Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 June	7 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ D[edit]

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

Notability issue. Two sources are dead links (including 'DJ D' s own official website). The main source is a Dutch platform for party/events/sessions (fwiw: no Italian page on that DJ from Bergamo). (Second nomination? or was it another DJ D that was deleted in Feb 2009?)- darthbunk pakt dunft 22:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For clarity's sake, I've looked at the deleted version and it pertained to a female DJ D from Australia rather than a male DJ D from Italy. So this isn't a recreation of the same article, but a different topic that merely happens to have the same name. That said, this article is parked entirely on primary sources, with no evidence shown of the type of reliable source coverage in media that it takes to clear Wikipedia's notability standards — and I can find no improved evidence of reliable source coverage on a Google search either. Searching on "DJ D" is virtually pointless (typical result: the dictionary definition of "DJ" as a verb whose past tense is sometimes spelled as "DJ'd" instead of "DJed"), and even his real name just brings more primary sources and hits for unrelated people. So while the article makes claims (mostly touring) that would clear WP:NMUSIC if they were sourced properly, nothing here entitles him to an article in the absence of proper sourcing to support one. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bearcat's analysis is entirely persuasive. Ravenswing 01:58, 8 June 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. This is a technical non-consensus close for all these articles on the basis of S.O.'s two comment and the comment from Pichpich. They can be renominated individually at any time. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Timid Toreador[edit]

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

Whole article is copy paste from another wikia http://looneytunes.wikia.com/wiki/The_Timid_Toreador Beside IMDB is given as sole reference Sulaimandaud (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of same reason, all copied from http://looneytunes.wikia.com/:

Sulaimandaud (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Looney Toons wiki licenses] all of its works CC-BY-SA 3.0, which is a Wikipedia-compatible license (if attribution is maintained). A link to the article history there would satisfy the attribution requirement, so this doesn't necessarily need to be deleted solely on the copyvio grounds. That said, it's also not very helpful, being exclusively an unsourced plot summary with excessive detail for this project's purposes. Treating the topic on the merits, there are a few potential sources, but its debatable whether any of them constitute significant coverage; I'm neutral as to the outcome here, but a redirect to Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1940–49) would be preferable to deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the proper attribution for The Village Smithy (1936 film). The copyright issues can all be resolved similarly. Pichpich (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've fixed all 6 attribution problems. The question remains: do we keep these articles separate or merge them to a common target? But this is not an AfD question since deleting is not among the reasonable options so I suggest closing this AfD. Pichpich (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Or, at least, close on procedural grounds. When I first commented on this AFD, "The Timid Toreador" was the only article listed. Because the cause for deletion here is going to come down to notability rather than copyright issues, bundling is doing more harm than good; the works will need to be considered on their individual merits. "The Village Smithy", for example, has been recognized as an early use of parody in Tex Avery's works, which might distinguish it from titles like "Porky's Garden" that are primary addressed only in comprehensive animation surveys (but that may themselves satisfy inclusion requirements). There's just no way that these can be evaluated in an omnibus AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:18, 6 June 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. Apparently this does meet GNG afterall - Made a typo in the name which explains the "No results containing all your search terms were found.", Withdrawn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silverburn Shopping Centre[edit]

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

Non notable shopping centre, Fails MALLS as well as GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG with several news stories since 2007: not always of particularly high quality or large size, but cumulatively they provide enough to meet GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there don't seem to be criteria for notability at WP:MALLS I'm unclear as to how an article could fail them. Coverage in multiple RSs would seem to indicate passing WP:GNG, unless there is something deficient in these citations. Clarification regarding both of these aspects would be appreciated; otherwise I'm inclined to keep. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:35, 7 June 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. The covy-vio concerns were false. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castagnajo's calendar[edit]

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

The whole article is copy paste from http://wiki.crisclara.com/castagnajos-calendar-wiki/ which some other wiki. In addition more than half article is in foreign language, too confusing Sulaimandaud (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is okay to Keep, as it is translated from the compatibly licensed it:Calendario del castagnajo. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the article does need substantial rewriting, but it is not copyvio and the use of extensive quotations is not be itself a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 12 June 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. So Why 09:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Rescue Committee of the Red Cross[edit]

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

dab with no valid entries - IRC does not WP:DABMENTION Red Cross, ICRC doesn't have rescue in it's title. Both article have hatnotes now just in case, but I'd let anyone remove them. Widefox; talk 19:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to International Committee of the Red Cross, leaving the useful hatnote. A google search turned up only two hits for this term here and here both of which actually ought to say ICRC rather than IRC. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google of "International Rescue Committee of the Red Cross" (note quoted) gives two sources [1] [2] (all other 4/5 hits being WP circular). I'm guessing those two are typos, and as such we shouldn't have or use the term giving it legitimacy. As a new dab with negligible history/linking etc, I suggest deletion to prevent creation of ambiguity when there is none. Widefox; talk 14:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shhhnotsoloud pls clarify "Delete" or "Redirect"? Widefox; talk 11:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was to delete the article, but because the term has erroneous uses, leave a redirect to International Committee of the Red Cross. I would be equally happy with a simple delete for the reasons you outline. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Widefox is convincing in arguing there's no sense in perpetuating an error like this. --Lockley (talk) 04:32, 9 June 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--withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Everymorning (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Tour of Qatar[edit]

Started in error, withdrawn nomination--Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

