Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 July	30 July >

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) 19:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Mutawakil[edit]

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

Formerly a BLPPROD, I'm bringing this through here as there don't seem to be any sources confirming the player's appearances in either the Ghanaian or Nigerian leagues, both of which would confirm his specific notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 31 July 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. It seems like the inclusion criteria are not met here. As for people getting money and guaranteeing that an article will stay ... I'll raise this on WP:AN to get further input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Sacheli[edit]

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

Contested PROD, with the rationale being that the "information is real", which is all fine and dandy but doesn't exactly fill me with great confidence. I admit to a complete lack of ability to search for Italian sources, but what I'm finding in English only confirms existence rather than anything else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G4, recreation of deleted material. Please see AfD/Giovanni sacheli. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF. Ok, he exists. Ok, he's attended some conferences and spoken at a few conferences. Ok, he has a blog. None of this makes him notable by our standards, nor do their appear to be any reliable secondary sources attesting to his notability. Even this conference, which should be singing his praises as being a leading expert or some such in his field, has nothing to say that approaches our standards for notability. Given such rapid recreation after being deleted, a salting might be appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Related; The image on this article, along with four other images of this person that have been uploaded by the same person, have all been placed for deletion Commons. See C:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sentorino. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: If you close to delete, be aware that the redirect Giovani Sacheli will need to be deleted as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editors, I'm here to understand the reason for that deletion. Please could you explain why the page should be deleted? The article text links to websites of important Italian events in the subject area. Events websites mention and demonstrate his participation as main speaker to these events by many years. In Italy these events are considered the most important at national level. There is no false information or little authoritative sources. I understand Italian is not your language but you just need Google Translator to check the facts. Inside wikipedia there are pages for third category football players with 1 year participation, 99.99% of the population has never heard of them. So I really don't understand why you create all these false motives to delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovannisacheli (talk • contribs)

I did review the sources, even the ones in Italian. A conference website is not a neutral, reliable source that supports notability of a person. It might be useful to support individual bits of information in a biographical article, but by themselves do not significantly attest to a person's notability. I invite you to read WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF and see how this person (you?) properly matches up with those standards. Can you point to any newspaper/media articles that focus on this person as the subject of the article? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately the bio does not pass GNG or PROF (e.g. 0 GS citations) and the sources are all ephemeral. Agricola44 (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I paid a wikipedia editor a lot of money to create the page, because he proposed the deal to me, telling me also that the page will remain alive. I said to him I never eard about paid editors but he was sure about it. I think it is a robbery to delete the page with correct info. That's all. I will write about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentorino (talk • contribs)

Note to closing admin This rather changes the complexion of the matter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the message I received time ago:

Jenny C <[email protected]>

We saw an entry on Wikipedia which is currently up for deletion. We charge $150 for a complete article including clean up and management charges. ::Please let us know if you are interested so we can create one for you.

Regards

WikiStyle

Worst than mafia, pay and than the page is deleted. I think this matter require a full article with all the details, emails and all I have. 2.235.201.154 (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Sacheli[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloc[edit]

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

Found in underlinked backlog. This article about an advertising agency has a number of sources but they're exclusively press releases, non-notable industry awards. There are no reliable sources to be found, either present in the article or in a WP:BEFORE. A Train^talk 21:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the content reads like promotional material, and there's no particular claim of notability. The references listed are almost entirely the trade press. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline G11. Promotional in tone and the sources are all low quality "newswire" sort of services that look to make their money from printing press releases. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom.Refs are not very good, fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:14, 6 August 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) 19:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Schwartz[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Should have been CSD, BUT anom keeps reversing CSD. reddogsix (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable bio, fails WP:NACTOR, doesn't meet WP:GNG.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is about someone who has appeared in some YouTube videos, and that's all. The only source in the article apart from YouTube links is a three-sentence mention on IMDb which even states that she wrote it herself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable Youtube acress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 4 August 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) 19:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Benson (musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and couldn't find any reliable sources WP:RS Zazzysa (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable music artiste who even fails to meet WP:BASIC. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no claim to notability either by sources or content (WP:MUSICBIO). DrStrauss talk 09:55, 4 August 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. There is clear consensus to delete after extended discussion, which has since seen no new activity in several days. There is also consensus that a quixotic appearance in a single database does not, a species, make. bd2412 T 02:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitridae incertae sedis[edit]

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

These are bogus genus articles created by a bot. Neither Mitridae incertae sedis nor Pyramidellidae incertae sedis are genera (or even taxons). Species names like Pyramidellidae incertae sedis gracilis mean "a species in the family Pyramidellidae that has not been assigned to a genus". You can add "incertae sedis" to any taxon name, but it doesn't create a new taxon. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete immediately. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's agreed useful content, move as per Plantdrew's comment below; otherwise delete. Whatever happens, titles of the form "taxon-name incertae sedis" are wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The individual species within this placeholder taxon are themselves valid taxa, and I hope no one is arguing for removing those. However, the placeholder itself is not a taxonomic entity, and should not have an article. This goes for both nominated instances. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pyramidellidae incertae sedis is recognized by WoRMS [1] and given a separate status from the other genera in the large family Pyramidellidae. This has been done by a respected malacologist. The ICZN does indeed not mention "incertae sedis"; the closest reference I can find is art. 1.3.5, "Exclusions : as means of temporary reference and not for formal taxonomic use as scientific names in zoological nomenclature". On the other hand, Pyramidellidae incertae sedis insularis W. R. B. Oliver, 1915 has not been assigned a formal name yet, while Pyramidellidae incertae sedis gracilis has been renamed Rissopsetia gracilis (W. R. B. Oliver, 1915) [2] . In my opinion, we should keep Pyramidellidae incertae sedis until the problem is solved. It can be deleted at that time. As to Mitridae incertae sedis, the taxonomic problem has been solved and this article can be deleted (the species in this article has been recognized as Pterygia punctata (Swainson, 1821).) JoJan (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why we need to be bound by some taxonomic wierdness at WoRMS. insularis is the only problematic taxon with an article? Unless there's some irregularity in the description of Epigrus insularis (i.e., it is not an available name), I don't see why we can't move Pyramidellidae incertae sedis insularis to that title (with maybe a note that insularis is known not to be properly included in Epigrus). Plantdrew (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with this move. Species can only be given binomial names under the nomenclature codes; if the genus is really in doubt, the name can be displayed as Epigurus? insularis. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. That one taxon insularis is wikilinked from the Pyramidellidae article since 2012 and it is appropriate way. All informations, this means information, that the taxon exist is properly and completelly mentioned in the Pyramidellidae article. There are no need articles for incertae sedis taxa on generic level, especially when they contain one or two species. (Articles(s) of incertaie sedis taxa on specific level should be kept, of course.). --Snek01 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plantdrew wrote "delete" but actually argued for moving with some support, at least concerning the second article. Relisting for more discussion on that proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mitridae incertae sedis, as the references on the article both say the content there has been deleted. There's no non-bot content, and the bot content can be re-generated if there is sourcing. No opinion on Pyramidellidae incertae sedis. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:46, 1 August 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 sources presented fail WP:RS -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theodora Lee[edit]

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

Teenage blogger / vlogger, who seems to be popular but doesn't have much in the way of reliable sourcing. A news search brings up two articles in The Sun which are totally unacceptable for a BLP, and an interview with Capetown Magazine. That's about it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources available for inclusion in a BLP. Clear failue of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It will not be notable any time soon. It was part of a recent editathon, but where possibly the facilitator(s) were too busy to chek what was happening: See [3] where it was launched on television. Unfortunately a lot of the pages can't be used. Which is a shame. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. MassiveYR ♠ 20:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails ANYBIO. DrStrauss talk 21:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an in-depth source here, and an in-depth source here, another one here, nominated for an award here (in-depth), a mention here, a mention here, described as an African YouTube star here, another mention here, and more coverage here. YouTube and vlogging are new media and should not be dismissed simply because their stars are young. Easily passes general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources appear to be mostly tabloid journalism and wholly unacceptable for an article about a living person. You shot yourself in the foot with the second and third sources. Don't ever use The Sun as a source for a BLP, it is a gutter press which has a long track-record of lying and making things up (type "justice for the 96" and "stick it up your junta" into Google). Please read WP:BLPSOURCES carefully. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose we discount The Sun as acceptable sources (although I think that it is a RS for a story about vlogging, that is, I believe it); there are sources such as this one and others, such as this award. My point is that many of us Wikipedians are old guys, we grew up with traditional media, and we have a tendency to dismiss new media such as YouTube -- but that is what younger people look to, and vloggers such as Theodora Lee are big deals in their worlds, celebrities of a new persuasion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dismiss YouTube as an indication of notability generally because anyone can put anything they like and say anything on it. There's no way of determining notability. We have many articles about notable YouTubers (eg: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candice Hutchings) because they are so well known they are covered in mainstream sources too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the content can be shoddy, but it is straightforward to determine viewership (which is what sources are pointing to); that is, the notability is not based on the quality of the content (which is something that even Wikipedians are not in a position to judge) but rather the attention (viewership, PageRank, etc, which tabloids, the media, and Wikipedians are in a position to judge).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Sun does seem to have a grip on the sources, but I am still unconvinced regarding GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:13, 6 August 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Arcostanzo[edit]

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

Deprodded by the author without addressing the concern, which is the almost complete lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources despite 57 references cited in the article. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Rentier (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At a conservative estimate, at least half the citations aren't about the subject of the article at all, but merely relate to other people mentioned in the article. The ones specifically about the subject of the article all seem to be from self-published sources (e.g. Discogs, which is not WP:RS for demonstrating WP:NOTABILITY); or in one case, a brief review by a journalist who'd been sent a freebie EP. None of those citations provides anything like the independent in-depth coverage needed to pass WP:BIO.

I ran a search. I found several social websites, but absolutely no third-party coverage at all which was specifically about him.

(I note in passing that the article was created by a WP:SPA.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there was a guideline somewhere about reference-stuffing in the hope of making an article look notable - WP:BOMBARD. Narky Blert (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:10, 29 July 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) 19:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BigBlueBall (website)[edit]

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

This was kept in 2005 based on Google hits, forum subscriber numbers, and Alexa rank. Notability criteria was much looser back in the day; we have tightened it considerably since.

I cannot find any sources that indicate this website satisfies the WP:GNG or web-based media criteria. The PC World source given in the article is a mere trivial mention in an overall discussion of IM programs. The interview with the founder is an informal interview on a forum which is a dead link now anyways. Any book mentions I've found have been trivial mentions with no in-depth discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 20:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a brief search, I came to the same conclusion. No clear claims to notability could be found. South Nashua (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Shrivastav[edit]

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

Does not quite meet WP:A7. An assistant-editor. Has not been credited for contributions to the only linked film in the filmography, Jazbaa. Mduvekot (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 20:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article creator's contributions make me suspect undeclared paid editing... --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 2 August 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) 19:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Hechtman[edit]

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

According to the username of the article's creator, most likely an autobiography for self promotion. Other than a couple of short local articles, virtually no other references to this student. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 20:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete may have a future, but at this time certainly far from WP:FILMMAKER. No opposition to recreation should notability be met.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Hechtman hopes to continue making more narrative shorts and documentaries, as well as commercial and event work. He also wants to produce feature films." And the best of luck to him in this. Meanwhile, delete. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 5 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Maleck[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, hasn't played a professional game yet. Fram (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Fram. This guy will probably have an article in due course, but probably not in the next year or so. We can wait. MX (✉ • ✎) 00:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not disputing the fact that the subject of the article fails WP:NFOOTY or the fact that this article probably is WP:TOOSOON and will probably be significantly expanded in the future. However after some quick searches on Bing and Google I believe that the subject of the article does have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. See here {1, 2, 3, 4) for entire webpage articles that are focused solely about him. This is certainly not your average routine coverage of a footballer and in my opinon definitely passes the WP:GNG requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - as per Inter's arguments Spiderone 16:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - see Inters points. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above fails NFOOTY, and in my opinion also fails GNG. Having a few articles in a local paper on a kid that is a 'promising footballer' is not a claim to notability. The lad has not done or aceived anything notable. Local journos looking for copy will pounce on any handy hopeful and write an article, but WP is an encyclopaedia of notable things, not a mirror of local newspaper articles. Maybe the lad will one day do something notable, but right now it is TOOSOON ClubOranje^T 09:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: equal numerical !votes, concerns over whether the GNG trumps NFooty and TooSoon
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should not be about whether any policy 'trumps' any other policy, it should be about whether he is 'notable' by Wikipedia standards. Has the subject acheived anything noteworthy, or has he just had a couple of human interest articles in local papers - and even if it is in wider media, is it there because it is 'notable' or is it still just a page filler for a bit of local interest. Too many people seem to think having an article in a paper qualifies as GNG; I've seen plenty of people in the papers and they are not notable by Wikipedia standards - including a homeless guy who made local headlines which were picked up by all the papers because he set up camp at a secluded local beach and lived naked. Not notable; just human interest story. ClubOranje^T 20:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I highly agree with you ClubOranje that there really is no substitute or trump policy for WP:GNG, but I'm afraid that's where are views diverge. The subject of the article in question (Joao Maleck) are more than just human interest stories in local newspapers. This article on Maleck is by ESPN Deportes, are they a "local paper"? A quick search shows that Maleck has been subject to a wide range of coverage spanning from 2016 to 2017, so WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply here either in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:45, 2 August 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) 19:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca of basketball[edit]

