and in the case of Dread Extensions to be braided/sewn/wrapped as with extensions/integrations at the proposed target. Dread Falls are attached and removable but then so apparently are some clip-ins. Proposed target also briefly mentions wigs ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia typically underrepresents stereotypically female topics such as fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.133.173.219 (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Keep as an independent article. They're not the same as hair weaves. The article badly needs some sources to demonstrate notability, though. Robofish (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has zero sources after 8 years and 3 weeks of AfD. This means it fails WP:V, making deletion mandatory, as well as WP:N. Sandstein 08:36, 11 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. ansh 666 09:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChaiChalk[edit]

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

Not much coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of in-depth sources. The article does not provide information on why the company is notable or why it is unique from other media companies. While admirable, the company's social campaigns are superfluous, and if they are discounted little is left in the article to prove the encyclopedic value of ChaiChalk.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 9 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 Lucknow Municipal Corporation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Lucknow[edit]

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

List which badly duplicates an existing topic. Apart from the addition of the newest mayor who just took office two days ago and took a grand total of three seconds to copy over once I was able to Google-verify that the information was correct, this is markedly less complete than the list of mayors already present in Lucknow Municipal Corporation -- and the other problem here is that the creator has been persistent about trying to force it to the nonsensical title "Lucknow (Mayoral Constituency)", even going so far as to move-war over it again after a full WP:RM discussion moved it to the current and correct title. But Lucknow has mayors because it's a city, not because there's any such thing as "mayoral constituencies", and we already have a more complete list of its mayors in another article to which this isn't adding anything of any discernible value or distinctiveness. It's probably worth keeping as a redirect to the existing list so that readers don't mistake it for a missing article, but there's nothing in the edit history here that's worth retaining or merging — so it should be deleted first and then recreated as a redirect, rather than just redirecting it with the existing edit history kept. Bearcat (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Lucknow Municipal Corporation as WP:CFORK. Ajf773 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per above. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - Per the nominator's argument; fails our list inclusion guidelines. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we already have a much better list in the right broader article. Except in a few rare cases, I really do not think stand alone lists of mayors of places are justified. Lucknow might be such a place, but the article on the Municipal corporation is a better place than a stand alone list article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 10 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. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 23:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Glenn-Copeland[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and not nearly enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG in lieu. Of the four sources here, two are brief blurbs, and one is a glancing namecheck of the subject's existence in a listicle -- and the only one that actually has any substance to it is just supporting that he came out as transgender, not that he actually passes NMUSIC for anything. There simply isn't enough sourcing, or enough substantive content, here to deem him notable. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough to just meet WP:GNG. I was actually preparing to nominate it for a speedy when the original editor added a link to an album I watch, but I did WP:BEFORE and found some additional sources so improved the article instead. I will likely not grow beyond a stub, but additional sources from the 70s and 80s may be found in print. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have enough to "just meet" GNG, for the reasons I addressed above: two of the sources are brief blurbs, and one is a listicle that glancingly namechecks his existence without containing so much as one comma more about him than namechecking his existence. The only source that counts one bean toward GNG is the CBC Toronto piece, and that (a) verifies nothing about him that would constitute an WP:NMUSIC pass, and (b) is not enough coverage to confer a GNG pass all by itself as the only source that's more than a brief blurb or a glancing namecheck. And the only new source added by you, and not already present in the creator's initial version before you came along, was one of the blurbs — all you did otherwise was reformat the creator's existing sources for correct referencing style. This is not what it takes to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did, at the time of writing, have enough to just meet GNG. In this case, a number of short discussions and entries in discographies, etc. And now it's clearly a snow keep, not to mention the work by Michig and the find of the feature piece in the Globe and Mail that was recently added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short discussions and entries in discographies do not assist passage of GNG. GNG is not "any possible form of sourcing that exists at all"; it's only certain specific kinds of sources, namely substantive media coverage, and short blurbs and listicles and discographies are not among what qualifies. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Further coverage found in Google/Google Books searches: [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118]. --Michig (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three of those six are mere namechecks in index directories; one is a mere namecheck on one page of a book about something else, where the page is entirely blank in preview mode and it's thus impossible to verify what it actually says about the topic besides namechecking his name; and the "Museum of Canadian Music" is not a real museum, but an advertorial platform on which "forgotten" musicians get to put their "coverage" there themselves. So none of those count for anything at all. The only one that actually helps to establish notability is The Globe and Mail — but that still only leaves us at two pieces of substantive coverage in real media, which still isn't enough if NMUSIC #1 is still the only notability claim that's actually in play because nothing stated by either of those sources assists passage of any other NMUSIC criterion. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is fairly brief coverage of her in a book (about something else, but that doesn't matter) which also mentions other coverage relating to her contributions to the same film soundtrack, (2) has, on page 148 content about her, (3) - not convinced by your analysis, (4) is decent coverage, (5) is an index, but it mentions an article reviewing one of her concerts, (6) appears to have a section on Copeland, although just be inclusion of one of her works in the book. So in summary, I disagree that these "count for nothing at all". --Michig (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "Brief" coverage in a book about something else falls under "namecheck", not under "substantive coverage of him" — so no, it doesn't assist in demonstrating notability. (2) A simple entry in a discography list is not "coverage about" a person. (3) I don't care if you're "convinced" by my analysis or not, because I am entirely correct about what the "Museum of Canadian Music" site is: it is not a real museum with a real physical location, but a user-generated website that exists precisely to help obscure Canadian musicians get their names back out there by republicizing themselves. That's even what it says about itself on its own About Us page. (4) The only piece of "decent" coverage we have, toward a guideline that requires more than just one piece of decent coverage. (5) Mentions an article reviewing one of her concerts, without specifying where said article exists? That counts for about 100 per cent less than you seem to think it does (p.s. it could be an unreliable zine or an internal organizational newsletter that doesn't pass GNG either, for all we know.) (6) There's no evidence that that source is anything more than a discography list — but discography lists do not assist in demonstrating notability. I am completely correct in my reading of all six of those sources and what they do or don't contribute toward passage of WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's been involved in numerous notable projects, article includes links to multiple mainstream sources. Not sure why this is even controversial honestly, but it seems like a straightforward keep to me. (as it did when I wrote the original stub.)NoahB — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahB (talk • contribs) 22:08, December 3, 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd add that the article about him coming out as transgender is linked to a musical performance. I think it's really a stretch to say that that doesn't count towards the music notability guidelinesNoahB — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahB (talk • contribs) 22:14, December 3, 2017 (UTC)
"Musical performances" only contribute notability per WP:NMUSIC if they reperesent a national tour that's generating consistent coverage of the entire endeavour. One standalone performance in one location satisfies no NMUSIC criterion at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this is unlikely to become a long article, what is there is decently sourced. The in-depth articles in the CBC and the Globe and Mail are enough to qualify. Brad v 19:48, 4 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) 16:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cut Buddy[edit]

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

PR sources entirely, so the article ispresumably promotional andthe subject non-notable DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nauseatingly promotional. The low quality sources do not establish notability.174.119.49.210 (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent, reliable sources: the only Google hits are advertorials. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 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. ansh 666 09:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Political Economy[edit]

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

These articles are about a bachelor's & master's degree within a particular field. There is no evidence of the notability of the degree in particular - while the degree program definitely exists, I cannot, for instance, find any articles talking about the rise or fall of degree-seekers, their value in the job market, or influence on the university system. In most cases, articles for Bachelor's degrees for particular majors, where they exist at all, seem to be redirects to Bachelor's degree, with the exception of a) professional degrees (e.g. Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Engineering) which have a more specific role in establishing professional qualifications, or b) types of undergraduate degrees (e.g. Bachelor of Applied Science, Bachelor of Arts.

As written, the Bachelor's article currently has a lot of content that seems specific to a particular region's educational practice. I cannot see any way to rewrite the article that wouldn't just be a duplication of content from Bachelor's degree.

A few months ago a user attempted to redirect the Bachelor degree to Political Economy, but the article's creator reverted the change, so I am nominating here for a fuller community discussion.

MarginalCost (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consider a merger proposal? ~~I'd merge and make it a subsection in Bachelor's degree#Types.~~ Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Now that I realise the claimed of "Bachelor of Political Economy" degrees are all BAs with majors in political economy, I feel like IQ125 is just playing games with us, particularly as IQ keeps insisting on claims that are so obviously false. The article as written thus fails WP:V. There may be one university in the world offering an actual BPE (Norwegian University of Science and Technology), and that is not enough to provide notability WP:N. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per Jacknstock. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Bachelor of Political Economy and Masters of Political Economy are both notable and the same as many other degree articles on Wikipedia - see examples: Category:Bachelor's degrees and Category:Master's degrees. Here are a sample of notable universities that have these degrees, there are plenty more: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

^ Athabascau University: What is Political Economy?
^ Carleton University: The Institute of Political Economy
^ Concordia University: Political Economy
^ University of Birmingham: Political Economy
^ University of Berkeley: Political Economy
^ Harvard University: Political Economics
^ London School of Economics: MSc International Political Economy

IQ125 (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links support your argument as none of those universities offer a Bachelor of Political Economy or Masters of Political Economy. Most of them are offering a major in political economy within a BA program, and there are a few graduate courses but none leading to a specific Masters of Political Economy – they are MA or MSc. There's no doubt there are political economy subjects at universities (I studied political economy myself), but that's not the subject of the article. I found two: Sydney University (Australia) offers Bachelor of Advanced Studies in Political Economy, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Norway) offers Bachelor of Political Economy (taught in Norweigian), and maybe Waseda University (Japan). Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertions are simply incorrect, they are all notable universities and the links provide detailed explanation about the various political economy degrees. Relax, it is a real degree and is notable. IQ125 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, you are wrong - as some of the links you offered above show. For example the Batchelor of Arts degree IN Political Economy at the University of Birmingham. The academic study of Political Economy is notable, the "batchelor of political economy" is not. JMWt (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are to programs that offer a degree of "Bachelor of Arts" with a major or concentration in Political Economy. As the aforementioned editor who attempted to redirect this earlier, I feel this is a WP:DICTDEF of a term that may not be in use anywhere. The "3 years" and "4 years" details are obviously based on individual programs and are egregiously inappropriate content. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject is clearly notable, the qualification to be gained in it is not. Also the information on the page isn't correct anyway - English honours degrees are 3 years, as the links indicate. JMWt (talk) 18:46, 6 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 - WP:SNOW. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2019[edit]

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

Okay, let's try this one more time. The author obviously has a conflict of interest, and a heavy violation of WP:CRYSTAL. They have removed a proposed deletion template and a speedy deletion (for blatant self-promotion) template. We cannot know what things will be like in 2019, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for someone to promote their band.