Non-notable cancelled cycling race. This edition of the race was never held, so it isn't enough to warrant an article. Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 6 June 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 June 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:54, 6 June 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) Dissidentplasterer (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thames Valley[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Outside of defining the Thames Valley, this article is mainly a list of locations that are ostensibly within the Thames Valley. Notability due to the economy of the area is commonly attributed to the M4 Corridor instead (as demonstrated by the article on the subject). The subject of the Thames Valley is well-enough served by the disambiguation page. Dissidentplasterer (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The use of the term "Thames Valley" long pre-dates the M4, although clearly the area overlaps with the M4 corridor, which is a much more recent term and covers an area extending much further westwards (as far as Swansea, perhaps). There are multiple published sources naming the Thames Valley - examples here. Although clearly the valley can easily be defined technically in geographical terms, the term is often used more loosely. But, the fact that there is no one single definition does not mean that there should not be an article about it - many ill-defined areas (such as the West Country) also have articles. The article itself is quite poor and needs to be properly referenced - but that is a reason to improve it, not delete it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I think there's a good argument for that article not existing either - it's mainly just a list of things with "West Country" in the name, and "West Country" is essentially synonymous with the South West of England. The argument that the article could be improved, however, is predicated on the idea that there is something distinctly notable to say about it. --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the "South West" and the "West Country" are basically synonyms, the article South West of England is about the defined local government region. That strictly defined region is not synonymous with the fuzzy concept. The West Country could mean anything from just Devon and Cornwall to even including Herefordshire, but thoe alternative definitions have no place in an article about the region. Northern England is similarly poorly defined, but its article is currently at FAC. The lack of a single solid definition doesn't prevent a good article being written.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There about 176 pages which link to Thames Valley, and in itself that suggests it is a notable concept. They would have to be changed if the article was deleted. JonH (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Thames Valley certainly exists as a distinct area within England, and is quite distinct from the M4 corridor (South Wales, Bristol and Bath are part of the M4 corridor but not within the Thames Valley). Aside from the valley of the actual river, the business district and the National Character Area are significant and those last two links could be used to substantially flesh out the article. The police area and the water authority area could also be discussed, and I'm sure there's other uses too.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this I can work with. Closing --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 22:25, 6 June 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) Winged Blades^Godric 07:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of airline flights that required gliding[edit]

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

This list fails WP:NOTABILITY. No evidence of notability is provided in the article. This article has been around since 2011 yet Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents does not include any similar lists for hydraulic failures, pilot heart attacks, bits falling off, etc. etc. This article is an anomaly that should be deleted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list seems to fall afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It seems to be the only list of its kind and not part of any series or pattern of similar lists, so seems to serve no organizing purpose on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and could be fixed by creating a series or pattern of similar lists. You have to start somewhere, and there is no deadline. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep. The nomination is using the flawed WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument for deletion. As for WP:N, here is a reference to establish notability for gliding planes. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately, I am saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not available as a counterargument. There is a difference. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference. Neither WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nor WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a valid argument. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Speedy keep since nominator is acknowledging using an invalid argument. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. My argument is very simple. I tried to set it in context a little, but I now realise that was politically unwise so I have struck that context. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So all that's left of your argument is notability. I have now added a second reference to the article in order to establish notability for this list. So go ahead and also strike out the part of your nomination saying that "No evidence of notability is provided in the article" because that is certainly no longer true. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, one online essay at Flight Deck Friend is not sufficient to establish notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the link to the article. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, defining characteristic of at least some accidents like the Gimli Glider and the one when they had to fly upside down. Restrict to notable accidents please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are already many categories in Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners but no Category:airline flights that required gliding or similar. The list provides sortable date, model, description, fatalities and personnel, though.Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep – Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by engine failure already exists, and its description explicitly mentions gliding as an inclusion criterion, so the list we're discussing does serve some purpose, although it requires some work: a) Strip all non-notable occurrences (such as 'flight engineer goes for a pee, all engines flame out, he comes back and all is good again'); b) Change the name to List of airliner accidents and incidents that involved gliding. EDIT: a corresponding category could be created as well. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I personally find the topic fascinating. Thus, in my view, the article contributes to the encyclopedia; does not detract from it. I had a look at wp:Stand-alone lists and didn't see anything that explicitly argues against or for this list in principle. Wikipedia is rife with stuff that really does need deletion; this article on the other hand is useful, though it will benefit from improved writing and references where needed. DonFB (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC) ... Add: title might be better as: "List of airline flights forced to glide." DonFB (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comment as the original article creator: The initial source of this was a list of similar flights that was taken from Gimli Glider [3]. Most of those articles then included links to other flights that involved gliding in the "See also" sections. It seemed to me to make sense to make a separate list article, so I crawled through articles and consolidated those links into this new standalone list. I considered making a category, but I thought a list would be better as it could include flights that did not yet have their own articles. (Note that Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by engine failure was created after this list.) —howcheng {chat} 17:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) The vast majority of incidents are themselves bluelinked, indicating that it is a list of notable incidents and thus deletion demands a higher bar than if it were indeed of trivial events. 2) This is NOT a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. "List of airline flights that had a red-headed pilot" would be, but gliding is an essential characteristic of fixed-wing aircraft, and so the list is a perfectly valid collection of incidents. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Misconstrued argument for deletion: WP:N is not fully applicable to standalone lists which should use WP:STANDALONE instead. In particular, the list/collection does not have to have independent notability on its own. Instead, it has to have clearly cut inclusion/exclusion criteria, have a finite number of potential elements, and ideally most of its elements should have independent notability (i.e., articles on Wikipedia). This list satisfies this, and so can stay. 10:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC) -- added by user:Kashmiri
No, the misconstruction is yours. WP:STANDALONE says that WP:NOTABILITY does apply: "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the misconstruction is yours. Per WP:WikiProject Aviation/Notability, "List-class articles are exempt from notability requirements. Entries listed inherit notability from their own articles.". 96.41.32.39 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where an inconsistency exists between project guidelines and Wikipedia-wide guidelines, the Wikipedia guidelines take precedence. But thank you for pointing that out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No contradiction. The notability of the list is taken from the articles. The flights are notable for gliding, making the list of flights that glided notable. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that highlights my point in bringing this to AfD. There is no evidence that the flights are, as you claim, notable for gliding and not for other reasons. I am not saying that claim is necessarily untrue, only that no evidence has been provided. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is so convoluted, I cannot follow it. The flights on the list are notable for having some sort of an incident (that's why there are either Wikipedia article for them, or they should have Wikipedia articles). All the incidents on the list involved gliding -- which in most cases saved some lives (many many lives), as opposed to falling out of the sky and crashing. Therefore, the list of flights that have glided gets its notability from the flights that are notable for having glided. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow: thought about taking a read of First law of holes? — kashmiri ^TALK 10:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful article. JMcC (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's highly unusual for airline flights to ever glide (thankfully), and incidents where this has occurred are well covered in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is very notable when ever a flight that is not ment to glide glides it is also highly informational!Jkd4855 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really a made up concept just to create an indiscriminate list, most of the entries dont actually involve gliding but engineless plummets. Aircraft that were glided like Gimli Glider are actually categorise as engine issues but we dont list accidents by all possible variations of skill required to survive. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a particular flight has glided and therefore not be listed should be taken on the article's talk page. It would not be a reason to delete the list. I do not agree with you that most entries are "engineless plummets". 96.41.32.39 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 14 June 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. Apart from one or two lone comments advocating deletion, it's clear that consensus is to keep this article in one form or another. There is no consensus whether to keep as a stand-alone article or redirect/merge it to a list of such attacks but that's not something that has to be decided at AfD but can always be proposed on the talk page. Regards So Why 09:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Notre Dame attack[edit]