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

While I am sure all these venues have deep ties to the game and would love to be titled the "Mecca of Basketball" I think it would be appropriate to delete this DAB. None of the linked articles even mention the nickname "Mecca of basketball." Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 19:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MSG is probably the most known as the Mecca, and Rupp Arena is not even mentioned on this list. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 19:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this dab page is merely a point of view, not encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely subjective opinion, as any building can easily qualify such under the title (the MassMutual Center could claim it easily as being in the city where the sport originated, for instance). On another note, I'm surprised that the MECCA Arena isn't here. Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be original research; even if references exist the page is problematic. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:33, 31 July 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 19:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court of Pakistan Building[edit]

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

The article gives no indication that the building itself is significant either through WP:GEOFEAT or WP:GNG. The two references it gives fail WP:42, one is merely a Google Maps entry and the other is affiliated. The design paragraph is also weasel-worded e.g. "reputed". DrStrauss talk 19:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GEOFEAT references the "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" of buildings as reasons to keep; the building erected to house the supreme court of a country, and in use for that purpose for over 50 years, should inherently meet the first three. The fact that sources were easily found indicating that the architecture of this building represented a decided effort to break from the past architecture of the country should also meet the fourth. bd2412 T 20:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:COMMONSENSE; the seat of a nation's highest court doesn't usually need much more than a basic description of the building to earn a keep. GEOFEAT additionally seals it. Nate • (chatter) 02:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "The building was part of an effort by the government of Pakistan to incorporate modernism into the architecture of important government buildings, for which several world-renowned architects were invited..." I would agree that WP:GEOFEAT applies in this case; it seems a landmark modernist work, both literally and figuratively. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Supreme Court of Pakistan article is on the court, whereas this is on the building which houses that court and its architecture. As it is one of the prominent buildings of Islamabad, it should be kept. Mar4d (talk) 05:15, 30 July 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. Consensus is that there are insufficient quality sources to meed WP:NPOL and WP:GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Buchanan (politician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County council is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass — but the sources here aren't getting him over WP:GNG in lieu, as they're predominantly primary sources or unreliable blogs, and even the few that are acceptable reliable sources are mostly just namechecking his existence within coverage of the council as a whole. There aren't even close to enough sources here that are both reliable and substantively about him. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that county council members do not automatically get notability, however this person is certainly more notable than the average county councillor. Whatcom County has a population of over 200,000 people (ranking 306 out of 3000+ counties in the US), and the council has recently been involved in decisions that have national and global impacts^[1]^[2]. Bearcat, I know you disagree with this reasoning elsewhere, but there is clearly no bright line that determines which county councils are big enough or important enough to have articles. WP:NPOL merely states that notability is not automatic, not that all county councilors must be excluded from Wikipedia. Barry Buchanan, as the council president, gets more than the average amount of press coverage, and is often quoted speaking on behalf of the council. It's true that a Merge with Whatcom County Council is an option, but because of Buchanan's earlier political history as president of the Bellingham City Council it seems to make more sense for him to have a stand-alone page. I recognize that this is a marginal case, but I don't see the harm in leaving this page and letting it grow. Almccon (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The population of a county is irrelevant to whether a county councillor clears a Wikipedia notability standard or not. It's not enough to assert that the county has made decisions of national importance, or that he gets quoted: any press coverage has to be specifically about him, not just namechecking his existence within coverage whose subject is something else, to count toward getting him over WP:GNG. But none of the references being cited here are doing that at all. The harm in keeping an article about a person whose standalone notability to an international audience hasn't been properly demonstrated is that the next guy who comes along with no genuinely solid notability could use this as a precedent to demand that we keep his article too — and then we're nothing more than a worthless LinkedIn clone in two weeks flat. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POLOUTCOMES states local politicians often meet the standard for notability when "if they have received national or international press coverage." The Vancouver Sun article only namechecks the subject, as does the other reliable sourced material. While I would agree that there are some counties (or other non-city) local governments where they represent an "internationally famous metropolitan areas " but I would not try to define a definition for those offices - which would not encompass the Whatcom County Council. --Enos733 (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete 200,000 is not of such a large size that council members get default notability at the county level. This is especially true because the county involved is not so much a center of an urban area, but part of a larger urban area. My county (Macomb County, Michigan) has over 800,000 people, but I would not argue that county comissioners are default notable, not even back when they were more accurately described by that term since they were the joint executive body for the county, with both legislative and executive powers. I do not think even all members of the Wayne County, Michigan comission, with a population approaching 2 million are default notable, Whatcom County is way below default notability status. I would not argue that all cities in the US of over 200,000 confer default notability status on city council members either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- One specific rebuttal: Whatcom County isn't considered to be part of a larger urban area, not by the locals, nor by any official government agency. See Seattle metropolitan area for various statistical definitions of the greater Seattle area, none of which include Whatcom. Washingtonians think of Whatcom and its county seat Bellingham as a distinct and independent area within the state. Almccon (talk) 05:00, 4 August 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) 19:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buljit Buragohain[edit]

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

Non notable writer/academic. Fails WP:GNG. Was created by a paid editing sockfarm. Jupitus Smart 18:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 29 July 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 Jacob Faye-Lund. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Faye Lund[edit]

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

Has not played a football game in a fully professional league, per WP:FPL. Geschichte (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFOOTY. DrStrauss talk 18:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his brother, Jacob Faye-Lund, where Julian is briefly mentioned. As others have noted, he's not independently notable, but he's well-known enough to be a plausible search term. This is often done with non-notable athletes related to notable ones - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph LaMotta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Doolittle (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Fitzgerald (ice hockey), all of which were closed in the same way. Additionally, there are plenty of similar redirects which were never subject to AfD as they have always been redirects, including Tyler Nevin, Ryan Ripken, and Tate Matheny, among others. Smartyllama (talk) 14:35, 2 August 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. Whether to keep or to merge/redirect. Sandstein 09:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010)[edit]