That's the whole point here, the person with their band as their username is trying to say that they WILL be making a number one single in 2019 (needed this clarification, since looking at the title of the article up for deletion doesn't make it obvious). I'm not being too WP:BITE-Y here, am i? Gatemansgc (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. While it's very likely that the chart will still exist in 13/14 months time, nothing can be said for certain right now on who will chart and when they'll chart. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is a arguably a case of WP:TOOSOON, but it is alarming that someone seems to be using this to predict (or possible influence) who will be number 1 on a chart in thirteen months time. Dunarc (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL Ajf773 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and with your permission, Gatemansgc, I'd like to add List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2020 as well for the same reasons. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Primefac, please do. Also would suggest salting each with a reasonable expiration (as each year gets near, and legit sourced predictions have a chance of coming, so late December the year before?), as something like this could be a target for recreation. Gatemansgc (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong delete potentially even speedily as a g3 hoax as they're attempting to predict 1 year + time with their own "single". CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Chrissymad, Hm, hoax. That would have been a good idea for me to use in the beginning. Gatemansgc (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This article is useless. --Zerbey (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL made to try to throw their band on here; not happening. Nate • (chatter) 22:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt most definitely, per Primefac. Maybe we should pre-emptively salt the next few subsequent years just in case. This is getting silly. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:58, 3 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 Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway)#Routes. ansh 666 09:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West London Route[edit]

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

This is not a railway line; this is a rail service which uses parts of different railway lines. Because all of those lines already have articles, this article is not necessary, especially since British rail services generally do not have their own articles. Jc86035 (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway)#Routes. Logical search term and target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copy of West London Line. It isn't even a service, its just a rough commentary of part of an existing one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightfury (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not eligible for A10, as it is not newly created. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The route is different to that of the West London Line, though this does not mean that it is notable or that an article is necessary. Jc86035 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was created in June and written by a single user, there is simply no need for this, it is a well meaning but redundant content fork. Szzuk (talk) 11:46, 8 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. No opinion on what should be done with SMTP (company); feel free to restore to maintain attribution if it's decided that the content should be merged or moved. ansh 666 09:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SharpSpring[edit]

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

Somewhat promotional article on� minor company that should not have been accepted from AfC.Written by COI editor from the company itself who changed their user name to make their affiliation less obvious. It looks at first sight that there are many references, but they are all either PR or notices, or placement in a list. FAST 5000 is not sufficient to imply notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little unclear on the relationship between this and SMTP (company), which supposedly acquired SharpSpring and then adopted its name. This raises the question, should SMTP also be deleted. If not, then merge SharpSpring there (at whichever title is supported by sources as the common name). bd2412 T 04:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I based my accept somewhat on WP:LISTED. However it is more promotional than I remember. The relationship is confusing. AKAIK SharpSpring was acquired by SMTP, their stock ticker changed to SHSP, then the SMTP portion of the business was sold to some other company. I did notice that many of the sources were press releases; some are not, though, [119] is interview (not that great still though) and company description sort of thing and I think some of the other gainesville sun articles are not presss releases. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There's a strong presumption that companies listed on the NYSE ar notable`. but this should not reasonably extent to NASDAQ; there are a few major (and even famous) companies there, but most are probably below what we or anyone else would call notable .

2)The interview you mention is not a true interview, but an opportunity or the president of the company to say whatever he chooses to The lead paragraph makes it clear" "SharpSpring’s founder and CEO credits its rapid rise to stripping away the trappings and focusing on the mission." This is advertising, not reporting.

3)the company description sort of articles are essentially directory listings, and not not ieven imply notability . DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention any interview (the sources aren't really relevant to my question). I merely asked whether SMTP should also be deleted; if not, I would think SharpSpring can be merged there. bd2412 T 02:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,,, as corporate spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is written as WP:PROMO and does not have sufficient notability as many of of the links are from a single source "Gainsville Sun and are mostly company press releases. Hagennos (talk) 05:46, 10 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) 16:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bachrach[edit]

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

Fails Notability. Article appears to be WP:Autobiography Rusf10 (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by two SPA editors -- Jeff010 and Bachrachwish -- neither of whom appear to have edited anything else, the article appears as a puff piece with none of the sources about the subject needed to establish notability. Nor could I find anything else in a Google search to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 4 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) 16:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cury[edit]

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

Not notable, page was created to promote. Rusf10 (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page of blatent advertising for his business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be written as an ad (could be cleaned up), but it seems to not be notable. Cocohead781 (talk) 01:49, 5 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 that the sources provided lift the article above the WP:GNG standard. ansh 666 09:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crowhurst (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Not yet released. The article was recreated after an expired prod. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 19:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film premiered at the 2017 Oldenburg Film Festival [120], a notable release. BOVINEBOY2008 17:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I accept that the film has a few reviews however it doesn't pass GNG. I checked metacritic film and it hasn't been reviewed at all by established critics. It is essentially an anonymous film because it is too small time. Szzuk (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- an anonymous film because it is too small time? Please explain what that means. Sam Sailor 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 01:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. HINDWIKI • CHAT 02:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How? (WP:VAGUEWAVE) — Sam Sailor 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's not clear whether the film is still awaiting general release (in which case it would fail WP:NFF) or was only intended to have a limited release (in which case it would fail WP:NFO). Either way, it doesn't currently meet GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has reliable sources reviews from The Hollywood Reporter and Screen International already referenced in the article, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have significant coverage in six reliable, independent sources, the film passes GNG. NFF does not come into play here. Sam Sailor 04:57, 11 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) 16:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Tour 2002 Tour Compilation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a nomination for deletion of a series of articles about compilation albums failing the WP:GNG criteria for notability, including the article identified above and also the following articles:

My recent WP:PRODs for the first four of these articles (2002, 2011, 2012, and 2013) were deprodded by the same anonymous IP without providing any edit summary to explain the action (and the IP has no other edit history).

My subsequent nomination for deletion of these articles, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2002 Tour Compilation, was closed with a suggestion to break up the proposed deletion list into smaller groups. This is the first of those groups. None of the articles have been improved since that deletion discussion, in which five participants (including myself) expressed the opinion that these articles should be deleted, and the primary objection (expressed by two participants) was procedural – based on the idea that too many articles of different types were grouped into a single deletion nomination. This new nomination should rectify that.

The article Warped Tour 2002 Tour Compilation cites only a dead link on Allmusic (a site that does not limit its descriptions to notable topics and has generally been agreed to be insufficient for establishing notability for Wikpedia purposes). That is clearly inadequate to show evidence of notability. The article consists only of track listing information, with no commentary by critics and no charting information or any other indication of notability.
The article Warped Tour 2011 Tour Compilation cites only a self-published promotional dead link and shows no clear evidence of notability. The article basically only contains the sort of information one would find printed on the album cover (i.e., a track listing and a description of the cover art).
The article Warped Tour 2012 Tour Compilation shows no evidence of notability and is poorly sourced. It cites only a four-sentence review on Allmusic, a track listing, and a self-published dead link. The article contains only basic information, includes no commentary by music critics, shows no evidence that the album charted, etc.
The article Warped Tour 2013 Tour Compilation is essentially unsourced and contains no evidence of notability. It cites only a track listing and contains only basic information such as a track listing. There is no commentary by music critics, no charting information, no other indication that the topic is really notable.
The article Warped Tour 2005 Tour Compilation cites only a one-paragraph (seven-sentence) review on Allmusic, which is clearly inadequate to show evidence of notability. The article consists only of track listing information, with no commentary by critics and no charting information.
This is the third nomination for deletion for Warped Tour 2010 Tour Compilation. Its prior discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2010 Tour Compilation. That article cites only a three-sentence comment on Allmusic, which is clearly insufficient to establish notability. The article contains only basic track listing information and a description of the cover art – no comments by music critics and no evidence of notability. The situation for that article has not improved at all since its first deletion nomination in 2010. I believe the passage of time with no further evidence of long-term notability should be sufficient to clarify the fact that this article should be deleted. The previous "keep" consensus was based in part on someone's comment that "I imagine there are more [sources] out there" (emphasis added), The famous X-Files tagline that "The Truth Is Out There" comes to mind – the article was kept based on speculation, and the passage of time should make it clear that the speculation was unfounded.

Addendum: If this multi-article nomination for deletion is successful, the template {{Warped Tour}} should probably also be deleted, since it is basically a navigation guide to the articles that are nominated for deletion.