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

Article about a minor incident that could easily be summarized in another article. - Mr X 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017. Not every attack in the world needs its own article. If not for the "terrorist" label this kind of story could be found in a local newspaper. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Where will we draw the line as to what is too minor and what is not? Just keep it. There are plenty of articles about less significant things. We shouldn't arbitrarily choose which events are significant. Everyone could be covered in a different article. And what relevance does a newspaper hold?El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we have WP:OSE, and WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." Not News could be applied to any article on an event, I miss your point. Do a certain number of people have to die for it to be notnews?El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be significant coverage which is lacking here. The content can easily be summarized in the redirect I proposed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per knowledgekid. Only minor coverage even in France- the English attacks are receiving heavier coverage! — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's WP:NOTE on WP:EVENTS. Or who and when do we decide an attack is big enough to be included? There are far less relevant incidents who has gotten an article, like 2017 Portland train attack.--Rævhuld (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay can you point to where this article would apply? Lacking in depth sources is a red flag when it comes to notability for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while article creator (497 edits to date) is a WP:NEWBIES, Nom is an editor with vast experience who ought to have followed WP:RAPID. As the closing editor wrote at a similar article that was rushed to deletion by Mr. X a couple of weeks ago and closed as No consensus, "Additionally, the incident happened very recently, and new information is still coming out about it. This article was created on the day of the incident, and the AfD was started 8 hours after the article was created (which is discouraged by WP:RAPID for this very reason). There will be a better opportunity for a stronger consensus to emerge after the dust settles." As an editor who regularly works on terrorism-related articles, I have real fear that rushing articles on breaking news events of this kind can tend to WP:DISRUPT the project by forcing editors - especially new editors - to run the AfD gauntlet. I strongly suggest that Mr X withdraw this. If his opinion is unchanged a few months, he can nominate it then.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect isn't deletion. (WP:TOOSOON) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I decline. There is no time constraint on deleting articles. Editors should use their judgement based on common practice, content policies, nature of the subject, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT, and other factors. This article is about a person who hit another person with a hammer. Meanwhile, we don't have independent articles for the daily massacres in Syria and Iraq; street executions in the Philippines; or for the five people who were brutally murdered in Orlando, Florida yesterday. We need to instill some perspective into our content decisions and not simply try to promote an project-wide viewpoint that the world is besieged by Islamist terrorism.- Mr X 18:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3) Keep per Rævhuld: It's an obviously notable event with reliable sources provided. Each terrorist attack has an article including minor events just like June 2017 Kabul attack. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That attack killed 20 people, here you have a lone man swinging a hammer at a cop. Two police officers were killed today as well in a shootout with gunmen who probably belonged to Islamic State in Egypt's northern Sinai, where is the article about this? [4] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:RAPID, let's wait and see how this develops before wasting time on an AfD. Edwardx (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The correct thing to do would be to spin out things into articles when they get to be too big. Nobody is saying this isn't notable just that it shouldn't have its own article yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yeah, redirect. Sadly routine and minor incident, with no deaths or major injuries (apart from the guy who did it). ansh 666 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Striking, because National Centre for Counter Terrorism could provide the long-term impact angle that most such articles don't have. Not going with keep though, more of a wait and see. ansh666 18:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ansh666: The National Centre for Counter Terrorism was ordered a month ago per the source Drmies found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. Drmies did not "find" the source, he just read the link. Misread it, actually. The Centre was under discussion, but it was not "ordered" a month ago. See my comment below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, it was publicly announced as a result of this attack, so my revised comment stands. ansh 666 03:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's see how this develops first before deleting articles, it's receiving worldwide attention. MookiePlays (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting philosophy would be 'let's see how this develops first before writing articles' :) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note this similar AfD on the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Paris machete attack; (an attack on the Louvre; closed as Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, months later that attack still has not stood out. It should be merged into Terrorism in France as nothing came out of that event that made it stand out from other terrorist events. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated it. Then 12 editors weighed in, all twelve iVoting to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attack was significant enough as it occured at a major location. The Notre Dame Cathedral bombing attempt has also an article while that was a failed attempt and resulted in no injuries.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a major bomb plot.... this was a lone guy swinging a hammer. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above and WP:NOTNEWS. Also as per Ansh666 points out these types of routines are becoming more and more routine. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a standout with all the recent attacks, but notable enough to merit an article in my opinion. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017, as per Knowledgekid. Not encyclopaedic incident. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the similarity to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 shooting of Paris police officers which closed as withdrawn/keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017. WP:NOTNEWS. No deaths or significant injuries, so there is no reason to keep this as standalone encyclopedic content. Ceosad (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an attack at one of the worlds biggest tourist attractions is a notable event. Murchison-Eye (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The French President now plans to extend the 'State of Emergency' and implement additional security measures due to this event Murchison-Eye (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to eventually lapse unless it extended again by some other means. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Once again, the keep rationales for this event are terribly unconvincing and misunderstand the point of NOTNEWS. Wikipedia does not wait a few months for events to be notable; they either are or they are not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Possibly this will become a redirect, but that doesn't need to happen in AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that within hours there are stories reported from Paris (ie NOT wire service stories) in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Los Angeles Times, reported stories. also, that was Nancy Soderberg tweeting from inside the cathedral.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should that be surprising? Drmies (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reported stories are not assigned/written for "routine" attacks in foreign cities. Such stories are testament to the notability of this attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are testament to the newsworthiness of this attack; tomorrow we'll have wrapped fish in it. Surely you know this. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or find some redirection target. Not every headline or set of headlines is an article. BTW, that template with search avenues on top of this AfD should indicate what the problem is with such articles. We don't have a thing called "2017 Notre Dame attack"--we're like CNN making up names for events. There is of course no coverage of this event anywhere else but in the news, nor will there be for a long time, if ever. So the suggestion to search JSTOR or Google Books is ludicrous, and even if there were hits there you are not likely to get them under this exact name. I hope I'm not the only one seeing this as a problem. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017. This is why we have WP:NOTNEWS. Lepricavark (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 - as well explained above. Neutrality^talk 23:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per those advocating same. If and when this generates enough material to warrant a separate article, no problem to recreate it, but at the moment it's (and I'm not sure this is a phrase I want to use) a "run of the mill" attack. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptionally weak keep. I promised I'd review my opinion if and when the facts changed, and it appears that the consequences (and possibly the circumstances) of this particular incident are sufficiently distinctive as to merit a keep...just. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BigHaz if you have time, I recommend you read Drmies source further below. The task force was not created as a result of this attack; in fact, it was announced a month ago. I'm not sure if that affects your opinion but I thought it is worth mentioning.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does ever so slightly, but probably not enough to change my faintest-of-keeps as the sort of "bottom line". Thanks for the heads-up, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have awfully good WP:CRYSTALBALLS. Me, I'd not only like to hear how the French cabinet responds when they meet tomorrow, I'd like to wait the full 7 days, maybe longer to see the degree to which the press responds with SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This attack alone isn't notable, the attacks as a whole and the collective response are though. I would suggest someone summarize France's response to terrorism in the country in another article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, there are so many more articles to write on topics that are proven to be notable. Why are you trying to do the job of the news sites? We're not bad at it, and it's sexy to get it up quickly with pictures and maps and flags for responses (I sure hope we have some response...)--but it's not our job. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the article has well already been written, meaning we've done a good enough job of making it notable. Do you have any idea how many articles there are? Millions. If you're telling me even a majority of them are more notable than this, I'd be surprisedEl cid, el campeador (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