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

A case of WP:NOTNEWS on a non-notable attack associated with a much larger conflict. This article was deleted in 2010 (then overturned to "no consensus" because it was a recent event) and I can see why: there has been no WP:LASTING impact. Sadly, these types of incidents are common on both sides and it requires noteworthy evaluation overtime to be consider more than news. A few days of media attention is just not enough. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slick, Any particular reason why you omitted to add the previous AFD discussion to this page?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Timeline_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#2005.E2.80.93present:_Post-Intifada.2C_Gaza_conflict as an alternative to deletion, and to preserve incoming links. Not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article; one sentence already present in the "Timeline" article is enough to cover it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NEWS deletion rationale cannot be applied as it not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities " it high-profile criminal act that was covered by multiple WP:DIVERSE sources per WP:NCRIME--Shrike (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: can you explain how you consider two days of news coverage as a "high-profile" act? Also, please elaborate on what made this "high-profile" such as a notable WP:LASTING impact. Thanks. And yes it is WP:ROUTINE news reporting; crimes are not exempt from that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Please actually read WP:DIVERSE. Sources are discounted if they "simply mirror or tend to follow other sources"; that is the case here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained it was covered by multiple international news sources like BBC,AP and Telegraph and it was not in passing hence its not WP:ROUTINE.WP:LASTING is only one of the factors that govern notability there are others that this event meets--Shrike (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. And @Shrike: do you realize the very policy you use (WP:GEOSCOPE) says "events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article". So, again, I ask what is the WP:LASTING impact of this WP:ROUTINEly covered incident?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per WP:NCRIME. Coverage exists also post 2010. Perp being a PA policeman increased the notability and impact of this event.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per K.e.coffman. Reason: WP:NCRIME, which requires that media coverage of criminal acts satisfy the other requirements of WP:EVENT. The coverage of this stabbing clearly fails the requirements for both depth and duration of coverage. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MShabazz Should event to satisfy all 5 requirements to be notable and worthy of article ?--Shrike (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it only needs to satisfy one of the criteria, but this attack doesn't satisfy any of the inclusion criteria. No lasting effects. No "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group". No "coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". No diversity of sources. As far as depth of coverage, "coverage must be significant and not in passing". Nope. In the end, this attack -- tragic as it was -- falls into the category of "[r]outine kinds of news events (including most crimes...) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time" and isn't notable. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per K.e.coffman.TrickyH (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I am very open to a merge and redirect because of the excellent reasons offered by K.e.coffman and MShabazz. I am not implying, however, that the subject is any more notable, just that there is a legitimate article to redirect to.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Before it is claimed here as "continuing coverage", the two sources added are passing mentions of this incident -- as in one sentence worth. The first is from a list and the second discusses a completely unrelated attack that was prevented. Simply mentioning that this 2010 incident existed is not enough and editors should be familiar with that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note That this topis was brought to AFD in 2010 (Nom failed to link that discussion to this page). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing It is an interesting discussion because it was closed as Delete despite what reads like a consensus to Keep; the decision was overturned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN Article has been expanded to include discussion of the "extraordinary" nature of this terrorist attack carried out by a police officer, a member of the Palestinian Civil Police Force. The fact that perp was a police officer serving on the staff of the Chief of Police in Ramallah, a large city that is the de facto capitol of the Palestinian Authority, made this attack notable, as evidenced by the national and international coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of citing an essay, would you care to address the fact that the article fails to satisfy the relevant notability guideline? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, Shabazz, WP:HEY is a standard way of waving a flag "to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion".E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as User:Shrike and User:Icewhiz point out, it passes WP:NCRIME. There was both national and international WP:COVERAGE, including WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, marking this attack as a crime far from the sort of WP:ROUTINE crime that can be dismissed under WP:NOTNEWS. Sourcing in indisputably WP:DIVERSE, in part, no doubt, because it is not usual for police officers to commit terrorist attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, both of them made unfounded assertions. Can you please respond to the objections raised above that coverage of this attack does not satisfy WP:DIVERSE or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly; DIVERSE: "Significant national or international coverage," and WP:SIGCOV are met by articles including BBC: "Defence officials accuse Palestinian PM of "inciting anti-Israeli violence"", and "Soldier's Murder Was Latest in Trend of Terror by PA Security" in Haaretz. As you know, only ONE of the indici of notability listed under WP:NCRIME technically needs to be met ot establish NOTABILITY, but here we do have ONGOING COVERAGE in article including 2013, Times of Israel "Palestinian stabs Israeli to death in West Bank" and Al-Monitor 2014 "Druze Knesset member slams Arab leaders as 'weak'", and Jerusalem Post 2014, "Border Police stop terrorist en-route to suicide bombing at Tapuah Junction".E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets WP:GNG and per WP:HEY I believe E.M.Gregory clearly edited the page in a way to show it had coverage over the course of several years. - Galatz ^Talk 15:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite a single source that shows coverage of the attack or analysis of its importance after 2010. Not a mention of it in a timeline of attacks against Israelis, or memorials. Coverage or analysis of the attack. There just isn't any. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man argument. Extensive analysis given in "Context" section of article, more than enough to establish notability. MShabazz is not making a rules-based argument when he demands post-2010 analysis, alhtouth. as Galatz points out, it exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Here are three which are currently used in the article after 2010: [4], [5], [6]. - Galatz ^Talk 16:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I appreciate the effort, but the first link is about a memorial, the second link is a timeline, and the third is a passing mention of the incident in an article about a 2014 arrest near Tapuah Junction. No continued coverage. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And an editorial in a major newspaper 8 months after the attack occurred, and the ~~2010~~ 2012 (correct date) book by Martin Gilbert... Shabazz, your argument that there has been no "coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle", is false.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a point in your comments. The event was clearly notable enough that they covered the memorial in the first. The second and third found it notable to include, I am sure tons of stuff has happened that did not get mentioned because it wasn't notable. - Galatz ^Talk 18:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that no Hebrew or Arabic sources have been added to article yet, although they must exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sigh, I knew the second Gregory just piled on new reports and quotes like he always does in these circumstances, editors would blindly vote keep. Already fooled you @Galatz:; there is no impact or analysis for this incident to be considered for anything more than a brief mention in the timeline already mentioned. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you on that. Whether you argue about the sources showing continued coverage or not, the fact that it was a Palestinian Preventive Security is rare, and makes this instance stand out from others that might not seem notable. Similarly Salam Fayyad condemned this attack, something else that almost never happens. If you look at the article before the nomination [7] vs the current article [8] they are vastly different and that was why I referenced WP:HEY in my vote. The original article didn't do much to show notability, but the revised version does. - Galatz ^Talk 18:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: try WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:PRIMARYNEWS -- good reads and actual policies. I don't recall rarity ever being a sure-fire reason to keep an article, especially when the act itself is common, but maybe these actual guidelines will explain further why this is not enough for a standalone article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rarity certainly isn't a sure fire reason, but my point is that there are several RS over a period of time that discuss the event, plus due to the issues above it is not WP:ROUTINE. Plus keep in mind that WP:GNG trumps these other guidelines mentioned, and the events meet the criteria. - Galatz ^Talk 21:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand how the sources not meet WP:DIVERSE.Telegraph,BBC,NYPOST,JPOST,HAARETZ and Boston Globe.Yes they reporting the same event so details will be the same but there are not mirroring each other.--Shrike (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: the issue is there is no significant post-analysis or societal impact directly related to this event. It received a wave of news coverage reporting in the same manner that this incident exists. It declined to brief mentions thereafter. Common sense (and our guidelines) would say it makes much more sense to merge and redirect this article since it is a small part of a larger conflict. So far, no one has specified a significant impact because there isn't one -- hence a reason this does not need a standalone page. What possibly needs to be said here that cannot be summarized in a list? The answer is nothing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well there were a number of impacts here. The settlement movement suggested to name a settlement to honor the deceased Druze victim, and Druze leadership visited the spot - which is significant for intra-Israeli relations. The fact that the perp was a high-ranking officer in one of the PA's security apparatuses is significant and affected future cooperation. This was the first deadly incident (and the prior incident was in Gaza, which is becoming quite separate) against Israelis in over a year (see - [9]) - so this wasn't quite part of a routine conflict at that time. Following the event there were also reprisals (or "price tags") - which is also significant given the timeline.Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sources attest to these points or are these your opinions? A memorial of some kind to a victim is certainly not uncommon (its localized regardless). I would love to see the sources that support your claims about how Druze leadership visiting the site affected relations significantly and how the identity of the perp affected "future cooperations". Price tagging is also common practice in these types of incidents. So please provide the sources @Icewhiz:; I hope you didn't expect me to take your word for it. Possibly find the WP:LASTING societal (not localized) impact that keep voters seem to forget too, if you don't mind.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The junction was named after him: [10] [11], and here are calls by Druze leadership in 2011 to name a new settlement for him - [12]. As for reprisals - it isn't that common to begin with, was less common in around 2010 (this really picked up in 2011 following the Itamar attack), and is mainly done by the Jewish residents in response to attacks/actions against the residents - I will have to get back to you regarding sourcing here - It's complex as the "price tag" common name was not as established back then.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom (GracefulSlick) is attempting to require that every one of the indici discussed in WP:NCRIME and WP:EVENTCRITERIA be met with multiple examples. But the "test" for notability of an event or crime is whether it is " "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". We gauge this using a set of set of guidelines that require good faith interpretation by editors who are understood to be attempting to reach a consensus. Note that WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE are indici of notability; there is no requirement that each of them be met, let alone that each of them be met to the satisfaction of any individual editor or group of editors. Also Note that all editors on this page have extensive editing experience; I strongly suggest that we all attempt to WP:AGF and that, as a first step towards reaching consensus, editors should cease accusing highly experiences Wikipedians of having failed to read the guidelines they cite.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unchanged -- still "Redirect". Coverage is WP:ROUTINE for this type of crime; no lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an personal opinion, NOT a policy based argument; WP:ROUTINE does not make an exception for "this type of event" (the point-blank murder of a driver by a police officer as an act of political terrorism.) WP:ROUTINE applies to "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out." The fact that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy-based argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON on top of bludgeon... bludgeon...bludgeon. Maybe your call for assuming good faith can go both ways? Every time an editor says something you disagree with you just claim they don't like the subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman is free to offer his opinion that this is "routine," but as an experienced editor who weighs in on virtually every terrorism-related discussion at AFD he ought to know better than to mis-cite a guideline.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article; one sentence already present in the "Timeline" article is enough to cover it. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but a list entry doesn't "cover it." Not at all. Those very brief listings leave out a great deal of detail, including the fact that the Israeli was murdered in cold blood while waiting at a traffic light, responses by the Druze community, the call by an MK for the death penalty, the responses by PA officialdom, the great rarity of a highly placed police official committing an act of terrorism, the responses by PA politicians, the situating of this attack by multiple security analysts within what was then a new trend towards incitement to murder by Palestinian Authority leaders, and much more. We can WP:PRESERVE information to Wikipedia's readers users seeking to understand the IP conflict by creating and keeping well-sourced articles like this instead of mere lists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as I agree with suggestion. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please offer a basis for your opinion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still expanding this article, see, for example, this [13] interesting contextualization by Avi Issacharoff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for revealing that attacks by PA officers were much more common than previously stated with this source which, again, only passively mentions this attack! Icewhiz do you want to change your response to "merge and redirect" with this new information? Gregory has shown us this was part of a specific trend -- something like this can easily be summed up in the articles already mentioned above since there was nothing individually notable about this incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check Slick's assertion. Attacks by Palestinian police officers are shown by the article Slick references to have been extremely rare in 2010. What the article asserts is that there was an "emerging trend" of attacks by various Palestinian Authority security services. Incidents that highlight emergin trends are, of course, notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unchanged still "Keep" I continue to think both that the article passes WP:NCRIME and that as per WP:PRESERVE we would be wrong to lose useful information by merging this article to a list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article created in 2010 and edited by over two dozen editors throughout the years. Edits in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017. It sure looks as plenty of people throughout the years (not to mention sources such as the BBC) found the subject matter encyclopaedic. Now, in all fairness, let's ask a question: Is the Wikipedia running out of server space? No. This event has been widely covered by WP:RS worldwide and the article continues to be edited 7 years after the fact! There is no sound rationale for deletion, and if this were deleted for reasons of being considered "minor" (in the eyes of the deleter), then about 1/2 of the Wikipedia, with articles with less sources and less edits, would have to be deleted too, for consistency. As the latter is unlikely to happen, the deletion of this page and not of the others would show clear bias/censorship by the deleters. XavierItzm (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people editing an article is not a measure of notability. You haves copy and pasted the second half of your statement three times now and all it does is use WP:OSE arguements and ad hominem attacks. If you can't even be bothered with writing out a thoughtful rationale, don't participate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does User:XavierItzm make an ad hominem attack?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since this appears to be User:XavierItzm's first comment on this thread, I suppose you to be implying that he has made similar comments at other AFD discussions. I am not only unaware of any policy prohibiting editors from doing so, I have noticed that it is a common practice with editors who frequent areas I am familiar with, (editors on politician AFD discussions using the same wording repeatedly to point out that being an unsuccessful candidate does not confer notability,; editors at author-related discussions using the same wording repeatedly to point out that writing a book that garners multiple, independent reviews does confer notability).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this AFD is part of a recent series of terrorism-related AFDs in which Nom attempts to change the usual outcome of articles about terrorist attacks. At least in recent years, terrorist attacks have been judged notable underWP:NCRIME, when they meet WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE, and, if brought to AFD a year or so later, have been uniformly kept if there has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING. Here GSlick, persuades a fellow editor that this is the usual outcome [14]. Obviously, Slick and I have differ. But editors coming to this page should know that this is part of a campaign to shift the usual outcome in a category of topics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is clear WP:NOTNEWS, just as the nominator stated. I don't understand all the Keep votes; I don't see lasting significant coverage. It's a single incident whose notability does not rise to the level required by Wikipedia. Rockypedia (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or merge. Plenty of news sources throughout 2010 and a few post 2010 ones. The fact that this happened in 2010 satisfies p1 of Notnews. Attempting to have this removed because it fails point2 Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events doesn't follow the next next sentence: For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. An Israeli soldier being stabbed by Palestinian police is not a routine announcement. I feel that this nomination doesn't inkeep with the spirit of NOTNEWS. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is very clearly no consensus to delete this article, but there is still an ongoing debate about whether or not to keep the article in place or merge and redirect to Timeline_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#2005.E2.80.93present:_Post-Intifada.2C_Gaza_conflict and no clear consensus on that. It would be helpful if the post-relist discussion focused on whether or not news coverage of the event was sustained rather than routine.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 17:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AlessandroTiandelli333 how so? Do not just say "it's a terror attack". I urge you to look through the WP:ROUTINE coverage and come to a more thorough conclusion. At the very least, consider a the merge proposals if you can't be bothered with analyzing the sources.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I stand by my earlier keep vote) There is enough coverage to pass the usual NCRIME criteria. Just because the victim was Israeli is not a reason to set a different bar. Respectfully nom should stop replying to almost every comment here, per WP:BLUDGEON.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz I agree we shouldn't set this at a different bar for an Israeli victim. Which is why it needs to be merged and redirected. My take on policy does not change based on the origin of the victim or perpetrator.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but we routinely keep terrorist attacks carried out against soldiers in non-combat situations: 2009 Fort Hood shooting, Murder of Lee Rigby, 2015 Chattanooga shootings, 2013 La Défense attack, Toulouse and Montauban shootings. Slick appears to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia practice in re:terrorism-related articles. This is very similar to 2013 La Défense attack (except that the French soldier did not die). But, as Icewhiz says, editors are attacks to set a different bar for attacks in Israel than is set for attacks in Christian countries. @TheGracefulSlick: Slick, if you are setting the same bar for attacks worldwide, will you now nominate 2013 La Défense attack for deletion, or revise you position on this article?]E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the very similar 2015 Nice attack, which, like the 2013 La Défense attack, and the attack under discussion at this AfD was an ideologically motivated, terrorist attack on a soldier in a time of peace. It really does begin to look as though separate standards are being applied to attacks in Israel than are applied to attacks in Christian countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory it's amazing. Not only are you still WP:BLUDGEONing this AfD and using WP:OSE arguments, you are now accusing me of bias. You do release this is the first I/P-based article I have nominated, right? I judge everything by policy. Maybe those other articles are unnotable too; you act like I've analyzed every single article on Wikipedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have WP:AGF by accepting your statement that "My take on policy does not change based on the origin of the victim or perpetrator." and that "we shouldn't set this at a different bar for an Israeli victim." What I dispute is your assertion that this page should therefore "be merged and redirected." because after years of editing terrorism-related pages regularly, it does not seem to me that we delete pages on extremely similar that demonstrate this level of sourcing in Western countries other than Israel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you will apply the same standards to this murder of an Israeli soldier that were applied to attacks on French soldiers. (And that you cease WP:WIKIHOUNDING, (interaction analysis here: [15]) me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still support the merge and redirect proposal because not one single editor has demonstrated a significant impact resulting from this event, nor any post analysis that makes this more than a news story. News sources that are used simply summarize the event, sometimes with eyewitness accounts which is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. After the initial wave of coverage, there was simply passing mentions that keep voters try to pass off as significant but according to WP:INDEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE they are not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that notability under WP:NCRIME, is defined as: "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" Thes has been established by coverage of this attack that meets WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE. Opinions differ on the quesiton of whether coverage in the years since the attack has met WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:LASTING. But Note that, (as 2 experienced editors on opposite sides of the keep-or-merge discussion agree above) it is only required to meet one of these 5 criteria. There is no requirement that all 5 indicators of notability be met - let alone that they be met to the satisfaction of any individual editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, nothing "has been established". If it had been, we wouldn't be having this discussion. By the way, do you realize that you've made more than 30% of the edits to this page? Please stop bludgeoning the process. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unchanged (KEEP) I continue to stand by my opinion that this sourcing in this article meets both WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged E.M.Gregory is still the top contributor to this AfD, with more than twice as many edits as the number two contributor. BLUDGEON indeed. Give it up already. You've been successful at muddying the waters, and this will close as "no consensus". Now you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS and abusing the process. Please stop or I will report you at WP:AE. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting an editor's WIKIHOUNDING is not "casting aspersions." And I just want to mention that you have just "muddied the waters" by asserting that the closing editor will close this as no consensus rather than as keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, but accusing another editor of having one set of standards for Israeli victims and a lower bar for non-Israeli victims is casting aspersions. And while it's thoughtful for you to check in and inform us every day that you haven't changed your mind, agreeing with oneself doesn't magically create a consensus. There is no consensus to keep, nor is there a consensus to delete. In plain English, that means there's no consensus. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and yet there is a problem when editors apply different standards by making Israel-related AfD discussions unusually acrimonious, and by flocking to vote "delete" at Israel-related AfD, when they do not do with extremely similar attacks in other economically developed Western democracies that have sizeable numbers of politically Islamist citizens and where illegal entrants to the country carry out attacks. Note: 2015 Nice attack and 2013 La Défense attack did not get dragged to AfD. What I have requested of the editor above, is that standards be applied uniformly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And on the rare occasion when an article about an attack with similar facts in Paris does come to AfD, it gets kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Notre Dame attack. I am simply asking that uniform standards be applied to similar situations with similar amounts of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unchanged - "KEEP" - noteworthy and encyclopaedic article, as demostrated by the numerous WP:RS, and by the numerous Wikipedia editors who edited the article each year since its creation in 2010.XavierItzm (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone edited my comment of 18:09, 30 July 2017. Wow. I think even editing one's own comments is kinda iffy, though obviously I just went back and edited mine. But editing someone else's? Not cool. XavierItzm (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow indeed. Nobody gets to !vote twice. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, but neither does any editor get to alter a comment. Worse, I contacted the editor who made the change, because many editors are unaware of this rule, (here: [16]) and that editor chose not to return and make it right. I was WP:AGF on both sides (that XavierItzm forgot that he had already iVoted on this AfD - that happens; and that TheGracefulSlick was unaware of this rule. To my mind the worst faux pas here is GracefulSlick was notified and failed to make it right.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unchanged - Keep - Regardless of all other arguments above, I believe the article meets WP:GNG which trumps all other claims. - Galatz ^Talk 14:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged E.M.Gregory is still BLUDGEONing. He has made a whopping 40% of the edits to this page. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that MShabazz has iVoted ("unchanged")redaction twice since the page was relisted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note That's just not true. What's unchanged is that you're still bludgeoning the process. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the comment I made a few hours ago I commented: Note that MShabazz has already iVoted "Unchanged" following the relist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC) and that he removed [17] my comment without an edit note. I apologize for my carelessly reworded replacement of the deleted edit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 3 August 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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chhattisgarh Pre Engineering Test[edit]