—BarrelProof (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none of these appear to be notable albums. Category:Warped Tour compilation albums will also be empty from this AfD. The sources in the prior 2010 AfD are all WP:MILL product announcement-type posts. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 01:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All- as per nomination. A brief mention in the Warped Tour article should be more than enough for these non-notable albums.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe for all, we have a List of Warped Tour lineups by year that is way better sourced, and doesn't include the minutiae (is that the word) that is not needed on Wikipedia. Gatemansgc (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 9 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 Women of Rock Oral History Project. ansh 666 09:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Women of Rock Oral History Project interviews[edit]

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

Page which is serving less as a properly sourced encyclopedia article about the topic, and more as an WP:ELNO-violating index of offlinks to the videoclips themselves. As always, Wikipedia does not exist as a platform for creating finding aids to other websites' content -- the links in the body text of a Wikipedia article must be internal links to other Wikipedia articles, not offsite links to other websites. This is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and simply converting the offlinks into footnotes wouldn't actually resolve that since it would still just be a list of another website's content. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions:

Strong delete as a blatant policy violation. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and also emphatically not a web directory masquerading as a list article. If there were individual articles about notable interviews, then a list linking to those articles would be appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I would change this to ~~'keep'~~ merge if the lengthy list of external links were removed and replaced with a link to a http://www.womenofrock.org/videos/ — the topic itself seems to have garnered some coverage, although not yet certain if it's enough for a stand-alone article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with merge after rewrite into Sophia Smith Collection. I think this topic would be a good section/sub-section there, but I agree with the comments above, a simple copy and paste would be inappropriate. South Nashua (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oddly worded (for a list article) lead brings to mind Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory or a webhost. Ajf773 (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding of this Wikipedia page. It is unique because this Wikipedia GLAM initiative -- Women of Rock Oral History Project -- is an oral history project versus a more typical GLAM initiative that has works and publications. The works and publications here take the form of videos. The function of this page is to establish what is an ongoing collection of oral history interviews that are key to supporting entries and establishing notability of the subject list of this GLAM initiative in support of the main entry, Women of Rock Oral History Project. This is an ongoing, living, breathing academic and scholarly project, with new entries being added on a rolling basis. The idea is that these "publications" of this initiative have the form of pre-built citations for use across the various language Wikipedias. These are dense, Wikipedia-friendly interviews full of first person narratives and detailed facts that reinforce notability of unheralded and under-recognized subjects that address gender gap and diversity (including LGBTQIA) on the encyclopedia. This information is heavily incorporated with Wikidata, so is cross-project friendly. I understand the WIKI:RULEZ and possibly discomfort this list page might generate, but I would like to address the concerns within the context of a GLAM project and see if there might be flexibility here, as the content creation potential is quite impactful. If this could be seen as a way to support this initiative in a productive, forward-thinking approach, it would be much appreciated. Again, happy to address concerns, but hopeful this is seen from the constructive manner in which it is intended. -- Erika aka 12:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, wanted to add that I have only started to update and improve content on both Wikidata and Wikipedia based on the first couple videos on this list page. Kat Arthur from Legal Weapon currently has no entry -- and should -- and with regard to Alice Bag, I have only started pulling information from her oral history into her Wikipedia page and Wikidata entry. Again, this list page is clearly in support of improving Wikipedia content. Especially in the case of Alice Bag, whose entry is in dire need of editing and reshaping, this oral history will be critical in correcting and improving -- and adding to content on the encyclopedia. There are 20 interviews digitized so far with a total of 29 in process. The project as I said is ongoing, and will address significant lapses in coverage of these notable women on Wikipedia. I also wanted to add that I was trying to avoid adding links to the main WoROHP Wiki entry next to the subjects of the collection, as it would unbalance the citations on the page, and didn't seem like it would be supported by the Wikipedia editing community, but if this list page is not viable, I could shift them there. I think this list page is a smarter, more helpful option. I see this list page as similar to a record label discography, etc., which is definitely something allowed and embraced on the encyclopedia. Just some more ideas in support of keeping this page. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. Wikipedia isn't a repository of web links. That's a policy (a rule to which we must adhere), not just a guideline (a best practice that we should follow). Discography pages that are full of web links also get deleted; a good discography page has internal wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles. That's what this list should be. If you want a list of non-Wikipedia links, then create the list on the Women of Rock Oral History Project website and write a non-list article about it, linking to that page. A list of external links masquerading as a Wikipedia article isn't acceptable. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting perspective. I am not missing the point. I am disagreeing with the assessment and arguments being made here. I believe the rules that are being used to support deletion do not apply and further that there is a misunderstanding of the functionality of this page. This page is not simply a list of web links. This is backwards thinking in the extreme. I am not trying to harm or weaken Wikipedia. I am doing a lot of work to make a positive impact here. If that is not clear, then again I think there is a huge misunderstanding. But given my experience with this type of argument, I fear this is a brick wall that I will fail to impact. Just know this is why people stop editing or are afraid to contribute. I am trying here to be bold and add content. I don't think this is being appreciated here. There's not much I can do or say in this scenario, as there seems to be no discussion, just a rigid unmoveable agenda of No. I hope you will reconsider, but I'm not hopeful. I'm so tired of this inflexible perspective on Wikipedia. It's a real problem, En Wiki editors who take this approach. -- Erika aka BrillLyle
Yes, you are missing the point. Alternatives have been offered to you to be in compliance with our editorial policies and guidelines, and you have rejected them. (a) You can write a list article consisting of a list of interviews that already have their own Wikipedia articles because those interviews were deemed individually notable in their own right. Or (b) the Oral History Project can maintain their own page of links (which is the correct place for it, not on Wikipedia), and the parent article Women of Rock Oral History Project can link to it. Or (c) because the subject of interviews has received some coverage, the list of interviews could be deleted from this article, keeping the prose, and linking to the appropriate external page on the Oral History Project's page — and I'll gladly retract my 'delete' vote if that change were made. Instead, rather than "doing a lot of work to make a positive impact", you have created essentially a directory of external links disguised as a list article (which is a common black-hat SEO tactic, by the way). And finally, you still haven't offered any arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy why this article should be kept. Instead you have responded with denial of what the page actually is, and complained that your bold edits have been met with too much negativity, without realizing that's a risk we all take when being bold. Well, there's a simple cure for your complaints: Work within the community-agreed policies and guidelines, as previously suggested, or provide policy-grounded arguments for keeping the article. You haven't done either one. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I guess I am having a hard time with this argument when I see things like the following are on En Wiki and it seems to be totally fine. The WoROHP list is actually scholarly in nature, and is in support of adding content via a newly organized GLAM project. I don't see that agenda or context with these example List pages: List of WWE personnel, List of pornographic actresses by decade, List of most-followed Instagram accounts, List of common misconceptions, Lists of colors. It's all pretty random, isn't it? And to use the Be Bold thing against me is sort of ironical isn't it? Throwing WIKI:RULEZ is unhelpful. Thanks all for rising to my already low expectations of Wikipedia editors. -- BrillLyle (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason to keep an article. Each stands or falls on its own merits independent of what else may exist on Wikipedia. List of most-followed Instagram accounts is even a better candidate for deletion than the article we're discussing here (and it is now up for deletion, thank you); just because that article exists isn't a reason to include another one like it. As far as I can tell, none of those duplicate lists that have already been published outside of Wikipedia (except the Instagram thing), and all of them link to other Wikipedia articles for each list item. You haven't offered any reason why Wikipedia should duplicate a list that already exists elsewhere, for a list of items that don't even have their own individual Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In all honesty, I don't see the issue here. This fits squarely into a long tradition of [[List of works in subset]] articles on Wikipedia, and I don't see how this is any different to The Fall discography, List of buildings designed by W. H. Weeks or National Film Registry. In my opinion, the issue regarding the external links is a red herring; I view those as embedded citation links demonstrating that the items in question are indeed included, and while using embedded links rather than a separate reference section is strongly discouraged, that's a formatting issue and not something to be addressed at AfD. ‑ Iridescent 16:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: There are two questions here: Is the list of video interviews notable? Probably, since it has had some coverage, but that question hasn't been answered definitively yet by any response here, including yours. Does the list violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY? In my view, definitely yes. It doesn't matter whether the links are inline or refspam, it's still predominantly a list of links to outside content, and this list is already maintained on another website. All of those other lists you mentioned include items that are independently notable and have their own Wikipedia articles. That is not the case here, it's just a list of external links. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Provided the list itself is notable by Wikipedia terms, I don't see any issue with including the members of it provided the list isn't unreasonably long (see List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice for a good example of a list of names included in full despite most of the entries being unlikely ever to warrant their own entries). The primary purpose of the content of any Wikipedia article is to be useful to whoever's reading the article, and letting the reader know who's listed (and thus, whether the List of Women of Rock Oral History Project is something they want to spend any more time researching) clearly serves a useful purpose. If it's just the mess of ELs that's the issue, the whole thing could be cited to www.womenofrock.org/interviewees-1, which would still serve as a RS to verify who's listed and still provide enough of a link that a reader thinking "hey, I really want to see that interview" could navigate to it without difficulty, without including a gazillion separate links. ‑ Iridescent 17:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescent. Note that Anachronist ("strong delete") later writes: Addendum: I would change this to 'keep' if the lengthy list of external links were removed... But that kind of content discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not as a bargaining chip in an AfD. The presence of the links is not a valid reason to delete the page. Anachronist's comment directly contradicts his/her own "strong delete" !vote. — Gpc62 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. The part of the quote that you omitted expresses concerns about the notability of the topic, which has not yet been established by this discussion. I meant merge... just changed it. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Women of Rock Oral History Project. Can't see a compelling reason to keep this list separate from the main article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – The list is short and would fit better in the main article. — JFG ^talk 21:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to merge into the main page but was concerned it would add too many citations to the page. The list is meant to be similar to a publications list, as the oral histories are part of her PhD thesis, and have an academic bent. Also as the interviews continue the list will expand. I know Exene Cervenka from X is just one of many that are upcoming. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The list already exists as an external page, and that's where it belongs. I don't know why that's so hard to comprehend. The number of citations in the prose is small and would be best merged into the parent article. As for the rest, it doesn't matter if the links are inline or refspam, they are still a bunch of links to primary sources, not references to coverage, which is what we need in an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, I think this topic is notable and the videos themselves are notable as demonstrated by the existence of Women_of_Rock_Oral_History_Project_interviews. Additionally, as Iridescent notes Wikipedia has a long history of these sort of "list of" articles, and as long as the list is useful to the reader (which in this case, it is), I see no reason to delete (or merge) it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcc: the point here is that the list is pretty much identical to the one that already exists at http://www.womenofrock.org/videos/ and reproducing it here adds no value. It's basically a list of external links, nothing more. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to main article as the entire list of interviewees is already located there. Moreover, the citation overhead in this article is unnecessary and the links to each individual video interview can be merged to the main article. Even better would be a link in the main article's external links to the top-level page from which all videos can be accessed. Ca2james (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 01:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- such lists do not belong on wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Listcruft. The creator of this article needs to understand wikipedia is not a place to promote, support, or establish notability for a project. It is not an attack on the project itself, just an enforcement of rules intended to keep wikipedia neutral.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescent. Gamaliel (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Women of Rock Oral History Project. No reason to keep this list as a separate article. f e minist 10:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. no need for a separate listy. -- it will be more useful together . DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory or a webhost. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a plausible stand-alone topic nor a valid WP:SAL; the article is very clearly a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The page Women of Rock Oral History Project covers the topic fully without any merge being necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 11 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. Lots of sources provided, but of unclear reliability. ansh 666 09:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S.O.B. (band)[edit]