El cid, I've been around long enough to have a pretty decent idea of how many articles we have, but thank you for the pointer. Now, "we've done a good enough job of making it notable"--a possibly Freudian slip. Blowing it up, with maps and flags and fancy names, makes it notable: you are suggesting we are making news, and given our high scores on Google searches that could be true--all the more reasons to be reticent rather than eager in writing up things that just happened. Yes, a majority of our articles are more notable than this topic (do not confuse an article with a topic). Drmies (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, an AfD isn't an instant process. In the event that the French cabinet does something significant as a response to this (or in the event that something else significant happens as a result of this), I for one am happy to revise my opinion and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one to do so. As at this precise moment, though, a redirect is an eminently sensible approach to take. I'm also not sure Wikipedia's role is to "make something notable", so much as it is to write about things which have already become so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke in that, but it doesn't matter. The point is that it's already written and longer than most articles, and has several sources. What point is there in deleting it? Other than perhaps making some people feel important El cid, el campeador (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:El cid, el campeador's point is well taken, WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the question isn't "Is the article written?", much less "Is it bigger than article X?". The question is whether each and every terrorist attack is encyclopedic before they trigger any notable events beyond "Someone attacked people with a hammer at Notre Dame Cathedral". If the French President comes out and bans hammers from sale (to take a silly potential outcome), then there's patently an encyclopedic value in having this article. If life carries on much as it did beforehand, then there doesn't appear to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No; "the question" is whether reliable sources treat this specific attack as notable, by the standards laid out at WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The attack is notable as is the ongoing terrorist attacks in France. Its a continuing stream that can easily be summarized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017. A guy tried to hit a police officer with a hammer, and was shot. Not really a significant event WP:NOTNEWS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that attacker's injuries are "minor," so there will be a trial; ongoing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - attack has recieved world wide attention. The attacker was a noted journalist. Article is in good shape and with good sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 'noted' journalist? Or, actually, a 'journalist'? — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's certainly noted now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a great believer in the pen being mightier than the sword, eh...? — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worth pointing out that yes, the perpetrator is a noted journalist. For instance, he won second place in the European Commission's 2009 "EU Journalist Award", established under the EC's PROGRESS programme. XavierItzm (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a "routine" or "minor" incident. It has received worldwide attention. There will be no consensus to delete this. However, I would not object to a redirect if there is consensus that we are better waiting to see if an article should be spun out later.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the world knows that France has been under continued terrorist attacks, it is part of a larger picture. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Partly because new information continues to emerge. But also because the useful details are inevitably lost when an article is merged into capsule summary on a list. And also because the Cabinet has reacted by using this latest attack as the occasion on which to announce the creation of a new National Centre for Counter Terrorism ( a tough job just awarded to Pierre de Bousquet de Florian ) But mostly keep because such merges of well-sourced attacks are dysfunctional. This article is already linked from the proposed Merge target: List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 (Note that many incidents on that page are bluelinked.) But it is also linked from a number of other articles, including not only the obvious List of Islamist terrorist attacks,Notre-Dame de Paris, Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present), and ISIL-related terror attacks in France , but also the similar Notre Dame Cathedral bombing attempt, and 2017 Louvre machete attack, and from a what-were-the-odds windfall for American politician Nancy Soderberg: Clinton advisor, American national security expert and diplomat who is widely spoken of as a probable candidate to unseat sitting Republican congressman Ron DeSantis, a former Navy officer. Soderberg was in the locked-down cathedral, tweeting with great éclat. My point here is that not only the proposed redirect, but a redirect to any of the lists or articles from which this article is linked would represent a loss of functionality for the project. By keeping the page, we enable detailed information to be found and discovered by our readers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What useful information? Do we need extra details about how person x recited the Lord's prayer while being locked inside the church? The article can be summed up be saying "An Algerian student named Farid Ikken, injured an officer with a hammer then was shot in response by police. Ikken was an award winning journalist who lived in France who claimed to be a "soldier of the caliphate". As a response to the incident a new task force called the National Centre for Counter Terrorism was created, and the state of emergency extended for an additional few months." Add in a few extra details to that and you have the entire article summarized in a paragraph. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not personally have chosen to delete well-sourced information from an article while arguing that the article should be deleted because it lacks information; it gives more the feel of marking cards in a friendly hand of poker than working collegiality to build an encyclopedia..E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you respond to my comment by sharing why you chose that particular list as a merge target? To me the difficult of choosing which list to merge this or any specific terrorist attack to is a fundamental argument against merging. It makes specific incidents so much harder to find that if we keep the article and link it from all of the relevant lists/articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With new details pouring out of the European press, not only about the creation of the National Centre for Counter Terrorism, but about the unusually well-educated perp, I make no doubt that the article will continue to be expanded with useful and interesting information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would possibly be inclined to agree with nominator when this first broke, but details that have now come out, especially regarding the unusual perpetrator makes it noteworthy in my opinion. Also 900 people locked in for hours followed by the French President launching a new counter-terrorism task force are lasting effects. User2534 (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that jihadist is recovering in hospital and has been charged with attempted murder, so there will and be a trial and ensuing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is too much international coverage, there should be a WP:OBVIOUSTERRORISTATTACK to ban the standard drill dozens of editors immediately trying