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

Non-notable entry exam. Fails WP:GNG and content is suited for website, not an encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{this article should not be deleted <it is related to a state level standardized entrance test for admission into engineering in various institutions in state of chhattisgarh> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitsharaf (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and the examination is not notable whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last try, or I'll soft delete this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a manual. DrStrauss talk 18:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no encyclopedic notability here. bd2412 T 20:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why even bother with the relist, twice! Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 3 August 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 2016–17 Kashmir unrest. (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 14:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Kashmir Students Protests[edit]

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

I failed to find its notability per WP:NEVENTS. It is a sensitive issue so it will be better that non-Pakistani/Indians comment on that. Greenbörg (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose.the way you mentioned to find this article in sources is not working you should go for this news, books, images--Baltistani (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016–17 Kashmir unrest. This is part of the 2016-17 unrest after the death of Burhan Wani. The event is definitely significant (though not significant independently of the unrest). Rather than having too many scattered articles, I would prefer to keep this in the main article itself. It helps to preserve continuity and gives the entire picture in one go.--DreamLinker (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per DreamLinker. Seems like a content fork to me. DrStrauss talk 18:45, 29 July 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 Band of Brothers (TV series). (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 15:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Toye[edit]

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

Joe Toye was an NCO in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; neither his rank (staff sergeant) or his highest award (silver star) qualify him for notability under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, he recovered from his wounds as best he could and went on to live his life, doing nothing to qualify him for a page under WP:GNG. Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 19:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources about him, including several books. And portrait in a TV-series. That won't happen when you are a no-no.The Banner talk 16:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Redirect: I agree that the article probably doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER but it definitely meets WP:ANYBIO. DrStrauss talk 13:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Updating to redirect per PeacemakerDrStrauss talk 18:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Band of Brothers, certainly doesn't meet SOLDIER, and I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, almost all the books are by memoirs by Easy Company men. And what part of ANYBIO are you relying on here? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the article subject meet WP:ANYBIO? Would a redirect to Band of Brothers (TV series) be a preferable outcome to deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 16:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Band of Brothers (TV series); not independently notable per available sources and the article does not make a claim of notability either. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:02, 29 July 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) 19:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Lukusa[edit]

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

Local politician only, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: There does seem to be some independent coverage of him (see both the article and one other that's not there), but outside of it, there's nothing. I think he's on the bubble of being notable, but right now he's on the wrong side of it. Nomader (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I agree with Nomader. He is currently not a national level politician. Maybe he can get an article later. Technology Drive (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County councillors are not accorded an automatic notability freebie under WP:NPOL just for existing — of his 39 other colleagues on the council, just four of them actually have standalone biographies, and all four of those have some other claim of notability (e.g. being a present or former TD) beyond just being a county councillor. But the depth and volume of sourcing present here is nowhere near enough to get him over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders — if one newspaper article and a raw table of election results were all it took, we'd have to keep an article about every county councillor on the entire planet. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NPOL's automatic notability standard doesn't apply to local politicians. DrStrauss talk 18:50, 29 July 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay K Mulungi[edit]

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

Notablity, lack of. slim claim of notability but sources either self-published or flaky. TheLongTone (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 13:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be stupendous if someone could look for sources in Swahili.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 16:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. sources are poor like imdb. LibStar (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Nature Organization[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources, a press release has been used a few times in the references but that's it. The organisation is at least non-notable and possibly a hoax (see talk page for work by @DeWikiMan: on this). Landscape repton (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 16:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding independent sources either to establish notability or even article content to write about. The article itself seems to be a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL violation for apparently not being formally established yet even though the press release seems to indicate it is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 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) 19:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games opening ceremony[edit]

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

Non-notable ceremony for an event like this. Usually these articles are reserved for the Olympics and Continental sporting events. In this case this is below both categories. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games already exists and is sufficient; no need for a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no sources and no information that isn't already in the main article of this event. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per K.e.coffman. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:36, 31 July 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) - TheMagnificentist 12:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 CPISRA World Games[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following as they are sub articles of the above.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a top-level multi-nation multisport event it should get the benefit of a presumption of notability. A deeper search for sources, including offline, might deliver the goods. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:56, 31 July 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. There is a clear consensus after extended discussion, which has seen no additional impetus towards deletion since relisting last month. I also note the uncontroversial existence of a more thoroughly sourced article on the software produced by the article subject. Since both articles are fairly short, and it is unlikely that the product (a subtopic) is more notable than its producer, I am WP:BOLDly merging and redirecting the subtopic into its supertopic. bd2412 T 03:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrike[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Press coverage and non-notable media/ online blogs covered as references. Spam Award is found: Red Herring'. Definitely paid or PR driven. Sources are not in-depth. Previously Deleted as well. Light2021 (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The market of over 150 project planning programs out there is rapidly collapsing into just a small handful of players, Wrike being one of the dominant ones. They are well capitalized (Bain VC), grown to over 500 employees and recently moved their headquarters to downtown San Jose. Their development team in St Petersburg, Russia and opening of a large Dublin, Ireland office and data center are hallmarks of a Silicon Valley success story with global presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptide360 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrike participants: Hu12 (talk · contribs), Rjd0060 (talk · contribs), Dreamyshade (talk · contribs), and Burzmali (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrike (2nd nomination) participants: Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), Deadbeef (talk · contribs), and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The available press coverage is sufficient for notability. The article used to be much longer with many more references - see 10 May 2017. The article would benefit from critical perspectives instead of just including positive information about the company, but as WP:ATD says: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Dreamyshade (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why does the nomination disregard the 2nd nomination, which was unanimous to keep? Unscintillating (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Deadbeef (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrike (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as supported by WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Deletion policy, WP:Promotion and WP:Not webhost since both information and sources are promotional, see: 1-9, 11-15, 17-18 are all republished company-label announcements, 10 and 16 is an company-published overview, and the offered "article used to be bigger" is not a policy-supported factor since, not only were these promotional sources existing then, but it was worse, showing attempts to remove advertising here were unsuccessful; in the former article, 34 was a total sources number and 18-34 were all clear company-label announcements again. Suggesting that we simply replace promotionalism with either different coated or reworded is not how encyclopedia articles work, and it wouldn't maintain our integrity here. From WP:What Wikipedia is not: Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions, and that's exactly what's offered as information and sources, and the quoted policy supersedes GNG every and any time. In fact, the history shows accounts such as potential COI this, this, this, this, this, etc. To quote the cited GNG, it actually says: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity therefore republished publicity is not a factor at all, and this therefore emphasizes the need of independent non-PR coverage, not simply any bare coverage. A comment above says the coverage is "sufficient, reliable independent" yet clear analysis here shows it's quite contrary. Our standards have dramatically changed since 2014 especially when the current paid campaigns are occurring so we have the critical choice of examining articles differently now. If we were suggested to take good-faith on unquestionably clear promotionalism by promotional users, that would stepping back on our own fundamental policies stating: Wikipedia is not for promotion. In fact, if we take into consideration the clear possibility the named accounts were elusive employees, that would violate our Terms of Use against paid contributing, a non-negotiable policy. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Company and software have extensive coverage. This one is from a Forbes staff writer and this one is from the news editor at PC World. Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. While nominator is correct it was deleted in the past, the most recent nomination shows withdrawn after 2 keep !votes. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:21, 5 August 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) 19:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Theil[edit]