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

Not a notable band. Recreation of an article previously deleted via PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a two-sentence article apart from a brief list of records in the band's discography, and the band are not a notable band. Vorbee (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As WP:NRVE states, the current state of an article is not a reason to delete. A search in Japanese comes up with various sources: [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], etc. There are also as many in other languages: [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], etc. Some of these claim the band is quite influential in the grindcore scene, some talk of the influence on Napalm Death, some place their albums in top 10 or top 100 lists for Japanese punk or rock. I am not familiar with music-related sources on the net, however, so I don't know how many of these are RS. But there seems to be a good amount to consider. Michitaro (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But even the Japanese article is unsourced. Do any of these meet RS? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again the state of this article or that on the Japanese Wikipedia is irrelevant. The question is whether real RS exist out there that can prove notability (notability is not proven or disproven by the current state of the article). As I said, I don't know the music press enough to judge all these sources, but a few like Decibel look to be established sites, and there's at least one book in English (the Decibel article mentions that the band is also discussed in this). I specifically avoided blogs (and there are a lot of blogs which mention the band), so there shouldn't be anything like that here (though it might be that some of these are just glorified versions of blogs). I would have to defer to someone with more knowledge about music, especially Japanese music, to judge these, but I would say this article should not be deleted until these (and potentially other) sources are evaluated. Michitaro (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, I'm not commenting on the state of the article. I'm asking a simple question due to my lack of literacy in Japanese: do the sources you provided meet the English project's criteria for RSes? If not, offering them is a distraction and you should strike them. I referenced the Japanese article because these sources are not listed there. If they had been, I would withdraw the nomination. They're not there so that means one of three things: 1) the Japanese project doesn't have the same standard for sourcing articles 2) the band is so obviously notable in Japan, no references are required or 3) the sources don't meet the Japanese project's criteria for RS and they are not allowed to stand in that article. So again, without knowing whether they meet our criteria is key. Blogs don't meet our RS criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it is rather unhelpful to state that the considerable time I put into looking for these sources is a distraction. AfD is a collaborative effort. I have done searches in both English and Japanese--which I might add is what anyone participating in an Japan-related AfD should try to do--but since my specialty is in other areas, I have offered the sources so that those with more expertise in music sources can judge them and not have to do as much searching themselves. It is as a service to others. I have also offered English sources, which you can check yourself (if you did what is necessary in WP:BEFORE, I presume you have already checked many of these, so it would be good if you detail what you thought of them). That said, it is unfortunately true that the Japanese Wikipedia has far too many articles that are unsourced. The main reason for that is not different standards, though one could argue many J-Wiki editors have little conception about what RS are and why they are necessary. The standards are basically the same as ours. The main reason is that the Japanese Wikipedia has a fraction of the number of active editors as the English version and there are simply not enough hands to check the over million articles (there are only 46 admins, compared to 1239 for the English version--even though the English version "only" has 5 times as many articles). This has been openly discussed as a problem. It is great when there are good sources for a J-Wiki article, but I have never made a presumption that if a J-wiki does not have sources, that means the subject is not notable. Again, we should not make the same presumption with an English Wikipedia article as well, per WP:NRVE. Also, per WP:OTHERLANGS, the existence or non-existence of articles on the subject in other Wikis is not relevant. We must make the judgement based on English Wikipedia standards. Michitaro (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't write that it "is a distraction". I wrote "If [your sources do] not [meet the criteria for reliable sources], offering them is a distraction and you should strike them. You clearly aren't reading what I wrote or you don't understand. I will return the favour. Not only did I do BEFORE, I found nothing to support notability. And since you're not even trying to defend that the links you found are reliable sources, I'll take it that they're not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I reiterate: I offered the sources to help the AfD, to ask if others with more expertise can judge them. You wanted me to not even try to offer sources unless I was 100% sure that they were RS, preventing other participants with more expertise from checking what I found. That is not a very productive attitude. Making presumptions about the sources based on what I can or cannot do with them--after I repeatedly noted my lack of expertise--is not good logic. I have not made an argument one way or another, but merely have asked participants in this AfD whether these sources prove notability or not. It's an honest question and I hope it can be answered. I have still not heard an argument from you why the English sources I found, for instance, do not help prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I reiterate: unless you can guarantee that all of the sources meet RS, please remove them. I'm not making any assumptions. I'm asking you to actually verify that your links meet our criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I am amazed. I've participated in nearly 400 AfDs so far and I don't think I've ever encountered a nominator who was demanding suppression of information relevant to the AfD. I of course will not do that because it is information relevant to the AfD and may be of use to others attempting to judge this band's notability. I will, however, leave it to others to decide whether this attitude helps your case or not. But in terms of your case, I must say you've done little to prove it. "Not a notable band. Recreation of an article previously deleted via PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO" is not an argument, it is an assertion. It offers no evidence; it does not clarify what searching was done and what conclusions were made about those searches. Since you said you did WP:BEFORE, I have asked you what you thought about at least the sources I found, and instead of answering a question quite normal for an AfD, you have demanded I remove those sources if I am not 100% certain they are RS, putting the burden on me, not on you yourself, the nominator, who was supposed to have judged all these sources already. Again, I have not made up my mind: I am waiting for some real arguments one way or another, especially from someone with more expertise on the music scene in Japan. You still have the opportunity to convince me. So in the spirit of helping this AfD (which has been my attitude from the start), I will try to answer your demands by at least listing a few of the sources that I found that seem to be the best candidates for RS. On the Japanese side, they would be [140] (an authored intro in Real Sound net magazine), [141] and [142] (a two-part history of grindcore in Japan in the Extreme the Dojo netzine with a significant focus on this band), [143] (a selection of the best Japanese grindcore albums in the IndiesMate netzine), and [144] (an intro and interview in Loft's magazine). For English, [145] (an annotated top ten Japanese punk bands list by the music critic Namekawa Kazuhiko), [146] (an authored intro to the band in Decibel (magazine)), [147] (Jason Netherton's Extremity Retained : Notes from the Death Metal Underground, which is in university libraries [148], [149]), [150] (Shane Embury's account of the albums that made grindcore worldwide, including this band), and [151] (this is a report in Exlaim on Rolling Stone Japan's section of the best 100 Japanese rock albums, including, of course, and SOB album). The Decibel article says that de:Albert Mudrian's Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal and Hardcore (also in university libraries: [152][153]) also discusses the band's influence, though it is not online for me to check. Again, I am not that expert on the music scene, so some who know better might say one or two of these are not RS; someone else might say one I did not select is an RS. But that's why I made them all available, so that others can help in evaluating them. Michitaro (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I too am amazed that you once again missed the whole point. I'm not trying to suppress information but clarification. I don't know how you can be so dense as to miss that every time. Are the sources you proved reliable or not? And now we're at 33 sources and it's still not clear which are and which are not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) 21:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are not reading what I am writing. I have taken the sources I already provided and specified which of those, in my less than expert opinion, are likely good candidates for RS. I have done this in a honest effort to respond to your request. But despite that, you again refuse to even look at them (because you didn't even notice I am selecting, not adding new ones). I can only conclude your argument for deletion is frivolous since you refuse to consider any of the evidence. I am tempted to vote "keep" in this discussion because no serious arguments have been provided for deletion, but I return to my original position: that I have noticed many sources on the net, which I have provided in order to enable fair judgment of this AfD, and am awaiting more expert opinion. I will continue to wait for other opinions before voting. Michitaro (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading, but not buying claims that your best choices are reliable sources.