to whitewash every terrorist attack, and every terrorist style crime where the motive is "unclear" as per WP:NOTNEWS or not WP:NOTABLE even when it is front page news for a month. If these seemingly random attacks are coordinated, then we can expect coordinated active measures in media to downplay or spread disinformation or otherwise censor coverage of such events. In the case of the D.C. sniper attacks and Ali Muhammad Brown luring and killing of two gay men in Seattle and a student motorist in New Jersey, even seeming random and not notable crimes which are unexplained should be treated as suspected terrorist attacks as long as they receive verifiable local coverage. Wikipedia can be a useful resource for researchers seeking to connect seemingly unconnected events even when authorities cannot. As it is, Wikipedia is woefully useless compared to Heavy and Everipedia which have no such high barrier to covering any event with substantial news coverage or even minimal coverage in blogs with a conservative or tabloid agenda which are often the only reliable media for attacks which are not covered by "reliable" sources. There are hundreds of unexplained crimes and accidents where the motive or criminal aspects are unproven or a credible possibility. Hammer and ax attacks like this deserve attention when they are done at landmarks that are strategic to terrorists and when they leave evidence to authorities that they are inspired by terrorist movements like ISIS. There should be no difference in coverage just because one is proven to be inspired or directed by terrorists, or may have been staged to look like road rage, breakup rage, rage over workplace firing, intoxication or mental illness, when the only difference is motive. Bachcell (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete' No international coverage. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False premise. International coverage is already on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk)
- @E.M.Gregory: True premise. When one has articles from the foreign press for 2 days is not international coverage. sorry. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that yesterday 's New York Times had a large photo of this indicent at the top of the front page, and that the story in the Times and in a number of other American papers, both national and regional papers, was reported from Paris, i.e., not an echo of a wire service story. The story also led the the news on NPR & CNN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on the medium term. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is the Wikipedia running out of server space? No. This event has been widely covered by WP:RS worldwide and content continues to be added. 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) 14:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017, per Knowledgekid and others. - Sigersson (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not less minor than many articles on sporting events. 900 tourists stuck for two hours in Notre Dame --Olevy (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep the same reasons as the others. Not to mention that many an article already has linked to this article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talk • contribs) 12:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Rævhuld, you have already voted further up the page, which must have escaped your memory. Could you strike this second !vote, please. – Sigersson (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This attack has received significant coverage in news sources across several nations (Germany, Sweden, Great Britain, United States and of course France). Meets WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: today is 9 June. Seems like the event is over. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, had its time in the news and now it is past. The attacker here seems to be more notable than the attack itself though so a merger into a new article might be a better solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is over. But so are several other terrorist incidents over the years. And we have articles about those. That is a null and void comment.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ WP:OSE is not an argument. Drmies' point was the wave of media coverage about the event is over. No one here can claim it is sustained unless they have a WP:CRYSTALBALL -- which seems like a very accessible item for editors lately at these types of AfDs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even as you were asserting that coverage is "over," a columnist for an American big city daily, the Sun-Sentinel, was complaining vociferously that the press has spent too much time covering this story, "During the day, CNN led the story with big, important-looking "Breaking News" graphics. That night, the incident in Paris led the evening news all over the country. Newspapers worldwide were all over the story."[5]. He is outraged that "a possible terrorist with a hammer thousands of miles away gets more public attention than a mass murder in Orlando."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Coverage on such an intense and massive scale would probably establish notability even if coverage now ended.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I said above, details continue to be published and, since he is said to be recovering, press coverage will continue as he goes to trial. Not to mention the impact of this event on French security services already noted in article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An impact cleverly fabricated/suggested in the article, which doesn't note that the "new counter-terrorism task force" was ordered a month ago; that it was announced the day after this one mad person's attack is coincidence. E.M. Gregory, can you please use phrases like "intense and massive scale" a bit more judiciously? It sounds like the claims made in presidential tweets. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of this attack in the U.S. was on an "intense and massive scale" on Tuesday and Wednesday last. Truly, led the news at the top of the hour, front page photos. Regional newspapers and broadcast media running interviews with locals who were in or near the Cathedral. I won't speculate as to why. But the coverage for about 36 hours was massive and intensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not fabricate, please rescind your slander. What I wrote was that Macron "announced the creation of a new intelligence task force..." This is accurate. Anyone following events, or reading the links will understand the a reform was contemplated and that Macron either moved it forward or made the final decision to announce what a plan that had been proposed but not decided upon in the wake of this event. That is, it was unclear whether the Notre Dame attack caused Macron to finalize his decision or to move an already firm decision forward. Because this was unclear, I worded it very carefully. But do Note that a plan is only a plan until it is formally announced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory from what I read on the source above it appears this has had little impact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man. My argument, and that of other editors, is simply that the attack is notable not because my personal opinion, but because politicians and the international press have deemed it notable. We follow sources, and the sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- With regard to Drmies note of 9 June, here is a BBC article dated 11 June^[1] and here is an article from the Sun also dated 11 June^[2]. Looks like Drmies is absolutely correct: the "event" is over, but international coverage continues well past his comment! XavierItzm (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40236305
^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3774338/isis-fanatic-40-behind-notre-dame-hammer-attack-secretly-radicalised-himself-online-and-was-totally-unknown-to-cops-so-is-it-impossible-to-stop-lone-wolves/