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

Only ref is a block. No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician where the only assertion of notability is a blog interview. Clearly doesn't meet WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best I can find is a Record Collector review of one of his albums [18]. That's not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, but I'll happily reconsider if more coverage is presented. gongshow talk 00:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Edwardx (talk) 09:04, 30 July 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) 19:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meinrad Craighead[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Cannot find secondary reliable sources about this person other than the single one cited in the article EvergreenFir (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other than the fact that Duke University has her papers in their collection, there is little evidence of notability.104.163.153.14 (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An academic search produced a few more results, including a 7-paragraph review of "The Mother's Songs: Images of God the Mother by Meinrad Craighead" by Nancy Corson Carter in Woman's Art Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Spring - Summer, 1987), p. 51 (JSTOR); a 4-paragraph review in CrossCurrents, Vol. 42, No. 1, Perseverance...Preservation...Transformation? KENTUCKY (SPRING 1992), pp. 127-132 (JSTOR); and a magazine article from Arkansas: "Art for God's Sake" by Trevor Holloway, in America. 12/20/1980, Vol. 143 Issue 20, p403-406. 4p. I haven't been able to read the latter, and don't know anything about the journal. Having papers held by Duke is certainly an indication of importance. She's also the subject of an hour-long film although I can't find any evidence of it being screened on TV or in theaters.[19][20] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Crow Mother and the Dog God, a 350 page retrospective of her work was produced by Pomegranate (publisher) in 2004. [21] This is interesting: according the the Wiki page about Pomegranate publisher, they publish works for the National Gallery of Art, the Library of Congress, the British Library, the Smithsonian Museum of American Art, the Sierra Club, the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and Pomegranate is also the licensee for artists M. C. Escher, Edward Gorey, Charley Harper, Wolf Kahn, Georgia O'Keeffe, and Gustave Baumann. If this publisher chose to produce a big book about this artist, perhaps that argues for her significance as an artist. A Google search brings up 18 pages for her name. (I only read through the first couple.) Craighead seems to be a significant figure also in the area of women and religion. According to a review of the Crow Mother book, Virginia Beane Rutter (a Jungian analyst and author of Embracing Persephone and Embracing Girls) has an essay in the book in which she "commends the various ways in which Craighead's art has been a source of solace and inspiration to women who are searching for their own creativity and spirituality." [22] As noted in previous comment, an hourlong documentary, Meinrad Craighead: Praying with Images was produced about her in 2009 [23] Lengthy articles about her were written in The National Catholic Reporter (a US Catholic newspaper with an apparent circulation of 35,000) in 2008 [24] and another in 2011. [25] Soul Sisters: The Five Sacred Qualities of a Woman's Soul by Pythia Peay (Penguin, 2002) includes a section about her. [26] She is referred to as an important figure in art related to the emerging scholarship on women and religion in the second half of the 20th Century in: Women's Spirituality: Resources for Christian Development ed. Joanne Wolski Conn (Paulist Press, 1996); Radical Wisdom, Beverly Lanzetta (Augsburg Fortress, 2005); and New Feminist Christianity: Many Voices, Many Views ed. Mary E. Hunt and Diann L. Neu (Skylight Paths: 2010).Stokesnet (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why this entry is marked for deletion. Meinrad Craighead is a highly regarded artists whose work combines feminist spirituality, mythology, and creative images, many including animals, nature images and the like. She is used widely for meditation. She belongs to an important group of feminist writers/artists who are reshaping the Christian tradition by moving well beyond its artistic limits. Mary E. Hunt, Ph.D.WATER Women (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 2008 piece in the National Catholic Reporter provides significant independent coverage on its own, and I assume there is other reliable coverage as well. Seems important, notable. --do ncr am 16:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some other coverage: Albuquerque Journal 1991 Albuquerque Journal 1986 Stokesnet (talk) 03:21, 1 August 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) 19:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Moore, Sr.[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth, non-routine coverage from independent reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being deputy mayor of a town with a population of just 2K is not a notability claim that passes WP:NPOL. That wouldn't matter if the article were actually sourced well enough to pass the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our criteria for local officeholders, but that's not what the sourcing here is demonstrating — of the nine footnotes present, five are primary sources (e.g. YouTube videos) that cannot support notability, and the ones that are actually reliable aren't enough in volume, range or depth to deem him more notable than most other officeholders at the municipal level of government: this number of media pieces always exist for every municipal councillor anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Even being the mayor of a place with 25,000 (10 times the amount of place Moore is deputy mayor) would not be enough for default notability, and being vice mayor of a city with 250,000 would not give default notability. being a successful candidate for county comissioner is also not enough for default notability, and being a failed candidate is not grounds for mention anywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL. Not notable local politician....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go Vilnius[edit]

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

Organisation founded in 2016, only 34 employees. Fails WP:NORG. Could be a redirect to Vilnius. Edwardx (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDITED: Delete. The article is likely gonna be frequent guest for moderators because of future edit warring and because it seems to attract promotional COI. Also, on second thought, I agree that it fails notability criteria. 31.192.111.189 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)— 31.192.111.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The I.P. editor's comment sounds promotional. --do ncr am 23:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There might be other reasons to delete the article, but notability is not an issue. I just checked and found a lot of Go Vilnius articles in Lithuania's largest magasine Delfi (web portal) (according to Wikipedia) in both [english] and [Lithuanian]. I am not familiar with organisation's importance but the fact that Roger Qiu, director of Ctrip, has meetings with Go Vilnius seems to at least indicate some weight and importance (info from a quick Google search) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.29.2.112 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC) — 46.29.2.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete or Redirect to Vilnius. Per WP:GNG, there needs to be sufficient discussion of the organization in independent reliable sources. There is not. The unregistered editor posting above says that the organization is "the go to source" for tourism in Vilnius, but strangely the same unregistered editor has negative views about people involved with the same organization in the past. MPS1992 (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, and Vilnius is not a sensible redirect target IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:57, 1 August 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. Insufficient reliable 3rd party sources to meet WP:NM -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Noise 2: Concerto for synthesizer[edit]

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

A very short articles which fails WP:NM and relies entirely on a single source. BangJan1999 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The one source seems to be simply an entry in a music database, containing only a track listing and brief commentary by the artist, doing nothing to evidence notability. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 16:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was released on a major label and a recent interview with the artist (now added as a reference) indicated that it had significant pre-sales, but a dearth of reliable 3rd party sources is a continuing problem. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 30 July 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 702 (album). (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 12:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't Know (702 song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG Derek Andrews (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 702 (album). This song was a top 40 hit in the UK [27] and reached the US R&B charts [28], but I'm finding virtually nothing about the song in terms of coverage; just a few brief mentions like this. Given that, I don't think a standalone page is warranted, but redirects are cheap so I don't mind that as an outcome. gongshow talk 01:11, 30 July 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. After extended discussion, it is clear that consensus to delete will not emerge. No new comments this calendar month. bd2412 T 01:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seared (play)[edit]

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

Article about a theatrical play, without a particularly strong claim of notability or all that much in the way of reliable source coverage. Mostly this seems to exist for advertorial rather than encyclopedic reasons -- apart from stating that this exists and giving a capsule summary of its plot, the bulk of the content here consists of quotes from theatre critics reviews -- of which two of the three are from local newspapers and show no evidence that the play has attracted wider notice, while the third is from a non-notable WordPress blog. And the creator has an apparent conflict of interest with regard to the theatre that staged it, to boot. Basically, nothing here is enough to justify a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the author Theresa Rebeck (notable for other work) would be better than deletion. The sources are all local press, although local to the SF area is better than notable to some small town. Theatre Dogs, although a blog, is written by an experienced professional theatre critic so per WP:USERGENERATED it might be considered a reliable source even if it doesn't carry as much weight as a newspaper review. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a review in the SF Examiner[29] as well as other more local/bloggy sites[30][31][32][33] and a radio review[34]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a paragraph in the New York Times [here https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/theater/a-new-theater-season-of-hitting-the-boards-hard-from-broadway-to-oregon.html] as one of maybe 50 or so shows that were being produced across the US in 2016-17. Plus a review in the San Franciso Chronicle and lots of other coverage online in SFGate, which are clearly not just some small town local paper. Boneymau (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to easily meet the notability requirements. Although most coverage is local, it's from reliable sources and is covered in a ton of different places (see this google search here as well: [35]). Easily meets WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 17:16, 29 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergiu Nadasan[edit]

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

There are just three non-cruft sources. Let's analyze them:

a blog post that's not even about the subject
another blog post
a 2009 interview in the local paper (Adevărul is a national paper, but this is from the edition for Târgu Mureș, the subject's hometown)

The first two can be dismissed out of hand. As for the third: a single interview where one spews platitudes such as "I like sunny summers and snowy winters" or "I'd love to mix for a night at Space in Ibiza" simply does not rise to the level of "multiple, non-trivial, published works" demanded by WP:MUSICBIO. Given the scarcity of sources, we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first source in discussion has been added later on and it serves the purpose of establishing the authority of the artist in question, as the interviewee admits to having been helped by the artist in question to create and publish their own music. And it is not a blog post.

The second source you are calling is from Resident Advisor which is not a blog but a reputable internet database and an authority on the matter with a selection process!

Last time I checked the Wikipedia guidelines clearly specify that sources CAN be in a different language, other then English.

The first two can not be dismissed out of hand.

The third one does seem to be from a very old source indeed.

You also seem to be ignoring other reputable sources and very biased in your opinions. I would also not call releasing music on over 4 different record labels from more than 4 countries on 3 continents as not rising above trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robie M (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether techno.ro is or is not a blog, the fact that "DJ Shiver", who is a nobody, acknowledges having received "a little help" from Nădășan, in no way substantiates a claim of notability for the latter. As for Resident Advisor, I invite participants to check for themselves: the content is user-submitted. We're still waiting for "multiple, independent, non-trivial, published works". - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wasn't going to continue fighting you on this anymore but seeing how this looks more and more like a personal, spiteful vendetta of yours with the subject for some reason, and less and less about the actual wikipedia guidelines you so much claim to serve, or else you would have probably started on a different tone and went about it in a different approach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers), I think I'll go down with the ship if I must. You cannot wrongfully call them blog posts in an effort to undermine them as sources and then claim it doesn't matter if their not blogs. It obviously matters since you tried to sneak them in as that. You have no authority on claiming who might be somebody and who might be nobody. At least not in this matter. Discogs AND Resident Advisor have both been reliable and reputable sources in the past, are in the present and will continue to be long before you stopped wishing they weren't, as proven by their extensive use in the wikipedia pages of some of the biggest artists on wikipedia. As for the non-trivial, I'm afraid there I might have not been very clear as the non-trivial is inherited in the article, or would you like to name a couple of your own trivial friends that fulfilled the "trivial" tasks of signing different music to 4 different record labels from 4 different countries on 3 separate continents before they turned 26? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robie M (talk • contribs) 06:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO for now. XXN, 19:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: given the lack of content and the invalidity of the three non-cruft sources, it's a delete from me. DrStrauss talk 19:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:42, 30 July 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) 19:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Cull[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEO

This appears to be a term used (meh) by people at times, but evidently in reference to everything besides this, including a lot of sports references. Overall, non-notable term, coined in a non-notable book, by a non-notable author. TimothyJosephWood 14:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The article has a single source that discusses the topic of the article, which is a non-notable book. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the book might qualify for an article if it could be properly sourced as satisfying WP:NBOOK (which this isn't), the book's thesis is not a separate article topic in its own right from the book qua book. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 3 August 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. Per G4, as article meets this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Championship Wrestling[edit]

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

Non-notable professional wrestling company/promotion. No sources or content indicate any major success or significance. ★Trekker (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the page has been deleted before. If the current page is similar enough to the one that has was deleted in 2007 (seems so as both nominations are for lack of notability) this article should be Speedy Deleted per WP:G4. If that does not apply, the subject is not notable (the only sources included are self-published sources and no WP:BEFORE search results indicate notability and should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KAP03: I put a speedy on it, but it was rejected.★Trekker (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per G4. Yes the consensus is a decade old but the article is still a load of tripe. DrStrauss talk 18:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nom and Dr Strauss. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:48, 29 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Udrys[edit]

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

This individual doesn't appear to be notable per WP:BLP or WP:GNG. Nothing in the article suggests notability and I can't find anything better in English, though of course there may be better sources in Lithuanian (which I don't read). Neiltonks (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Maineartists (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Udrys was briefly head of an organisation of 34 people, which itself has been tagged for notability. Only real claim to notability is being fired from his job, which is not enough. Edwardx (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Either the entry should be expanded or deleted. 78.60.222.230 (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of any meaningful notability. Even talk, who seems to have a clear affiliation with the article in questions votes for deletion. 31.192.111.189 (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete head of a non-notable company. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. Only a primary source supplied. The coverage in gnews is very routine and very local. LibStar (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is weird. Odd to find such little coverage of a museum located in a large sized place in an English language speaking country. Anyone know if it was renamed or there might be annother issue? I've seen better coverage of Museum of East Podunk than this one. StarM 19:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the sources IDed and added. Thanks for the SMoCA tip IP104 StarM 17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage is limited, but it exists. I have added two independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

coverage is still very local. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be more infomative to search for SMOCA, as it is known locally. The building conversion alone was covered in numerous good sources such as Architecture digest. Refs are outt here to meet notability easily.104.163.153.14 (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant art institution whose efforts have been covered in national media including The New York Times [36] and Los Angeles Times and which has produced important exhibits such as career retrospectives for Betye Saar [37][38] and Howard Ben Tré [39]. Not to mention, for something different, Tania Katan's "Arm Wrestling for Art" events [40][41][42][43]. Easily passes GNG as customarily applied to museums.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times search results link given above produces only routine minor mentions-- none are more than a sentence or two. I do think it's a keep, but not on the basis of coverage by the NYT.104.163.153.14 (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a credible, notable museum of Contemporary Art, covered in national press such as Art News Magazine, and others. Shows well known contemporary and modern artists. Netherzone (talk) 03:08, 31 July 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 Nivruttinath. Sandstein 09:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sant nivruttinath maharaj[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biographical article. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Page should be deleted. There is an already existing page concerning the same topic check Nivruttinath. It should have been a speedy delete under (A10) Zazzysa (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ukpong1: FYI, when !voting speedy delete it's general practice to put the "speedy" in the bold text at the beginning for the benefit of the AFD bot. DrStrauss talk 19:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: Thanks for for the information. I will apply it next time where required. Zazzysa (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: I've speedied it, obvious A7 case. DrStrauss talk 18:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is rapidly devolving into an exercise in newbie-biting. A quick google check indicates this is a plausible search term. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:33, 29 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Peditto[edit]

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

DePRODed by COI creator (autobio) without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Fleeting mentions only in the wrongly placed inline external sources. Fails WP:CREATIVE Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability issues aside, this is more of a CV than an article. WP:TNT would be required to get this one up to scratch. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Though I participate at Afd to save worthy article from deletion. But this article requires lot of copyediting, complete rewriting. Another alternative option can be "move to draft" but even there this article may receive few or no contributions by volunteers.

Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:39, 6 August 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 Speedily moved to draft space for further development. Although there is not a clear consensus to delete, the article itself clearly does not meet the standards for inclusion in mainspace. I have therefore WP:BOLDly split the difference and moved this page to Draft:NaagaKannike, where it can be improved and submitted for restoration to mainspace in the future. bd2412 T 16:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NaagaKannike[edit]

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

Non-noteable television show. Comatmebro (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Update- Have added a reference (reference confirms that show exist passes WP:V and also that it's a "Hit show") and also did a minor mos edit. Cannot assure whether it is reliable source. But did my best to save an article from deletion. Left final action upon admins. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Additional comment - Though I am not author of this article, but did my best to save this from deletion. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reference in the article (MediaInfoOnline) is basically just a TV-guide style listing. We need better than that to establish WP:N. My own searching also failed to turn up anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 6 August 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) Lourdes 04:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

André Demedts[edit]

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

Multiple non-notable awards do not collectively make this individual notable. KDS4444 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's notable, from what I've found on Wikidata, where I've just added the English stub article: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q437450 . I see he was a member of the Royal Academy of Dutch language and literature and the nl:Prijs voor Letterkunde van de Vlaamse Provincies would seem to be a notable high-level national award for Flemish Belgium. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C3. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. There appears to be plenty of sourcing including a 48-page biography [44], an entry in the Nederlandse Poëzie Encyclopedie [45], and a festschrift [46]. As well as being a notable author, he was founder of a notable organization, the Komitee voor Frans-Vlaanderen [nl]. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 30 July 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 14:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lillie Rose Ernst[edit]

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

While I fully support the idea of us having more articles on here-to-fore unknown women on Wikipedia, I am not certain this individual qualifies as notable per our criteria. The references given are either not independent of the subject (Washington U.), are blogs without editorial oversight, or are trivial mentions in passing (being a member of this or that board or organization). Or are obituaries, which are also considered WP:ROUTINE coverage. What this article needs is a reference to a newspaper or book article that discusses the subject in depth— if that cannot be found, then I don't think we can justify hosting the article based only on the fact that she should perhaps be notable. (A Google Books search turned up so empty it made my head spin! I get more hits than she does! And I am not notable). KDS4444 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC) KDS4444 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, KDS4444 said: "A Google Books search turned up so empty it made my head spin", I have just made a seach on Google Books and the first 4 results are (https://www.google.it/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=lillie+rose+ernst):

In Her Place: A Guide to St. Louis Women's History - Page 180, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=1883982308, Katharine T. Corbett - 1999: Lillie. Rose. Ernst. When she elected to not marry, Lillie R. Ernst threatened a social order based around patriarchal families and an economic order based on the primacy of men's work. Ernst, an accomplished educator and administrator ...

Gay and Lesbian St. Louis: - Page 14, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=1467115924, Steven Louis Brawley and the St. Louis LGBT History Project - 2016: lillie rOse ernst. This esteemed St. Louis educator was one of the first women to graduate from Washington University. After graduating in 1892, Ernst embarked on a lifelong teaching career at Central High School. She never married, and it is ...

Sara Teasdale: Woman and Poet - Page 21, https://books.google.it/books?isbn=087049595X, William Drake - 1989: One of the most prominent teachers in the city's public schools, Miss Lillie Rose Ernst, a botanist and member of the Wednesday Club, also lent her patronage to the Potters and attended many of their meetings. Formidable in her starched ...

Women in the arts: eccentric essays in music, visual arts and literature, https://books.google.it/books?id=ElRKAQAAIAAJ, Barbara Harback, ‎Diane H. Touliatos-Banker, ‎Diane Touliatos-Miles - 2010: ... Lillie Rose Ernst, a botany teacher from Central High School whom the girls admired tremendously.17 Highly accomplished and educated, Ernst was dedicated to social causes and became the first female Assistant Superintendent of ...

So your point does not stand. Moreover you said the source is only WU. That is not true, the sources provided are:

Missouri History Museum

Saint Louis LGBT History Project

Mound City of the Mississippi a St. Louis History

The tag should be removed.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I suspect you may not have very carefully looked through the sources before nominating this, especially considering you nominated for deletion (assuming you saw it the second it was created) all of 15 minutes after it was started.

Sources from a university museum don't really fail the independence test in the same way that other sources might. They're affiliated with a special interest in areas relating to the university, but they are an educational institution at the base of it.
The only "blog" I'm seeing is this one, which is not "some guy's blog", but is the official museum blog, and therefore presumably subjected to some level of editorial oversight if someone decides to just go off the reservation and write some off-the-wall crap and stamp the museum's name on it.
Of course you get more hits; you live in the 21st Century, and while this person lived a while ago, they died in 1943, meaning that they are not old enough for works about them to have conclusively fallen into the public domain (like someone who died in 1850, and was written about following their death). This subject existed in basically the worst time period for our purposes, before the internet but too recently to have been dumped onto the internet indiscriminately because they haven't passed the "intellectual property event horizon" of 1923.
This book (already in the article), commits a full two pages to the subject, and that's just what's available in the preview (my arch nemesis, works too new to be in the public domain). TimothyJosephWood 12:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; in fact, speedy keep, and recommend immediate nominator withdrawal. Subject has been well-covered in published academic research: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], etc. On edit: Although I would suggest that User:Elisa.rolle carefully reads WP:CANVAS :) — fortunavelut luna 12:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, sorry I did not know of this policy, and I was sort of struck by the reason provided for the deletion, cause they were totally against what I learnt, i.e. subject notable for personal achievements, subject covered in multiple sources, references provided for each and single point in the article... I was just trying to understand why it was tagged for deletion and asked opinion to the one people that had "worked" the article just minutes before and help to one editor I know could help me in the "women" biography field.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S'alright, it should've been pointed out to you before now. There's no harm in notifying people, but thenotices themselves should be neutrally phrased, and preferably directed at a cross-section of editorial opinion. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 12:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, several editors have discussed canvassing with Elisa.rolle. In this case, I think that Elisa was not phrasing things neutrally because she was truly upset. Here is the request to me to take a look at the article, which is neutrally phrased. And here is the request for help after the article was nominated for deletion around 10 minutes later. Elisa.rolle is new to article creation and has faced some growing pains in this area so her consternation, I think, was completely understandable. I have cautioned Elisa not to panic and to trust in the process so that she can avoid the perception that she is canvassing. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of reason why we should change the name to Articles for Discussion. I've actually started a thread about this twice and closed the window because... it may or may not be a complete shit storm to get through. TimothyJosephWood 19:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood I love this idea! I suspect there would be more support for it than you realize. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was asked to evaluate the file for WiR. Minutes later, the creator advised the article had been nominated for deletion, which does not appear to be canvasing IMO; however in the effort of full disclosure, I am disclosing. Clearly notable, as has been covered by all the participants above. The "routine" obituary, is anything but routine, as it appeared the The Auk, [52] a peer reviewed scientific journal. Sufficient reliable sources over time easily establish GNG. [53], [54] SusunW (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: I'm sure that's fine; I was referring to something else- less ambiguous, shall we say. No problem. — fortunavelut luna 14:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi de nada. Would just rather err on the side of caution and make the disclosure. I would have done so whether you had commented on canvassing or not, simply because the timing of the nomination was so quick, that there was not even sufficient time for feedback before it was at AfD. ;) SusunW (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other editor's reasoning. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are obviously many reliable sources.--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, MShabazz, what does it mean Snow keep?--Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:12, 30 July 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 per WP:G3 -- a hoax. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Duque[edit]

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

Article consists solely of a filmography table. A search for sources yields no reliable sources which give significant coverage [55]. DrStrauss talk 10:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Bux Johar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep this PR which is appearently a copy of a news story published in The Nation refer to subject as "late senior journalist.... His editorials were so powerful on Sindh issues that people pasted his editorials on the walls of city... and that He also wrote many books." --Saqib (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Saqib. Mar4d (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per Saqib. The press club statement shows he was a "person is regarded as an important figure" by peers.Jacqke (talk) 04:39, 31 July 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nusrat Mirza[edit]

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

Self-published sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Week delete there are several people of same name appears in Gnews. At quick glance it appears the subject is a noted journalist who is often quoted in news stories but I am failed to find a source which discuss the subject in detail. --Saqib (talk) 04:19, 30 July 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. @Anoptimistix: you suggested closing this as WP:SOFTDELETE. That's a process used when there was insufficient discussion to form a real consensus. That's not the case here. However, to address your specific concern, should future events unfold and additional coverage appears such that WP:N is satisfied, this can always be recreated. Thats standard practice. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Razzak Johra[edit]

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

Notable for single event and event is not notable per WP:NEVENT. Greenbörg (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just being a journalist who is murdered does not on its own make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete - I agree with the above argument, the fact that journalist was murdered doesn't make it eligible for having stand-alone article. Single events to have an article should receive spectacular coverage like Kanhaiya Kumar. However in future more coverages can make it pass WP:GNG, for that reason I suggest soft-delete, so that WP:REFUND may apply.

Anoptimistix Let's Talk 12:19, 6 August 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Morley[edit]

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

Lack of independent, reputable sources to verify a number of claims made, such as "largest photographic studio" or "prolific film and television [...] company". While the positions at Hereford Films, Girl Management can be verified through associated sources, there is a distinct lack of independent editorial to establish individual notability. A google search mostly results in results form his own website domain, imdb, local media (essex mag, essex tv) or mention in passing. Specific searches of the archives at the guardian and the telegraph did not result in hits. Also no further mention about the alleged talks to buy "page 3", which was only reported in local media. Therefore, this page fails WP:GNG, WP:VERIFY, WP:INDY and may likely give way to WP:PROMO concerns. The article had been speedily deleted for A7 and G11 before being created again. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm seeing passing mentions or name checks in interviews of his business partners, such as in:

Cannes: Hereford Films Options Shaun Hutson's Upcoming Horror ... -- Variety-May 24, 2017 -- Hereford CEO Jonathan Sothcott said he and producer Damien Morley had been looking to expand the company's business interests into ..."