http://realsound.jp/artist/name/realsound_35472 has an author, Kazuhiko Ushikawa, and they have an editorial department, but Ushikawa is not listed there and with no staff page, it's not clear what Ushikawa's role on the project is. Not certain the site meets RS.
http://extremethedojo.com/page/special/verification/grindcore001 and http://extremethedojo.com/page/special/verification/grindcore002 may have an author (Jumbo), but no "about us" page and no indication that there is an editorial board. There is no author page either. Fails RS.
https://indiesmate.com/rock/grindcore/recording-6/3 no author. Site has no editorial board. Fails RS.
http://www.loft-prj.co.jp/interview/0310/06.html has an author: Namba Hatch but Loft Poject. I don't see the editorial board. Fails RS.
http://daily.redbullmusicacademy.com/2014/11/japan-top-ten-punk-hardcore has an author, Kazuhiko Namekawa with an author link: http://daily.redbullmusicacademy.com/author/kazuhiko-namekawa but no editorial board and it seems to be a loosely held-together lecture series. Fails RS.
https://www.decibelmagazine.com/2012/10/12/the-lazarus-pit-sob-s-what-s-the-truth/ author: Jeff Treppel with no author page. The magazine is published by Red Flag Media and likely has an editorial board, but it's not clear that the website follows those rules. There is a staff page: https://www.decibelmagazine.com/about/staff/ that lists Albert Mudrian as editor-in-chief. Likely a RS. (short interview though)
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=pQ1bDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT153&lpg=PT153&dq=S.O.B+Japan+band&source=bl&ots=6baZqxmIRJ&sig=Y5H3OS0bGRb-0AeA358o7m_EZfk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjot5WMu8zXAhXEo5QKHTlUBWg4ChDoAQg-MAc#v=onepage&q=S.O.B%20Japan%20band&f=false a short entry in Extremity Retained: Notes From the Death Metal Underground. Source meets RS, but the brevity of the entry raises doubts as to the importance of the band.
http://www.johnpeelarchive.com/shane-embury a short review by Shane Embury on a blog. Fails RS.
https://exclaim.ca/music/article/finally_100_greatest_japanese_rock_albums_of_all_time a database entry without discussing any entry. Fails RS. Entries higher up on the list do not have articles either (Moon Riders, Rankin Taxi, Ippudou, Murasaki (not an article about the musician) and Zunou Keisatsu. I stopped at five). Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally beginning to address the evidence. I appreciate that because some of the arguments you make are reasonable. Others, however, are not. I think your points about 2,3, and 4 are well taken and, unless someone with more knowledge about those sources can say otherwise, I believe we can put those aside. We also agree that No. 6 is likely an RS. The other sources deserve more debate. First, for no. 1, the name is not Ushikawa but Namekawa, and is the same critic cited in 5. If your complaint with no. 1 is that he is not listed on the staff page, the fact that he is a music critic with several books/articles to his credit [154], [155], [156], etc., should dispel doubts about why he is writing for that publication. So that makes No. 1 very likely an RS. No. 5 brings up the issue in WP:UGC, which is relevant to some of the other sources here: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." In other words, writing in publications such as blogs that are not necessarily regularly RS publications can be admissible if the author is a recognized expert. Namekawa may be a candidate for that, but I don't know enough about music critics in Japan to say (again, that's why I am waiting for more expert opinion). No. 5 thus may be an RS depending on that. This also relates to no. 8: not only is Embury one of the most important grindcore musicians, but John Peel is a highly recognized (OBE no less) figure in the music world. With regard to it being "short," WP:SIGCOV reminds us that the subject need not be the main topic of an article for it to be counted as significant coverage. This piece, from my experience, satisfies the standard. Your argument for no. 7 is debatable: the length of a mention in a single source is by no means an indication of notability. This is compounded by the problem that Google Books does not let you see the entire book to check if there are not mentions elsewhere. This book is an RS, but whether it is significant or not can only be confirmed by getting the book. Finally, your argument for no. 9 makes no sense. We cite best 10 or best 100 lists all over Wikipedia when they are produced by notable sources. Rolling Stone magazine is without a doubt one of the most important music magazines in the world and its Japanese edition is being cited here. You try to dismiss the list by noting that there are no English Wikipedia articles for bands higher up, but that is a highly dubious argument given that coverage of Japan on the English Wikipedia is quite weak. By your same logic, I assume you must agree this is a legitimate list given that most, if not all of these bands/musicians have articles on the Japanese Wikipedia (for instance, the five you listed: ja:ムーンライダーズ, ja:ランキン・タクシー, ja:一風堂 (バンド), ja:紫 (バンド), ja:頭脳警察, etc.). Last but not least, you did not address the issue of Mudrain's book. The Decibel article, which we agree is likely an RS, says the band is discussed in that book, and given WP:GNG, we should not be judging notability purely through what's online. I should mention here, as I noted in another recent music-related AfD, there there is the real problem that few of Japanese music-related printed magazines (and there are dozens of them [157]) have accessible online editions. I would bet there are a number of articles on this band in those magazines, but they would be hard to access. That is why I am still waiting for some more expert opinion, especially someone familiar with print coverage. You certainly have not convinced me the band is not notable, and I think the sources we have that are I believe likely admissible agree that the band was--as Issan Sumisu argues as well below--influential in its music genre. If anything, I lean towards keep. Michitaro (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have attempted to expand this article a little, providing sources to say that they were a significant influence on both the styles of grindcore and death metal (massive genres in the metal and punk worlds) and have inspired one of the biggest bands in hardcore Napalm Death; there is definitely a lack of reliable sources but, clearly, this band is extremely influential and thus notable. Issan Sumisu (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 01:05, 3 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 Australia–Norway relations. ansh 666 09:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Norway[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG. Australia has never had a resident ambassador to Norway. Article contains mostly primary sources . The few third party sources like Canberra Times merely contain routine coverage which confirm the role. If we started creating lists of non resident ambassadors we'd have thousands of articles.. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as WP:LISTCRUFT on non-resident ambassadors; does not meet WP:LISTN. Way too indiscriminate to be in compliance with WP:NOT. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update to redirect to Australia–Norway relations as per the discussion below. A redirect would allow n interested editro to pick up anything useful from the article history, if desired. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge and redirect. I do not see the problem. The vast majority of lists only contain WP:EXISTS material or very basic information. So does this one. And, it does fill the information gap (otherwise) if you a trying to find such for Australia and Norway. WP:LISTN does say Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. If it not kept then an ideal merge and redirect target I suggest is Australia–Norway relations where it would fit straight in with minimal rework. Whether or not the article is kept, the content is useful and encyclopedic and should be kept. Aoziwe (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you can't sit on the fence. please select one of keep OR merge. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitely on the keep content side of the fence, which is why I put Keep first. To facilitate a consensus I am prepared to fall back to a Merge and Redirect. Aoziwe (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list is useful and the sources of course merely confirm the role as there is no further information required to verify the information in the article. Also; I see no problem with having thousands of articles, if they contain information with value to users like I believe this one does. Clare. (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL explains that such an argument is not necessarily persuasive but that, supplemented by other opinion, it may be valid. In rhis case I find the argument persuasive and I'm sorry that the nominator does not. Thincat (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful, well-cited, encyclopedic list. There are list articles on the Australian ambassadors to all other countries (see the template at the bottom of the article), so there would be no reason to delete this one as it would only have to be recreated. SunChaser (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, it's important to note that the template doesn't contain links to articles on Australian ambassadors to "all other countries" by a long margin, and some of these in fact redirect to articles on the bilaterial relations, rather than simply being links to lists of ambassadors. Saying that an article "would only have to be recreated" rather misses the point of it being deleted if consensus is found to do so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a possible redirect to an article on bilateral relations between the two countries (not an endorsement of there necessarily being such an article, but it would be a logical redirect if one exists). Given that the ambassador is a non-resident one, I don't see any particular need for this list to stand separately from any article on Australia-Norway relations. Misstatements by other editors demonstrate that there are fewer arguments against deletion than might otherwise appear. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australia–Norway relations. As non-resident representatives, this particular office is clearly not important enough for its own article, and the articles cited are simply WP:ROUTINE stuff that doesn't indicate that the office has much significance. A merge will preserve the useful information and give some depth to the resulting article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Merge. As a non-resident ambassador, a standalone list is likely too much, but it would fit within the relations article, which is short anyway. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) 21:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think a list of the foremost representatives of one sovereign nation state to another sovereign nation state is significant enough regardless of the notability of the relations between those two countries. South Nashua (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you're arguing inherent notability when there isn't any. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's hard to imagine any ambassador of any sovereign nation not meeting GNG, why would a list of them not be notable? South Nashua (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wrong again. many many ambassador articles have been deleted as shown in this list granting zero inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In most of those discussions, there was almost no input. Even if "ambassadors were not inherently notable" as a policy, Wikipedia polices can and do change over time as needed South Nashua (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wrong again. if there was little input they would be closed as no consensus. You're somehow trying to spin that a delete outcome is invalid and that can indeed mean inherent notability. Community consensus is clear that there is no inherent notability of ambassadors. This has not changed. You're just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE without evidence or outcomes from 50+ AfDs. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. South Nashua (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Australia–Norway relations. "Topic" doesn't meet WP:GNG on its own. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question to those supporting merge is "List of Australian Ambassadors to Norway" really a viable search term? LibStar (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What else would you use if you wanted to find the Australian Ambassadors to Norway? And is that more a question of the redirect rather than the merge? Aoziwe (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 01:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- We already have List of Australian Ambassadors to... lists for pretty much every other country they have relations with (including some that are very small). I don't see the issue here.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS being a bad argument, it also doesn't hold water here. Looking at the articles linked from the template, the overwhelming majority of those there are resident ambassadors. The only non-residents are Algeria, Hungary (resident until 2013), Switzerland and Venezuela (resident until 2002), as well as the special case of the Holy See. The question realistically would seem to be what makes those 4-5 countries so special as to mandate their non-resident ambassadors having lists, rather than simply being merged into the articles on the countries in which they ambassadors are already resident. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator has made a really good argument by saying that article has only primary sources and Australia lacks a resident ambassador to Norway. And another option is Merge with Australia–Norway relations. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. even if it is considered that not all individual ambassadors are notable enough for separate articles, a list of them is a good way of handling the material for the others. It's one of the suggested methods of dealing with less0than-notable material at WP:GNG. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that's hardly an argument for keep if the list contains non notable entities. Secondly, the list fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, that may lead others to create ambassadors article about any country even if there is only one ambassador. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Australia–Norway relations. These aren't resident ambassadors, a mention that the ambassador to Denmark (and formerly Sweden) serves as ambassador to Norway is sufficient. The references are all WP:MILL diplomatic announcements and don't suggest that the position is independently notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 11 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 National APIA Panhellenic Association again ansh 666 09:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Phi Lambda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I speedied this as an unremarkable organisation; somebody removed the speedy after 'adding independent sources for credibility'. I still think its an unremarkable organisation, and the added sources do not have sufficient weight to convince me otherwise. TheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to National APIA Panhellenic Association, of which Delta Phi Lambda is a member, in lieu of deletion.
This will uphold the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Phi Lambda to redirect.
I was able to find only one reliable source about the subject:
1. Melancon, Merritt (2008-08-16). "Sorority about 'finding a place'". Athens Banner-Herald. Archived from the original on 2009-12-04. Retrieved 2009-12-04.
  The article notes:
  When Anh Ngoc Nguyen came to the University of Georgia in 1998, she felt pretty isolated - a Vietnamese woman surrounded by a sea of Caucasian kids from metro Atlanta.
  There weren't many Asian students on campus, but Nguyen also didn't know how to connect with those who were here.
  Ten years later, Delta Phi Lambda, the sorority Nguyen founded as a way to fill that void, has grown to become the second-largest Asian-interest sorority in the country, with 10 chapters in universities stretching from Florida to Chicago.
There are two university-affiliated sources. But university-affiliated sources generally are insufficient to establish notability:
1. Schertzer, Drew (2017-11-15). "Delta Phi Lambda to host Global Gala Cultural Showcase". Grand Valley Lanthorn. Archived from the original on 2017-11-18. Retrieved 2017-11-18.
  The Grand Valley Lanthorn is the student-run newspaper for Grand Valley State University in Allendale, Michigan.
  The article notes:
  In an effort to celebrate different cultures on campus, one organization is holding a showcase.
  The Global Gala Cultural Showcase, sponsored by Delta Phi Lambda Sorority Inc., is held every year at Grand Valley State University. Student organizations gather to put on performances during a three-hour extravaganza. This year, the cultural showcase will take place Friday, Nov. 17, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. in the Kirkhof Center Grand River Room.
  ...
  Delta Phi Lambda is GVSU’s only Asian-interest sorority, existing at the university since 2009. The group seeks to bring Asian awareness to schools and empower women. Doan said hundreds of students are expected to attend the event, and free food will be served as well.
2. Laughlin, Alex (2011-08-18). "Delta Phi Lambda adds Asian spice to Greek system". The Red & Black. Archived from the original on 2017-11-18. Retrieved 2017-11-18.
  The Red & Black is an independent weekly student newspaper serving the University of Georgia.
  The article notes:
  Founder Anh Nogc Nguyen felt Asians were very underrepresented at the University when she arrived in 1998. Instead of taking part in Panhellenic recruitment, Nguyen turned to the Asian interest clubs on campus, looking for a “home away from home.”
  She found a fragmented mix of small, segregated clubs, each promoting their own cultural and ethnic interests. There was no single organization that simply promoted Asian unity, and nothing at all approximating sisterhood.
  So Nguyen made something new.
  With a few close friends, Nguyen founded Delta Phi Lambda, Inc., as a way to create a sisterhood that would be relevant to her Asian culture. Thirteen years later, there are 12 DPhiL chapters across the Southeast, and the Alpha chapter at the University is as strong as ever.
Cunard (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thank you for bringing the complete references to the AFD page. Firstly, I note that the Red and the Black is independent. Given the relationship of it to the University of Georgia, describing it as "University Affiliated" is not accurage. While employing students, and covering the University, the paper has a separate board according to the article. Secondly, can you please point to a policy in regards to University affiliated news sources not providing the same level of notability as those not on the campus? Thirdly, http://dailycampus.com/stories/2017/11/17/avenue-of-dreams-prom-dress-tuxedo-and-accessory-drive may serve as an additional source. Naraht (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local student organization that is non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regional, at least. 12 chapters ranging from Michigan to Florida. Local generally indicates a single chapter (or at most multiple within a local area).Naraht (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) 21:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue There are no applicable WP:DEL-REASONs to consider, so this AfD is out of process. If a wider audience than the talk page is deemed useful, WP:Deletion policy identifies RfC. Unscintillating (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 01:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:37, 4 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 2017 in British music. The concerns raised are generally editorial in nature; crap can be cleaned out and good material kept or added in. That being said, there seems to be consensus that this can be handled in the main year article. ansh 666 09:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 in British music charts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomming page, as was previously closed as no consensus approx. 5 months ago. This page is heavily riddled with WP:OR and is heavily undersourced, using only one source for the article. As said in previous AfD this is not as significant as the worldwide charts so why do we have this here? The editor who primarily edits this article is also blocked for persistent sockpuppetry by using IPs to edit then reverting any other users using their registered profile. Nightfury 10:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while being mindful of WP:OSE, I note that there are similarly-titled pages for preceding years - although they all appear to have clean-up and/or refimprove tags, too. For consistency, could the page in question be kept and cleaned up, or should we be considering deleting all of them? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is so much that can be pruned (specifically, the weekly recaps and the excessive chart lists), the rest can be merged to 2017 in British music. The same can be done for the other years. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1979 in British music, 1999 in British music and others have a section for charts, but 2017 in British music links to this page instead. If the charts sections are kept in the other articles, this page (or part of it) should be merged and not deleted. Peter James (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: firstly, this is not a problem specific to 2017 – there are 20xx in British music charts articles going all the way back to the year 2000, it's just that since 2011 a certain editor has taken it upon himself to provide an excessive and unnecessary week by week recap. The question is whether the chart tables in this article would make the 2017 in British music article too long if they were merged (don't forget there are still year-end charts to be added to this article in a month's time).