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per discovery of new sources and article improvements. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Feather[edit]

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

Prod'd then restored at DRV. Subject fails WP:GNG and specifically WP:AUTHOR Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe it is important for the people related to history. I will try to add stuff and do some research. Wikipedia is a good source for History-sensitive articles Prof.Marlin (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I love history. Get it past the requirements of WP:AUTHOR and it's fine. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- no indications of passing GNG nor AUTHOR. I'm unable to locate sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not particularly notable minor publisher, does not meet GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable guy back in the day, beware presentism! Sourcing it now.[6] E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have access to the Plain Dealer archive? I was able to access only a snippet of the Plain Deal obit. It would be good to see the coverage of the battle with the union that drove him form Cleveland. He ran a large printing company; one of the things the company did was to print magazines. To promote it, he had his own, the William Feather Magazine running stories of interest to businessmen. Perhaps as a spin off to this, he was syndicated in some form so that little bits of wisdom from his pen appeared in newspapers in cities nationwide. And some of his bits of wisdom appear in recent book that collect notable bits of wisdom (just scroll through a few pages of a gBooks search on his name. Also, since he owned the printing plant, he published his own books, but they must have drawn attention since in 1927 one got reviewed in the New York Times and Detroit Free Press, [probably in other papers too. He also wrote for some of the serious national magazines of the day, and was quoted in the early thirties by journalists trying to figure out what was happening to the economy, His ideas on the topic were taken seriously. And he did survive the depression with a big company intact. Hope other editors with access to other archives will add some sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the presentism caveat. Old school figures do not always have a prominent digital footprint, making the process of finding sources especially challenging. This should be taken into account. References could be improved, but the article has value and should not be thrown out. ToddLara729 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory's efforts. Some Googling reveals that Case Western's Encyclopedia of Cleveland History states that Feather's writings earned him a "national reputation" [7]; that H. L. Mencken used some of Feather's work to illustrate a point in The American Language [8]; and that gBooks produces a citation of Feather as the source of a hoary adage in The Concise Columbia Dictionary of Quotations [9]. One might be able to minimize each of these, if analyzed separately and with a skeptical eye, but taken as a group they suggest he was a significant writer worthy of encyclopedic attention. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements; the notability is a bit iffy still, but the inclusion in Encyclopedia of Cleveland history is sort of indicative of notability. An acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this article has been prodded twice! here and here, naughty, naughty Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is one of those tougher cases that requires digging hard to find sources. It looks like it might pass GNG now. Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, thanks to sources highlighted by above editors ('keepers' that is:)), have also found a couple of short reviews for The Business of Life: "this is a fairly expansive running commentary on life .. And we have an uneasy premonition that the publishers might possibly be grooming this for the Dale Carnegie market. Consider yourselves- if not encouraged- at least alerted." - Kirkus Reviews and "is a treasure chest of plain talks, homilies and wise thinking. Feather has a deft touch." - The Forum, a little more and we could have a separate article on this book (i wonder if it contains some of his quotable quotes that seem to pop up from "One of the funny things about the stock market is that every time one person buys, another sells and both think they are astute." to "All the books extolling the simple life are written by men.", not to mention those at wikiquote ("but coola you just did":))), also Erika Andersen referred to Feather ("It seems to me that most people hold one of two opposing definitions of business: they either agree with Feather (and me) that business ...") in this article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements. Artw (talk) 09:41, 7 June 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. So Why 09:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Riverside Cessna 310 crash[edit]