This is insufficient for stand-alone notability. Film producers are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing much here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 3 August 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) Lourdes 09:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Masood[edit]

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

Pakistan Correspondent of the The New York Times but doesn't seems to meet WP:JOURNALIST. Saqib (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This better tells the quality of articles created by user. Greenbörg (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pulitzer Prize to NYT in 2009 indicates WP:AUTHOR4c Significant critical attention What is more significant than Pultizer? Rhadow (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is he the recipient of the Pulitzer Prize or the team? --Saqib (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhadow: Can you provide the link? Greenbörg (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenbörg: As I said, "to NYT", the team. [56]. He didn't get the byline on these articles, but the "with help of". I've eaten my monthly ration of NYT. Rhadow (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a Pakistan correspondent per Rhadow; he also appears to have been in the news for other reasons related to his journalism [57] [58] Mar4d (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. @Saqib: This individual is notable. Greenbörg (talk) 08:08, 30 July 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) Lourdes 09:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubique.com[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, specifically the fact that a company " is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". The sources given are either press releases or routine announcements where the company is discussing itself, which the guidelines state is not sufficient. ~~The sources also seem to be business or trade media, and not broader mainstream media, which the guidelines also suggest is helpful.~~ 331dot (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my incorrect claim above; but I still feel the rest is valid. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi 331dot, My humble opinion says Economic Times, Times of India, Business Standard are mainstream media in India. I believe PTI covering the company would make it notable enough? You think we need to add more references? Can I add them to the talk page of the article and you can vett it for me? Thanks, MuzzammilB (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MuzzammilB: Hello. I am wondering who "we" is; please note that usernames cannot be shared or represent a group. Fair enough regarding the publishers of the sources, but the sources you offer are still press releases or routine business announcements. We don't need more sources, but more substantial sources. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: "We" meant everyone interested in the topic here. yes Yes, I am not sharing usernames. No wrong practices here. Assist me here - I can be wrong - As far as I understand even for stock market listed companies which make them listed, everything, they announce quarterly to annual results to M&As to public interviews; then will become routine announcements coveraged by these publishers. What do you suggest? I will try and find more substantial references and add them to the talk page. Request you to help me understand them better. Hope to learn from you and get better at editing. ThanksMuzzammilB (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak to every other similar page on Wikipedia, just the page in front of me. Each page is judged on its own merits as this is a volunteer effort among hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Inevitably some inappropriate pages get through and even survive for awhile. In reading the article, it seems to just state that this company was founded, changed its name, raised some operating funds, contributed to some other entities, and lists its offerings. None of that seems particularly remarkable to me. Has this company received any awards or recognition? Has its business strategy been discussed in depth by an independent source? Anything unusual about this company; its mere existence doesn't merit an article, there must be something else about it worthy of mention. Not every company merits a page here. I was also wondering if you are affiliated with this company in any way. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: - Thanks for the pointers. I will try and find some independent sources from perspective of awards and business strategy. I understand your concern about me being affiliated with the company. Unfortunately . lot of people have tried to abuse the platform and your concerns are valid. Fortunately for me, I am not connected with the company. I am an interior desinger based from Mumbai and nothing to do with the company mentioned here. Just another volunteer but not so active and experienced like you. Still learning. Thanks MuzzammilB (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two rounds of funding, three years of existence, seven solid references. Better than lots of startups with existing articles. Rhadow (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the "solid references" claim; they are all routine, brief(for the most part) business announcements, which the organization notability guidelines specifically state is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This entity has been around for more than three years now and has received significant funding from VC and PE firms. I do not think this article deserves to be deleted considering that it does seem to have robust references such as Times of India, VC Circle, MoneyControl, etc. There is also some good information about the entity in the references cited and they do not read like run of the mill press releases to me. Having said that, I do think that there’s scope for content to be phrased in a better manner and for more references to be added over time.

Let me add something that I’ve been thinking about, I think we’re going to see more of such debates going ahead for two reasons. One, the number of entities coming up all around the world with significant traction from investors and prospective consumers will continue to grow. This will no doubt create an interest among people to learn more about them and in turn drive the creation of more Wikipedia pages. This is perhaps no more evident than in the advent of startups. And secondly, many of these entities will be based in and around a particular geography where the scope for citations will be restricted to a geo-specific media platforms. This is bound to increase discussions such as these on the veracity and authority of these platforms. In this particular case though, Times of India, MoneyControl.com, Press trust of India (Which is like the Reuters or AP of India) are as good a source as one can find with regards to entities based in India.

331dot, I would like to hear your thoughts on this FlyingBlueDream (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My position is unchanged. My issue is not the sources themselves but what they print, as I state at the top.331dot (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two competing standards here: "judge each page on its own merits" and WP:GNG. The page of a similarly situated company, Helium Systems, was deleted last week after four years of operation in San Francisco and two rounds of VC financing totaling $40 million. I'll bet the money goes ten times farther in India, so they are the comparable. At that stage of growth, all you will find in the trade press is a few facts wrapped in a cushion of happy talk. Fine. I acknowledge 331dot's comments, but I'm not sure coverage by the MSM is any better. Take for example this daft article.^[3] In my view, WP synthesizes a view of these nascent companies better than the press. WP often mentions competitors, which NEVER appear on the company web site and seldom in the press. I would venture to say that it is a sign of maturity (and notability) when the press DOES mention competitors. It's probably time for an essay on startups. Rhadow (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a few more sources on the talk page after the discussion. Thanks,MuzzammilB (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/2017-03-22/whatcom-county-extends-moratorium-on-crude-oil-exports
^ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/coal-issue-dominates-whatcom-county-election-but-nobodyrsquos-talking-about-it/
^ Bonner, Walt (July 10, 2017). "BLAZING: 'Hyper Chariot' pods can travel 4,000 miles per hour". Fox News. Retrieved 1 August 2017.

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House of Telcontar and similar[edit]

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

These are all fictional families (or one character with a family) and their family trees from the Tolkien legendarium. I'm paraphrasing here what I wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of House Targaryen, where the Game of Thrones equivalents of these articles were deleted:

These families and the family trees depicted here are not notable (WP:GNG) because no third-party sources discuss them as such (as families or family trees, as distinct from the notability of Tolkien's work(s) as a whole).
To the extent that they are unsourced (some are tagged as such since 2013), the contents are original research (WP:OR) because they may include fan speculation and, insofar as there are inconsistencies in the source material, the decision of which version to include is original research.
To the extent that the family trees may have been copied from a source, on the other hand, they are copyright violations. (Real-world family trees document facts, which are are not copyrightable, but fictional family trees are just another copyrightable work of fiction.)
Finally, it should be apparent at a glance that this is the sort of in-universe fancruft that belongs in specialized fan wikis, not in a general purpose encyclopedia that treats fiction from an out-of-universe perspective (see WP:WAF). Our policy WP:NOTPLOT directs that articles must not only consist of a summary of works of fiction, and these articles fail this policy. Sandstein 08:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be honest, I was against Sandstein's decision of deleting the family trees that were in the form of templates as they showed the relationships between different characters, but this is a different case. We have actual articles here describing a fictional work about some fake families and their histories in an in-universe style and in detail, which is awkward as here's not a fandom of TLotR or any other fictional work. By the way, they are poorly sourced and probably are not notable either, as they are merely plot summaries. Keivan.f^Talk 21:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with the above, nothing but a restating of plot and for an exceptionally obscure aspect of plot to boot. I'm also very receptive to the idea that this is a copyvio, for the reasons outlined by Sandstein. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:06, 6 August 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) 19:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaena Now[edit]

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

Non notable ep by non notable artist (afd). Sourced to press releases. No independent coverage about it. Textbook speedy A9 but declined. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NMUSIC. DrStrauss talk 19:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find coverage to suggest that this release meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 01:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrina Broz[edit]

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

According to the source provided, Broz was a member of an Olympic trial team. Regardless, athletes apart of a team do not automatically meet notability according to WP:NOLYMPICS. She needs to meet WP:GNG which she clearly fails to do with only passing mentions and listings. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I should have considered editors wouldn't read the disclaimer in WP:NOLYMPICS where it notes teams/team members are discounted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Participated at the 1996 Olympics per WP:NOLYMPICS - also a number of national championship and medals at other international competitions. 1 Article title has been updated. Hmlarson (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:NOLY. DrStrauss talk 18:40, 29 July 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) 19:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BetterSex[edit]

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

Not a particularly notable sex toy retailer. The only sources I could find (with some difficulty, given the name) were a press release from the company, and complaining from a religious website that the site was advertising to retired people. No in-depth or ongoing coverage of the company itself anywhere. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third party coverage. Rhadow (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:44, 31 July 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) 19:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parakkal Family[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Mar4d (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I deleted a host of such Malayali family articles some time ago. These people probably escaped by not properly categorising themselves. Jupitus Smart 18:37, 29 July 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 as per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Amir (singer)[edit]

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

Cited sources doesn't mention the subject. hoax? Saqib (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no mention in reliable sources. Even no mention in sources provided by the user. Greenbörg (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: definite hoax... article creator has simply copied and pasted the article on Laila Khan (singer) and replaced all references to Khan's name with Amir's. Richard3120 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 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) 19:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zero waste docked mode[edit]

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

This phrase is a neologism that does not seem to have had any significant use in the auto-industry. The author of this page (Jon Stacey) seems to have been the person who coined this phrase, who runs a youtube channel. -- Salimfadhley (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no article. — Rhadow (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references and WP:NEOLOGISM at best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 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 consensus to redirect. If somebody feels strongly about the usefulness of the redirects I guess they can create them, and others can then contest them at RfD. Sandstein 09:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan at the 2011 Summer Universiade[edit]

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

Nothing of substance, lack of GNG and all information is covered on the parent article. I do not believe a redirect is needed as the country's participation isn't discussed but mentioned (for ex. in the list of countries that took part). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following:[reply]

Redirect all to 2011 Summer Universiade. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all. Even the main article is surprisingly thin for an event involving so many young people, so these will never meet WP:GNG. Matt's talk 10:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect as per nom. No opinion on keeping a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect: my colleagues have already stated the reasons for deletion but my !vote is mainly to show my reasoning for not redirecting. All of these content forks have fewer than 15 views each in the last 30 days, bear in mind that many of these views will be merely due to the fact that they are nominated in an AfD. It's implausible to expect that readers will type into the search bar "Country at the 2011 Summer Universiade". They will either type in "2011 Summer Universiade" or simply "Summer Universiade". We don't need unnecessary redirects cluttering up the mainspace. PS: I'm using HTML bold tags because I don't want it to upset the bot. DrStrauss talk 09:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. On one hand im thinking CHEAP, but on the other hand what DRStrauss says makes sense. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with DrStrauss --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no redirect per User:DrStrauss. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:02, 6 August 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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivendell Golf Club[edit]

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

Article about a run of the mill golf course, making no claim of notability that would pass our inclusion standards for sports venues and citing no reliable source coverage to get it over WP:GNG in lieu. As always, every golf course does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because it exists -- it has to have an actual claim of notability, and actual media coverage to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary sources nor claim of notability. As per nom, this is a WP:MILL golf course. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable golf course....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 19:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in the article to establish notability and nothing found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of anything other than non-notable club. DrStrauss talk 09:59, 4 August 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) Lourdes 09:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LaToya Cantrell[edit]

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

obvious campaign advertisement by obvious coi editor DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I accepted this draft after noticing this conversation. Normally I'm the one nominating articles for deletion and arguing that the bar for GNG isn't that low. I'm gobsmacked that after considering the subject and accepting, the guy who fought so hard to protect NN schools in Korea now thinks this article is worthy of deletion. I make no comment about the original editor and their purposes ahead of a municipal election. The subject fails NPOL but I felt they passed GNG. The coverage is local and perhaps a little ROUTINE but I've seen editors fight to the bitter end for less. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage. Rhadow (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article certainly needs some cleanup for neutrality, New Orleans is a large and major and famous enough city that city councillors are accepted as notable under WP:NPOL #2 as long as they can be properly sourced as the subject of significant media coverage. And the sources here are properly demonstrating that — they aren't all great, but enough of them are good. We don't routinely accept all city councillors as notable, no, but we do accept some city councillors as notable if they meet one or both of two conditions: (a) they serve on the councils of major metropolitan global cities, and (b) although outside of that range of cities, they can still be especially well-sourced as significantly more notable than the norm. Yes, the article needs some attention, but that's a matter for the editing process rather than the deletion process. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/ I am much more concerned about promotionalism than I am about notability . Small variations in our notability standard to not much affect the encyclopedia one way or another; accepting anything resembling advertising destroys its value; If people want advertising , Google does it better. She's running for the city council in New Orleans. So far we've considered that a major political position only in NYC and Chicago. The article was written by NOLAFiddler, an obviously promotional user name: The City Council in New Orleans foes by the acronym NOLA. The contents of the article is praise for her work after Katrina, and other city projects--routine work for any politician.--look at the details, most of them are utterly trivial. The references are mostly where she takes c=personal credit t=for everything she voted for. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far we've considered that a major political position only in NYC and Chicago...and Atlanta and Seattle and Washington DC and Los Angeles and San Francisco and San Diego and Boston and Detroit and Minneapolis and Philadelphia, and sometimes in New Orleans too (as witness the fact that Category:New Orleans City Council members is quite far from empty). Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no , its rather that some have gone on to higher offices.But promotionalism is in any case more improttant. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just that some have gone on to higher offices; while it's true that some have, the notability standard for city councillors is as I described and not just "New York and Chicago and nowhere else". And again, promotionalism can be fixed through the editing process — if the base notability claim and sourceability meet our standards, which they do, then the promotionalism issue is dealt with by fixing the article tone and not by deleting the article outright. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the well-reasoned rationale provided above by Bearcat. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cleaned up the article some but it still needs work. I also added a lifetime achievement award, with a reliable source, given to the subject in 2016 by four university presidents. Based on sustained news coverage, the subject and article meet WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 10:48, 1 August 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) 19:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RRE Ventures[edit]