There are plenty of noteworthy chart events that could be included in an overall summary of the year, though, and they could all be referenced to reliable sources other than the OCC website, e.g. Stormzy getting the first ever no. 1 album by a grime artist [158], the return of Sgt Pepper and Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1 to the top of the album charts [159], [160], Ed Sheeran placing 16 songs in the top 20 of the singles chart [161], etc. Richard3120 (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do 11 charts need to be represented in this manner for every year? There's already List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s and List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 2010s, and the year-ends don't need to be as excessively detailed as done at 2016 in British music charts#Year-end charts and can be limited to the top 10. Just summarize the chart achievements of the year and merge into 2017 in British music, etc. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that the six charts for sales only, streaming only, and download only, for both singles and albums, can be ditched and only the overall lists of number-one singles and albums kept, as the other three are components that make up the overall chart (and are very similar to each other) – it's only the overall number-one single/album that ever gets reported by the media anyway, and for which there will be other sources than the OCC. As for the year-end charts, well, it's simply that a top 50 was decided by consensus as the cut-off point... many of these year-end charts for previous years extended to a top 200 before I started revising them, so they've already been substantially reduced. Richard3120 (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) 21:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This mess needs tagging and sorting out on a music project - afd isn't the right place. If participants with knowledge of NMusic conventions join the afd I may reconsider. Szzuk (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please be brief, confine yourself to what is germane to the discussion and cite policy/guidelines when possible. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:03, 3 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 and improve. Rough consensus that the subject is notable, but as a WP:BLP needs serious editorial attention. ansh 666 09:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Buck[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political activist and non-winning city council candidate, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NPOL and not enough reliable sourcing to get him past WP:GNG in lieu. Of the five sources here, one is a hyperlocal community blog, which is not a notability-assisting source at all; one is a piece of purely local coverage in the context of his private personal life, supporting content that's extremely sensitive and thus belongs nowhere near a Wikipedia article without spectacularly airtight mega-sourcing for it; and all of the other three are just supporting that he was involved with a campaign to impeach an officeholder, without supporting any indication that he was central enough to that campaign to require a standalone biography for it. It would need significantly more substance and significantly more sourcing about his specific role in the impeachment campaign before we could consider him notable for that. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased it. The article says, ""Recall drive. Bucking the system: unlikely figure leads challenge to Mecham"". Yes, he was central and already a "household name" in the 1980s.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Household name" is not a notability criterion, in the absence of substantive content and sourcing about his specific role in the campaign. Anybody could simply claim to be a household name — we require considerably more than just nominal verification that he got a couple of pieces of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't claim to be. The journalist in the reliable third-party source did. Do you have access to Newspapers.com please?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a statement that constitutes a notability claim in and of itself regardless of who did or didn't say it. The key to making him notable enough to have a standalone Wikipedia article is significantly more substance, and significantly more sourcing, than is present here about his specific role in the campaign, not just the mere fact that anybody (regardless of whether it was him or anybody else) once called him a "household name". Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed. I posted a nice note on the talkpage of WikiProject LGBT Studies for other editors to work together and expand it. I will try to spend some time on Newspapers.com but I am feeling very lonely indeed right now!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a nice note to a wikiproject to ask for help in improving an article is all very well and nice, but it doesn't in and of itself exempt the article from AFD consideration if there are problems with it. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you trying to improve the article instead of nominating it for AFD? Please try to be constructive. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative work in progress...Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being "constructive" does not require me to suspend my own judgement about an article's includability or lack thereof. I'm entitled to have a different opinion than you do about whether an article topic has an adequate claim of notability or not, and am under no obligation to set my own judgement aside just because somebody complains that taking it to AFD for discussion is somehow "uncollaborative". Everything and everyone that exists is not always automatically an appropriate article topic, so nothing obligates every Wikipedian to personally participate in "improving" an article that they don't view as sufficiently improvable. For starters, the dead escort stuff still has to go away entirely, because it's still an extremely sensitive WP:BLP matter that still isn't sourced solidly enough to meet the heightened standard of airtight hypersourcing that content that outrageously sensitive would have to meet to become appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be redacted because it's a fact; no one is doubting it. The allegations from the escort's mother are not included, however. Since Buck was the leader of the Meacham impeachment campaign, he should have had an article prior to this incident anyway.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not whether or not it's a fact that's the issue; it's that it's a sensitive fact with WP:BLP implications which falls afoul of the rule that Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. For something like that to be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, it would have to meet a significantly higher burden of both importance and sourceability than straightforwardly uncontroversial details about him would. As in, it's not enough that it happened, and it's not enough that it's sourceable to one or two pieces of local coverage in the local newspaper of the city where he lives: it's sensitive enough that you would need to megasource the fact that it was a critical detail that the world needed to know about him badly enough to justify a permanent invasion of his personal privacy rights. People three and five and ten time zones away who never heard of him before today now know this about his private life — so there needs to be a reason why something that sensitive and unseemly was an important thing that we needed to learn. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left out the info about the meth use for that reason, even though that's in the RS... I don't think the death is a BLP violation. It's only mentioned in passing in the "personal life" section, and contextualized. But "People three and five and ten time zones away" will google him and find much, much worse.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The death itself is still sensitive enough to require a much higher burden of importance. Mentioning it without any real context for why it's being mentioned directly implies that there's something prurient that we're leaving out. Bearcat (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. I think there are enough RS, and the article would be prurient if we mentioned the meth use, the diary, etc. Anyway, we disagree, that's fine. I've added more referenced info about his role in the Meacham impeachment campaign--does this still look like an AFD situation to you? Otherwise you could withdraw this and we could take the other issues to the article talkpage instead. But if you still think this should get deleted, I don't have much to add and I will let other editors discuss this AFD nomination.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"An escort died in his bedroom" is inherently prurient, and needs to meet a high standard of importance considerably greater than "it happened", regardless of which specific details about the incident you choose to elide. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're entitled to nominate it for AFD, but my impression is that you saw my note on the talkpage of WikiProject LGBT Studies and instead of replying there, you went straight to AFD. I apologize if that's not the case, but if it is, it makes the WP talkpage unsafe for discussion.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what on earth would have given you that impression, exactly? Do you think that's the only way people can ever find recently created articles? Don't you think maybe I review User:AlexNewArtBot/LGBTSearchResult at least once a week quite independently of whether I've paid any attention to talk page discussions or not? Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please try to look at it. I know you are a member of the WikiProject and you sometimes post on the talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I don't look at it either. But I'm under no obligation to necessarily always look at it hourly. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he had won the city council race he would almost certainly be unnotable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the additional sources there is enough to meet GNG. He is frequently called a "noted", "well-known", "long-time" or Democratic donor. There was certainly lots of coverage in Arizona in the 80s. And current coverage in LA recently, including some international press. There is a lot more that could be added to this article. No mention of "An early AIDS activist, Ed Buck organized the first AIDS education program in Arizona.", something about heckling Meg Whitman and Chris Cristie in 2010 [162]. Here [163] is recent coverage of the recall, it's Doonesbury cartoons, and a tie-in to the Trump election. MB 21:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This one is borderline, but I tend to agree with MB that it should be possible to meet GNG with better sourcing. What I'm scratching my head over is why it's specified—twice, in fact—that the escort was African American. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the reliable third-party sources. I suppose this could be trimmed from the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed but actually this article makes it even more relevant...Zigzig20s (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – His municipal political career doesn't approach the criteria of WP:NPOL, coverage of his role with the recall campaign is purely in passing, and his coverage in these conspiracy-promoting websites in no way confers notability. While I respect how the article could appear to be a "borderline" case at first glance, as Rivertorch described it, I don't see what aspect of the subject's career or life generally could be covered by a source qualifying for WP:GNG. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "in passing". There are entire articles about his role in the Mecham affair, like this, this or this. And the LA Times is not a conspiracy website.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the recall was not "in passing". He was the leader of the recall effort and succeeded in gathering the necessary signatures. Here [164] is a NYT article in which he is discussed in four paragraphs. And here is a 2017 Huff Post [165] trying to parallel Mecham with Trump that is filled with coverage of Buck. MB 14:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please be brief, confine yourself to what is germane to the discussion and cite policy/guidelines when possible. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim The primary claim of notability has to be his involvement as an activist during Evan Mecham's governorship; the "dead hooker" stuff obviously can't be a claim of notability. The claim of "household name" in the Arizona Republic is likely puffery, but I see coverage in People magazine and the New York Times of his involvement in the recall. There's enough to keep this, but also BLP issues with the current version that MUST be addressed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Ammar[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person "notable" as chair of a political party at the provincial level. This is not a role that grants a person an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL just because he exists, but the sourcing here is nowhere near adequate to get him over WP:GNG: it consists of one primary source reference to his own self-published company website, one YouTube clip of him speaking, and one glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him. This is not enough sourcing to make a person notable for this. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The position seems inherently notable enough to warrant an article on him even if the current one is lacking in sources. Here are a few different sources that might be of some use --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 04:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC):[reply]