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

Tragic but not notable general aviation crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, a Delete, as per my comments left in my New Page Review on the user's talk page. (I hope other editors will note that Kurosubi appears to be a brand new editor. If so, he/she may well be disappointed if the concensus here for this particular article is for 'deletion', but they are surely to be praised for producing such a well-constructed article and I, for one, hope they will continue to make other contributions in the future, and not be put off by our discussions here.) Nick Moyes (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – accidents to private flights involving non-notable people are considered to be below the threshold of inclusion, since such occurrences, tragic as they might be, are run-of-the-mill life stories that are good for a newspaper, but not necessarily for Wikipedia. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' though I endorse Nick Moyes comments on the author, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. sIMPLY PUT wIKIPEDIA IS NOT A NEWSPAPER OR REPOSITORY OF DAILY LIFE SNIPPETS.--Petebutt (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable. Wykx (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete light aircraft accidents are rarely notable and I cant see anything here that passes the threshold for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 13 June 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 In the Night Garden.... No CSD criterion is plausible. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Titifers[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. There are a few hits on other wikis (not Wikipedia, but wikis on Wikia), but there is only one short mention of them elsewhere. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unreferenced article about non notable subject, fails WP:GNG.Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I agree with Theroadislong. It does not meet WP:GNG.--Rogerx2 (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to In the Night Garden... where these characters are already covered. No speedy deletion criteria apply. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In the Night Garden... seems appropriate to me. The characters are already covered there so someone may look up this term and a redirect would be helpful for that purpose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – A valid search term, as per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 14 June 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 Already Deleted. Taken care of by Dlohcierekim. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presto Tablet[edit]

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

Delete Corporate spam. Product is the only product made by E la Carte and has zero notabilty outside of any potential notabilty of the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tablet computer. So Why 09:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table ordering tablet[edit]

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

Merge as agreed below. Delete I am unconvinced that "Table ordering tablet" is a notable topic (or even a "thing"). *None* of the reference headlines use that term and most use a different term: "Tabletop tablets". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Wouldn't a rename to Tabletop tablets be more appropriate then? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emir of Wikipedia Except is a "tabletop tablet" a "thing"? It is still just a tablet. Here's a PC World article and they're tablets with a stand? If there is such a thing, it should be part of the normal Tablet computer article and not a separate topic. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Tabletop tablet Merge to Tablet computer. I see no reason to keep the article under its existing title, but the stub-level content could be kept somewhere. Might also be a Merge candidate, but I don't know to where. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki Would you consider a merge to Tablet computer? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks perfect. Changing my vote. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tablet computer: As the page creator, I would happy with this article being merged under the types section. Additionally, I am working on getting an image. Daylen (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the two tot (or is that tt?) articles, Ziosk and Presto Tablet are also up for deletion. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tablet computer Pages creator has agreed with this, so let it be done. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tablet computer -- nothing to merge; the article apparently created for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and merge from Ziosk. I think the topic may be notable, see references in that other article. Merging a PR piece for a tablet with a general concept could ensure notability with less spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 13 June 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's some support, but also some opposition, to merging, so I'm going to say there is no consensus on the merge. Not that there's actually anything in the article that's worth merging, but if somebody really wants to mine it for text to merge, ping me and I'll userfy it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HSBC Bank Armenia[edit]

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

Just not seeing the independent coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG, Gnews shows some press releases, some passing mentions, and little else of note. Waggie (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Suggest merge any important information with the main HSBC article. –XboxGamer22408^Talk 16:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. This really shouldn't be merged because the content is unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn subsidiary. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HSBC#Principal subsidiaries per WP:ATD-R. Regards So Why 09:19, 14 June 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. So Why 09:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Memoir Club[edit]

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

I can't find evidence of this publisher's notability. The company's website is hosted by blogspot.com, which isn't an encouraging sign, and it appears to be close to a self-publishing or vanity operation, which hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage to pass WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- way excessive listing of nn titles; Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST to house this company's catalogue. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources not found; appears to be PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:31, 13 June 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.. The arguments concerning the notability, encyclopaedic-ness etc. of the subject are basically still similar to what have already been discussed and evaluated in the last AFD. Whether, there is anything to merge from this article to the redirect-target could be looked at.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Washiqur Rahman[edit]

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

Keep, Don't redirect or merge- Was an assasination that made worldwide headine news, and not just for a few days after the incident. Other famous bloggers who faced assasination and attempted assasination knew him, he knew Avijit Roy. After his murder Asif Mohiuddin, another notable blogger who survived a machete attack spoke of him, and he knew him.(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32701207) International media coverage continued long after the incident (March 2015), as shown here. The original article was deleted in 2015 on the grounds of lacking news coverage after the incident, but after it was deleted there was more, rendering such reason invalid. The article also exists on Zaza, German, Simple English, and Turkish language wikipedias. Consensus on the previous deletion was in no way unanimous, and the topic has come up again and in the news after the deletion. On the original deletion many argued for it to be kept. He many not have been in international worldwide news before the incident, but had presence in Bengali language media.

   http://businessnews24bd.com/trial-begins-in-blogger-washiqur-murder-case/
   http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2017/05/murdered-for-the-crime-of-blasphemy
   http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/bangladesh-charges-men-murder-blogger-150901131511504.html
   https://www.pressreader.com/oman/times-of-oman/20170403/281651074951590

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first article on the topic, Washiqur Rahman Babu, was merged and redirected to Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh in April 2015 after a deletion discussion. When PlanespotterA320 created this new article on the topic in May 2017, I redirected it because [this version] did not improve upon [the redirected version] with respect to the reasons the topic was redirected.