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

NOT DIRECTORY. Complete absence of encyclopedic information. or substantial third party sources DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puff piece, not a valid Wikipedia entry supported by neutral sources.TH1980 (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect that the author user:Jdriv is James D. Robinson IV, who has a clear COI. Let an unbiased observer write this article. I rewrote James D. Robinson IV (also the target of an AfD). I think it's OK now. Rhadow (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- user:Jdriv was on this afternoon tinkering with James D. Robinson IV. I left him a message at talk:James D. Robinson IV. I have no time or interest to work on this article RRE Ventures Rhadow (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The first source is the company site and is not independent, the second includes only a mention and the third does not provide enough coverage either. There is not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG and it fails WP:CORP. Additionally in its current version the article violates WP:NOTCATALOG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:57, 3 August 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 keep. WP:SKCRIT #4 - The nominator is banned. (non-admin closure) — TheMagnificentist 15:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan O'Donohue[edit]

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

No indication of notability except for Demyx from the Kingdom Hearts series. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:28, 29 July 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 July 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been topic banned from any deletion discussions on the English Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 31 July 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. bd2412 T 03:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Ballard[edit]

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

Advertorially tinted WP:BLP of an alternative medicine practitioner, which has been flagged as a possible WP:COI. Nothing here constitutes a pass of any subject-specific inclusion test, so it's all about whether he passes WP:GNG or not -- but two of the three references are primary sources, which cannot assist in demonstrating notability at all, and the only one that links to a reliable source is not an article about him, but one which merely includes him giving soundbite on another topic. This is not the kind of coverage it takes to pass GNG -- he needs to be the subject of sources that are independent of him, not the author or a giver of a brief quote, to qualify for an article on here. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable nonsense. E Eng 02:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Bearcat. This is where I think A7 ought to be changed: the article technically makes a credible claim of significance but the claim is clearly false and not backed up by appropriate sources. DrStrauss talk 09:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "claim is clearly false and not backed up by appropriate sources" is not a determination that can be made on a speedy basis; we have to cast around for sources. A7 is for subjects that aren't even trying to be notable, so to speak. E Eng 13:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, if he were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, then it wouldn't matter a whit whether anybody thinks the claim that he was "given healing and visionary abilities by non-religious direct contact with universal energy" represents a credible truth or a bunch of woo. We do, for example, keep articles about people who can be well-sourced as notable for espousing conspiracy theories, racist, sexist or homophobic attacks on groups of people, and other ideas that are self-evidently false — because it's not the accuracy or falsity of what they say, but the amount of reliable source attention they do or don't get for saying what they say, that marks the line. It's the lack of appropriate sourcing, not your or my personal opinions about the fundamental concept of energy healing, that make this deletable. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 5 August 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JumpStart Toddlers[edit]

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

WP:VGRS search turns up exactly four sources, and those seem to be more about tech and babies and not really about the software. TimothyJosephWood 00:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant mentions of it could be found, no indication of its notability was given._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson[edit]

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

Closing as speedy keep so everyone can return to civil editing. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel in the prior AfD, everyone was distracted by the pressing issues of POV and WP:SYNTH which prevented a meaningful discussion of the notability of the article. Technically, this article still has issues because the person responsible was cleared of all charges, including arson -- making the title incorrect. Regardless, for a fire that caused minimal damage (smoked-stained windows and walls) and no casualties, there isn't any WP:LASTING societal impact. There is no WP:INDEPTH analysis and the brief blimps in the news reeks of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Trump's list can also not be used to establish significant coverage since it merely mentions the incident with 77 other attacks and according to Swedish courts this wasn't terror or arson. Most sources are now outdated or incorrect, an issue that happens with news-inspired articles. There isn't anything to merge since officially no crime ever occurred.

Pinging editors from the prior AfD and talk page discussion: E.M.Gregory, Pincrete, CrispyGlover, Yellow Diamond, BabbaQ, Julle, and Sjö. Please focus your comments on the notability of this article now that some clean-up was directed. Anyone else is, of course, free to contribute.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping TheGracefulSlick, a highly experienced creator of AfD discussions, to format this page properly so that the recent AfD appears in the usual box at top of discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Here is the prior AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage is, in my mind, a little more than just news - it is mentioned, as EM Gregory pointed out previously, in many articles written a while after the fact.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Diamond thank you for revisiting this. I hope you realize merely mentioning an event existed does not make it notable. I urge you to read my rationale above and the corresponding policies. Most of the sources are not reliably reporting the incident and are, in fact, WP:ROUTINE news coverage. If you can distinguish a significant WP:LASTING impact (the Trump list is out since it is a passing mention and incorrect) or post-analysis that confirms WP:INDEPTH, I will happily withdraw this nomination.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the coverage of this event goes beyond the day it happened. This goes beyond NOTNEWS. A previous AfD was concluded less than a month ago, POV pushingusually does not result in anything.BabbaQ (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ yes and I explained quite clearly why I renominated it. Going beyond the day it happened still doesn't save it from NOTNEWS, especially since the sources are no longer reliable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is highly irregular to bring to AfD an article that was closed as Keep less than a month ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a highly POV nomination, which follows a highly POV rewrite of the article by editor Pincrete. WP:HEY, I have cleaned the article up, to make the facts, chronology and context clear. Note in particular that a suspect was cleared at trial for insufficient evidence. But that after the verdict was handed down, investigators in Germany arrested an ISIS operative making role of ISIS and guilt of suspect clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another key fact removed from the article is the fact that perp was not released after being acquitted. WP:HEY I have now added sourced description of his transfer fromm police to security services after the trial concluded to be investigated for ties to ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This s the 1.) First terrorist attack by the Islamic State on Swedish soil. 2.) The fact that perp was acquitted is irrelevant because article was written after the acquittal when the arrest of a ISIS operative in Germany produced dramatic new evidence about the ISIS connection to this attack. Notability comes largely from the ISIS connection, 3.) Suspect was transferred form Police custody to custody of Swedish Security Services to be investigated for ties to ISIS when trial ended, even before the new evidence surfaced in Germany, and 4.) evidence about the connection between ISIS operative "Mohammad G." and the Malmo perp has provided new information on the way ISIS incites and confirms attacks that makes the events in this article significant not simply as an attack in Sweden, but as pert of a far larger body of work by investigators, terrorism analysts, and students of radicalization working to understand how jihad groups like ISIS instigate crimes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you call my 'very PoV edit' had the support of every editor that looked at your sources E.M.Gregory. Your statements that the new 'German' arrest proves anything other than an ISIS reporter have no one's support and have been removed. Proper place to discuss content is talk page. If you want to write an article about the German arrest, do so, not use this as a coatrack, but at the moment there is even less printed about it than about 'Malmo'. Pincrete (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been 1.) Ruled by a Swedish court to have not been not terrorism and therefore not ISIS, only E.M.Gregory thinks otherwise 2.) The fact that perp was acquitted is only thing that is relevant ..... the arrest of a ISIS reporter in Germany cannot overturn a court decision, nor can E.M.Gregory and the acquitted person is entitled to WP's BLP protection. Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa Editors should look at the description and sourcing in this [59] version of the article; material deleted by Pincrete in his alternative fact version.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shenanigans also that User:TheGracefulSlick withdrew and closed this discussion a few hours ago, then returned and put the article back in place.

Keep I am sorry @TheGracefulSlick: but this one appears to be notable as it has received coverage beyond the timeframe of the attack. So is there a connection to ISIS? I see no concrete link based on the sources used but this is a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issue that can be resolved on the article's talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87 I respect your opinion at these discussions more than just about anyone else which is why I urge you to re-analyze the article. This article is partially about an arson that is not considered terrorism in Swedish courts and partially about an arrest that cannot be conclusively connected. I would say the arrest of the German ISIS agent is more notable than the arson. Most of the sources are no longer factually correct since they discussed this incident as a terror attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing problematic with including RS reports about a crime in an article, while shaping the article, as I believe that I did, in accord with legal developments and emergence of new facts over time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick: When I heard Donald Trump mention this Sweden thing I was glad it was swept under the rug as it appeared to be nothing. In this source though it states: "“Specifically, Mohammed G had been in contact with a person who committed an arson attack on a Shia community centre in Sweden on 11 October, by mid-September at the latest." [60] Wouldn't this be considered a reliable source? Even if ISIS wasn't involved the Sweden arson incident was brought up again which makes it harder to dismiss it as being non notable. I am open for convincing but reading that source was a factor for me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: my take on it is, according to the source I provided in my rationale, there wasn't even a conviction for arson, let alone terrorism. The article seems to rely on the possible connection with "Mohammed G.". If the only thing notable about this is G., shouldn't the article be about him, not a technical arson that caused minimal damage? Gregory's statement that this was the first terror attack in Sweden is both not a claim for notability and is false according to Swedish courts. Unless he has some higher judicial powers that reverse court decisions, I'm not sure the article is focusing on the correct incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: Do you think that WP:COVERAGE would apply here given these sources are long after the event and initial coverage took place? I agree on the WP:SYNTH as just because someone is in contact doesn't make them guilty. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Nothing new here. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm not quite clear on what the article is about -- is it about the arson, or is it about the arrest of a ISIS reporter? If it's about the arson, then it's a pointless article, as the damage was minimal and the alleged perpetrator acquitted. Wikipedia does not have articles on such minor crimes. If it's about the arrest in Germany, then make an article about that event (not sure if it meeds Wikipedia's notability guidelines though). As the article stands now it's WP:SYNTH and should not be kept. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.e., This article is about an arson fire in 2016; a trial where suspect was not convicted due to lack of evidence connecting him to the arson; how the suspect was transferred from the police to the Swedish Security Service where he is under investigation for ties to ISIS; and it is about how, after the trial ended, the German Security Services arrested Amaq News Agency#Mohammed G. an ISIS propagandist and released information demonstrating links between this arson attack and ISIS, and making this particular arson attack notable for the insight it gave to security analysts because it so clearly established the manner in which an ISIS operative in Germany was involved in inciting series of major terrorist attacks in several countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a pattern of arsons, especially in this particular community. I say keep because this and other events like it in same community, have a lasting negative impact on relations between immigrants and locals. The see also section lists the others: Malmö Synagogue attacks, Malmö Mosque attacks, 2014 mosque arson attacks in Sweden, Arson attacks on asylum centres in Sweden. It seems like a pretty important social issue when mosques and synagogues continue to be set on fire. This community "Malmo has become the power-center for the far right Sweden Democrats" NPR the eloquent peasant (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Noticed this discussion on a talk page I watch. Amply meets GNG. Article issues can and should be addressed, however, especially concerning culpability and acquittal of primary suspect. Coretheapple (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Afd discussion runned for 7 days, 3 votes were casted all for keeping, not a single delete vote ofcourse except by nominator. The consensus was for keeping (non-admin closure) Anoptimistix Let's Talk 03:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Carland[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written like a prosified résumé and not citing even one piece of reliable source coverage about him, of a musical theatre actor and producer. As always, these are not claims of notability that hand somebody an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists -- he must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient WP:NEXIST for this subject to pass WP:GNG. The article does need a rewrite though. It also needs an update and it needs balance. There are reliable secondary main stream media hits on google to do this. There article subject is responsible for organising major award winning events, on more than one occasion; see for example Helpmann Awards for best opera in 2015 (Faramondo) and 2016 (Agrippina), for which there are reliable secondary main stream media sources available. Aoziwe (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: please put them in then. DrStrauss talk 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I get the time I will. In the meantime the strong WP:NEXIST should be more than enough to keep the article. (Have done so before - see Stephen Crean for example.) Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree lots of references out there. It does need a rewite/addition with contemporary references to highlight his role in Hobart/Brisbane Baroque and the debacle of its liquidation. Boneymau (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the GNG and agree with others. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:11, 6 August 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] ttps://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/2017-03-22/whatcom-county-extends-moratorium-on-crude-oil-exports

[2] ttp://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/coal-issue-dominates-whatcom-county-election-but-nobodyrsquos-talking-about-it/

[3] Bonner, Walt (July 10, 2017). "BLAZING: 'Hyper Chariot' pods can travel 4,000 miles per hour". Fox News. Retrieved 1 August 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]