Passing mentions of his existence in articles about town hall events, YouTube videos and his own primary source campaign website are not notability-assisting sources, and no, the position is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be shown as the subject (as opposed to namechecked) of much, much more reliable source coverage (as opposed to his own website) in real media (as opposed to YouTube) than this. Bearcat (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources provided don't provide sufficient reliable source coverage to meet general notability, and the position doesn't look like an automatic pass under WP:NPOL. A quick google search shows name checks but nothing in depth to further establish notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please be brief, confine yourself to what is germane to the discussion and cite policy/guidelines when possible. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the "chair" of the party appears to be a less-prominent role than the "leader" of the party, and shouldn't give a presumption of notability. I don't see enough coverage for WP:GNG to be met, the references above are not sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 11 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. The consensus is that the subject of this article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Mz7 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoko Ayana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. The first AfD in 2006 closed as Keep, but the arguments presented there are not convincing, suc as "Keep: a popular model" or "Amazon.jp lists 117 DVDs, 46 videos, and 10 books when her name is searched". WP:PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination received attention as a possible bad-faith nomination because it used English-language standards for a Japanese actress. The close specified that the Japanese sourcing was essential to the conclusion. I see no evidence in the nomination of Japanese sourcing being considered, or of WP:BEFORE B6, "Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede." Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One editor asserted bad faith and was reminded about WP:AGF. The alleged "Japanese sources" that resulted in the 2006 keep appear to be vendors (Moodyz and Amazon.jp), which are neither independent nor reliable. As for, WP:BEFORE B6, the ja.Wikipedia article's links are sites like Moodyz and AliceJapan. It appears to be as thinly sourced as the 2006 en.Wikipedia page. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concerned by the claim that there were BLP problems, I looked at the talk page, and I saw nothing mentioned there. I looked at the edit history, and the nominator removed 10K of material, including references, but none of this material was removed as being unreliable. There seem to be a reasonable number of inline citations. Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material removed previously was the filmography section -- an indiscriminate collection of nn titles. Such lists are explicitely discouraged by the project. See for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Ozawa filmography. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The key problem here is that this BLP has no reliable source coverage. The 10K of deleted material was a porn filmography table (considered fluff by the Porn Project) and the performer's career as sourced by the film database XCity. That content was largely condensed. As for the article's sources, the Wired article at the dead link does not even mention this performer.[166] Others are the defunct Jmate.com porn blog (not reliable) and many, many film database citations. The only claim of notability is associations with notable actors, filmmakers and studios, and notability is not inherited. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you gave up on discussing BLP problems. Sourcing in articles requires that the source be reliable for the statement it sources. I checked the article, and you've identified no BLP problems. Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A BLP with un-substantiated claims and unreliable sources are huge BLP problems. This is basic knowledge when handling BLPs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of the general notability guidelines. Industry promoters claims about the people they are fronting should not be allowed to stand in for reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only plausible claim of notability is sourced to an unreliable porn blog. No strong claim per WP:PORNBIO. No reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per my comment above. No strong indication of reliable, significant coverage to pass GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references in the article are mostly commercial porn sites that market her videos, plus a dead link. Yes, she is a porn performer, but I see absolutely no evidence that she is a notable porn performer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Seeling[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Films are mostly short films. reddogsix (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete does not meet WP:NACTOR, and not enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG. Lots of passing mentions, but not enough to keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 9 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. I am willing to provide a copy to the user for userspace if they so request, but the consensus is clearly to delete at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Veterans for Factual History[edit]

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

Primarily NPOV concerns, also notability concerns. The group is not particularly prominent, and I don't think the POV concerns are repairable. Many of the references don't support any statements in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article. I think notability is satisfied by the recent publicity concerning their letter to PBS and Bank of America. That's why I added the article. As for POV concerns, I will leave that up to others to decide since i have a COI. Txantimedia (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by Many of the references don't support any statements in the article. Perhaps I can address that. I thought that they did (obviously). Txantimedia (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but perhaps Txantimedia can clarify things. Since it's an advocacy group, I don't think POV is a big deal (although there might be an issue of undue weight in the Reception section of the Burns/Novick documentary at the moment...). Notability seems the bigger issue. The vast, vast majority of the references aren't really references, or are WP:PRIMARY source articles by members themselves. If somebody decides to establish a new philosophy and "reference" the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, or the Communist Manifesto, etc., while those sources might inform this philosophy, they aren't really references about the philosophy itself. It's the same problem here: there's a lot of references to other stuff (Swift Boat Vets, Books written by authors the VVFH like, etc.), but do these references talk about the VVFH? What references are to articles that actually talk about the VVFH? From the "The Vietnam War" Burns documentary article, apparently The Washington Times had a brief story concerning them (Vietnam veterans challenge Ken Burns on the accuracy of his epic documentary), but this is not a very deep article; it's practically a press release where they just regurgitate some claims. @Txantimedia: Are there sources by non-VVFH members out there that talk about, specifically, the VVFH, not the Vietnam War? And do so in some detail, rather than simply acknowledging they exist, or are an interview with a member? SnowFire (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources, but I don't think they're acceptable to Wikipedia. Most of the discussion of the group has been from politically-right sites. I confess, I haven't done an extensive search for sources. When the stories hit the news sites, I thought perhaps it deserved an article, but discussion in secondary sources of the group don't exist (AFAIK) before the recent "surfacing" in national pubs. I'll poke around and see if I can find anything. Txantimedia (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Many of the citations don't appear to discuss this group. Neutrality^talk 01:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with that is that the genesis of the group was the previous efforts by veterans. Many of the people involved in VVFH were also involved in those previous efforts. So, anything prior to inception (2014) isn't going to mention the group, because it didn't exist. However, those sources are important in describing why the group exists now. Txantimedia (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious WP:SYNTH concerns with this. Neutrality^talk 02:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Txantimedia is suggesting would need a rename to Historiography of the Vietnam War (and Vietnam War myths would probably be merged to that page). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography of the Vietnam War is a good example of an article we should have. Neutrality^talk 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the subject of such an article? How would this article fit in to that? Txantimedia (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think this article would fit into a historiography article at all. A Vietnam War historiography article would cover the academic literature/history debate on the subject, e.g., https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/ipr.2013.4, https://academic.oup.com/dh/article-abstract/18/2/239/487420?redirectedFrom=PDF. Neutrality^talk 04:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are examples of sources that I assume are unacceptable: [167][168][169] and here are two that are possibly RS [170][171]. I struggle with RS, because some things simply can't be documented without referring to sources that some would call biased. It's a fact of life, for example, that the recent story about Roy Moore authoring a course that included negative views toward women can be sourced primarily to left-leaning sites. When issues are contentious (and little is more contentions than the Vietnam War), views that are considered revisionist simply won't be discussed in RS. They aren't going to touch it unless something earth-shattering forces them to. Yet, many groups exist that perhaps should be known about on Wikipedia but don't exist on Wikipedia because they haven't hit the front page of the Washington Post (for example.) Swift Vets and POWS for Truth has a page because of the uproar they caused that was covered widely. The Winter Soldier site, OTOH, doesn't exist on Wikipedia because it was never discussed in the news. Yet, it was the genesis of much of the information the Swift Vets used. You might say it was their research arm. Does it not deserve an article? As far as the prose of the article goes, I'm perfectly happy to have other editors review and edit it. I don't claim to be a perfect writer or unaffected by my biases. Txantimedia (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable for stand alone article and poor sourcing. Kierzek (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more sources: [172][173][174][175]. Does it matter that their books are being cited in other works now? [176][177] I don't know if it matters, but some of the members have pages on Wikipedia, and many members have written books that are cited in other scholarly works. Academics is a different breed from other types of notoriety. Newspapers seldom write about them, except to consult with them on their specialties. You're much more likely to find out about an academic when they publish an oped than you are to read a news story about them - unless they're involved in a scandal. Txantimedia (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Txantimedia: If you can show that books/articles written by members are cited, widely, then this might be grounds for notability. As I see it VVFH isn't cited much (I see approximately three cites) - however it might be omitted from the citation line. Coverage of the group itself in news sources doesn't seem to be enough for GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cited for what? I'm currently working on a draft for Robert F. Turner. His books have been cited hundereds of times by legal scholars, including his books on the Vietnam War. Lewis Sorley is a member. His books have been cited numerous times, and his book A Better War was reported as read by Obama. Mark Moyar is a member. His books have been cited numerous times, especially his Triumph Forsaken, which caused quite a stir in the academic community. Geoffrey Shaw is a member. HIs book, Lost Mandate of Heaven, currently has academia in an uproar. George Veith is a member. HIs book, Black April has been cited often. The problem is, you can't say these things in an article like this. In the article on Turner, I can mention his cites. Same for the others. So, I'm in a quandary. I'd really prefer to get help to improve the article before deleting it. I'm certain others could improve it, and I'm too close to it to do as good a job as others could. I do think it's worthy of inclusion, however, because of the recent national exposure, which is only going to increase over time. Thanks for the suggestion, though. I think it's helpful. I can do the work to demonstrate citing in my sandbox, if that would help. Txantimedia (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created a document in my sandbox that shows the cites for a few of our members. User:Txantimedia/sandbox I haven't checked all the members. We have 23 that have published books on Vietnam. Also, another member is Sol Sanders, a longtime journalist on Southeast Asia. He has written hundreds of articles for US News and World Report and other major media outlets.

I should note that, because I have a COI (I'm a member too), I never would have written this article where it not for the recent publicity. Perhaps I was premature. That's for others to decide. But I do think notability in the academic arena is an entirely different beast from politics, entertainment or business, which are the greatest focus of the news media. Txantimedia (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Having members of an organization who have written about the war may make the members notable but not so the organization.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an organization is formed that includes several people notable enough to have standalone articles in Wikipedia, does that not make the organization notable? Mark Moyar, Lewis Sorley, Sol Sanders, James S. Robbins and Michael Lee Lanning all have pages on Wikipedia, and I'm working on an article for Robert F. Turner which I feel confident will be accepted because of his credentials. Txantimedia (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a NOTINHERITED issue, though you might be able to claim WP:LISTN (e.g. list of authors who are members of VVFH (so not on VVFH, but on the group of notable people)). Are these notable authors signing off as VVFH members on their notable books? If so, you might have a claim given the citations of the books.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your comment. I'll go read up on NOTINHERITED and WP:LISTN. Most of the books were written before the group was formed. So, they would not have mentioned VVFH, because it didn't exist at the time they submitted their manuscript to the publisher. Txantimedia (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable group, written by an admitted conflict-of-interest-possessing editor. A smattering of fringe media (Newbusters, the Moonies' Washington Times, etc...) name-dropping it or it's notable members does not grant notabiliy on the group itself. ValarianB (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to understand this. Wikipedia has a page for the Special Forces Association. It lists the notable members and not much else. Should I nominate that for deletion? There are only two references and neither of them is RS. I would think that the Special Forces Association is encyclopedia material, and that's why it's there. Yet, every one of you has voted to delete this article, which is another association along the same lines. We have several members who have standalone articles in Wikipedia (I just discovered another one - William L Stearman. I was not aware I could list our members like that, and I was trying to avoid bragging about our members (although they are worth bragging about.) I can rework the article so it meets the standards, but I need to understand what the standards are. Why is the Special Forces Association article acceptable, yet the Vietnam Veterans for Factual History is not? Have the standards changed? Are pages being judged and scrutinized more stringently now? Would the assistance of an experienced editor help in improving the article? Why are Newsbusters and Washington Times "fringe" media? Is only the NY Times acceptable? Is there a list somewhere that defines precisely which sources are acceptable and which are not? Txantimedia (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a mention of the group with a cite in The Vietnam War (TV series)#Critical reception with an internal link to this article. Txantimedia (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link to which you refer is that VVAH wrote a letter to Ken Burns; this is hardly a notable act.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think it's notable that the group has written a letter to PBS, Ken Burns and Bank of America challenginge them to a debate and demanding that they make corrections to the documentary? That the letter has been discussed on national news and radio stations? Really? What exactly IS notable? Txantimedia (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the slightest, no. Please read WP:Bludgeon when you have a moment, you're digging yourself into a hole by challenging each and every user who calls for deletion, in my opinion. ValarianB (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I thought, as the author of the article, I was supposed to respond to the criticisms to provide information so a decision could be reached. Txantimedia (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for all the reasons cited above. That the group has written a letter, no matter to whom or what is demanded, is hardly notable. Nor that "the letter has been discussed on national news and radio stations", especially when the so-called "discussion" is hardly more than acknowledgement that a complaint was made. The sources are very thin, and even incestous, reminding me of a tactic used by the "creation science" people: write a bunch of articles citing each other. I particularly note Txantimedia's comments (above, emphasis added) "We have several members", and "I was trying to avoid bragging about our members...." It appears he is connected with the organization; he should declare whether he is, or not. Overall, it appears that article is part of an organization's campaign to boost itself. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did note that I had COI. I resent that you're claiming I was trying to be deceptive. At this point, I'm inclinded to delete the page myself. Is that allowable? Txantimedia (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per the tag: "the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." You're not allowed to preempt the process.

I did not claim that you were "trying to be deceptive", and if you are going to be that careless and/or thin-skinned you will quite likely collect a few bruises. Strictly speaking, your mention in passing that you have a COI is hardly a declaration. Please examine WP:COI. Note especially that if you have been paid by VVFH then you must disclose that. Note also that "COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete non-notable organization. The content needs to be transferred to the articles of the members of this organization. Lorstaking (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Could this be repurposed as Historiography of the Vietnam War? This may be a better outcome than TNT, perhaps by userifying it. I suspect this will be a challenge for anyone but an academic historian. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until it is pared down to a reliably sourced version. theis would mean removing entire sections, such as subhead "Membership." Using an unreliable historian like Guenter Lewy is an indication that this group is fringe. I am saying userfy instead of delete because there is coverage in WP:RS such as Austin American Stateman: text: "Steve Sherman, a Houstonian who was a Green Beret in Vietnam in 1967-68 and founded Vietnam Veterans for Factual History, will attend the summit but thinks that, despite its strengths, it lacks adequate balance for the likes of Hayden and Kerry, who returned from service in Vietnam and testified against the war before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, famously asking, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" You don't fight a war to come to a draw. You win the war, and then you help pick up the pieces when it's all done, like we did with the Marshall Plan in Europe," Sherman said. We paid a horrible price, and we ought to learn some lessons from it," said Robert Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia Law School, who served two tours of duty in Vietnam as an Army captain. The lessons are not that we should never try to stop aggression or tyranny or that we cannot win unconventional wars," Turner said. "The reality is that by the early '70s, American troops were winning the military war. The American people, however, had had enough, he said. The communists, Turner said, didn't win on the battlefield but prevailed in the court of public opinion. They didn't think they could defeat the American military," Turner said. "They thought they could tie us down and use propaganda to turn our people against our government and persuade Congress to throw in the towel.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:24, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyn Heffernan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: who deleted this A7 in 2015, after a keep AfD in 2013 (for an article which appears to have significantly better sourcing than the current article). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have fleshed out the article as to her local, activist, and musical notability. kencf0618 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted the old deleted edits of Kalyn Heffernan, since they were not WP:Parallel histories with the visible edits. (At 14:12, 1 January 2015‎ User:86.170.130.156 speedy-delete-tagged it as {{db-person}}, snd so I deleted it at 14:13, 1 January 2015.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the group she is a part of might be notable, but she is not notable as an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage about her specifically to show she passes either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, if her band had an article I would say redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molina Speaks[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. St0n3 BG (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: no evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 9 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. Mz7 (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madarsha Government Primary School[edit]

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

Primary schools are not normally included unless they are very notable with coverage in WP:Reliable sources. Nothing in this page establishes any notability and there are zero WP:RS... Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MarginalCost (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as primary schools need significant coverage and has to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete - junior schools are not generally considered notable as per consensus. No reason to think that this would have any special claim to notability. JMWt (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary schools need clear demonstation of notability. That is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete failing WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:18, 8 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. Mz7 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of Slavery on Modern African American Lives[edit]

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

An essay and a POV fork. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is it forked from? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean it's a literal content fork, but it largely duplicates the topics at African-American history. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful information to African Americans or other articles and delete. As I read this essay, I thought it seemed like a school project. Sure enough, it is. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of essays.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY. And excellent find regarding it being a school project by MShabazz. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 9 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. Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future Search[edit]

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

Promotional, poorly referenced, and no clear notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete subject not meet Wikipedia's generally notability guidelines. HINDWIKI • CHAT 02:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 04:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like an instruction book on how to do one... Also, it has been sitting on a cleanup tag since 2009 and is directly sourced by just one primary source. Gatemansgc (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article in 2008 and, as an IP critic said on the Talk page in 2009, it seems designed to direct traffic towards the book. I did find a comparative text which covers this approach ("Appreciative Future Search: Involving the Whole System in Positive Organization Change", Organization Development Journal, 2000 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) which might underpin an article, but the current article content is so promotional as to require starting-over. If anything, this method could be more appropriately covered under the Collaborative problem-solving group article. AllyD (talk) 09:15, 8 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] Over 80 per cent of British Jews believe Labour is too tolerant of anti-Semitism within its ranks, poll finds, Independent, 19 Aug 2017

[2] ttps://electrek.co/2017/12/02/elon-musk-tesla-roadster-space-really/

[3] ttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-04/elon-musk-isn-t-joking-about-sending-a-tesla-to-mars

[4] Athabascau University: What is Political Economy?

[5] Carleton University: The Institute of Political Economy

[6] Concordia University: Political Economy

[7] University of Birmingham: Political Economy

[8] University of Berkeley: Political Economy

[9] Harvard University: Political Economics

[10] London School of Economics: MSc International Political Economy

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]