You can read the previous discussion and closing comments yourself. PlanespotterA320's reading seems to be that the original problem was a lack of news coverage after the incident. Although that concern was raised during the discussion, my own reading is that the major problem was that Rahman was a low profile individual notable only for one event. Quite an alphabet soup of policies and guidelines were cited in arguments:

What Wikipedia is Not: WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE
Biographies of Living People (and low-profile individuals): WP:BLP1E
Notability: WP:N, WP:NEVENT, WP:ANYBIO, WP:VICTIM, WP:BIO1E

--Worldbruce (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attention participants in previous deletion discussion (AsceticRose—BabbaQ—Brandmeister—Callinus—Gurumoorthy Poochandhai—Krelnik—Longevitydude—Masem—Medeis) Attention participants in previous deletion discussion (Midnightblueowl—Nafsadh—Nahiyan8—Neutrality—Otto ter Haar—Pharaoh of the Wizards—Philg88—Sminthopsis84—Valentinejoesmith) --Worldbruce (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per previous AFD - particularly as we have Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh. We're still looking at, essentially, BIO1E as the problem. I note that this almost qualifies for CSD G4 since it is effectively recreation of previously deleted content? --MASEM (t) 16:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NYT, BBC, CNN coverage of blogger hacked to death for reasons beyond petty crime. The attempt, again, to delete this is a damnatio memoriae that is hard to take in good faith. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one has suggested here that victim Washiqur Rahman be deleted, or is suggesting that he should not be remembered. His death is given three paragraphs in Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh, and there are at least four redirects to take searchers there from variations of his name. However, reliable sources cover him only in connection with his murder. And they cover his murder in the broader context of other attacks on bloggers in Bangladesh. WP:BIO1E cautions against creating pseudo-biographies, the description of which goes on to say:

"An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context."

--Worldbruce (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Attacks on atheists in Bangladesh. I stand by what I said when I closed the previous RFD, which is neatly summed up policy-wise by Worldbruce above. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom, per all above and per my comments on last AfD. Nothing changed about Rahman since the article was first was AfD'ed, now more strongly suggesting WP:1E. No merge attempt is necessary as the subject is sufficiently covered in target article Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. --nafSadh did say 18:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the merger. The article contains quite different information than is available at the redirect target, Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. Until that situation is corrected, Washiqur Rahman should not be deleted. Briefly: this proposal is premature, and as stated above, has the character of a damnatio memoriae. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:31, 12 June 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 01:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threenix[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and guidelines at WP:NSOFT due to lack of available reliable sources. — Quasar G. 14:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no coverage that isn't compliant with our policies. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-admitted COI from original editor. Purely promotional page for non-notable software company. --Lockley (talk) 04:47, 9 June 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. So Why 09:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Blumberg[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player. Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The infobox says it all. Career record 0-0, ranking 1362. Fails WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ridiculously non-notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an amateur, he's clearly not notable today. He likely will be notable in a few years, but WP:CRYSTAL. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only does Blumberg have zero appearances in any ATP-level events (which would garner presumed notability), but he also has zero appearances in second-level Challenger events (which usually require a win to meet notability guidelines), and only one match played in third-level ITF Futures tournaments - a loss to Adam Pavlasek in 2014. His appearance(s?) in NCAA Div 1 tournaments do not meet the guidelines for team participation either, which only cover Davis Cup participants (and likely Hopman Cup, although I don't think an otherwise non-notable player has ever participated there). Whether or not NCAA participation and coverage combined with minor (but GNG-failing) participation in Challenger events could combine for notability may be up for debate in the future, but as it stands right now Blumberg doesn't even come close to meeting any of the notability guidelines. Sellyme^Talk 19:40, 11 June 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. So Why 09:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew A. Gallagher[edit]

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

Self promotional; only references are to own websites; book is not even published yet Melcous (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Shares his name with Matt Gallagher who is also an author. However Matt A is a non notable author who fails WP:GNG. The entire article reads like an advertisement and is probably intended for some pre-release publicity. Jupitus Smart 13:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assertion of notability is not supported by third-party sources. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:18, 11 June 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 ESL (eSports). (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ESL One: Cologne 2017[edit]

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

What makes this upcoming tournament notable? Self-referenced, etc. Fails WP:GNG. Perhaps too soon? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least too soon. No problem with a redirect to ESL One, but this is not ready for a separate article given the dearth of sources in the WP:VGRS search [10]. --Izno (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirec which I'm going to BOLDly do. Legacypac (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut 4[edit]

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

Non-notable band, absolutely no sources besides completely unreliable stuff like Metal Archives. They never won an award, were published in a international magazine or given any real coverage outside their home country (Georgia). A lot of the content itself is just copy pasta from their Metal Archives page too (plagiarism from another website) Second Skin (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of WP:RS either in article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:28, 13 June 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. So Why 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley J. Larkin[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. A few obituaries confirm she owned a dance studio, but it did not appear particularly notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Her Pioneer Press obituary doesn't show anything that would qualify her. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Current sources fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Searching found nothing helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 21:05, 7 June 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 List of Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Livvi-Karelian Wikipedia[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, unsourced. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias as a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). Cursory source searches are providing no significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: can't find any sources to prove subject's notability, but is a valid search term per Northamerica1000 above, so redirect instead of delete. Seagull123 Φ 23:27, 6 June 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 Sauza Tequila#Tres Generaciones. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tres Generaciones[edit]

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

Tequila brand that does not meetWP:GNG. And while it may not rise to the level of "unambiguous advertising" much of the material is promotional. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sauza Tequila § Tres Generaciones and possibly include a very selective merge. Some sources exist that cover the topic, such as [11], [12], but not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article per WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 6 June 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. So Why 07:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv Bhalla[edit]

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

Non notable businessman who is the VP of a non notable company. Created by an editor who is probably about to be blocked for paid editing. Fails WP:GNG and is probably a vanity page. Jupitus Smart 09:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 09:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A man with a job at a company, though not, in appears, in a role for a profile on their website such as would enable basic verification. The list of his speaking and delegation engagements is suitable for a corporate website or LinkedIn but is not convincing evidence of biographical notability for an encyclopaedia, nor are my searches finding better. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG not met. He exists, but that's it. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:02, 6 June 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 A10/A7. Hut 8.5 20:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VayuSutra[edit]

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

Apart from location most of information given is already in Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid. Fails WP:COMPANY Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If you remove everything that was copied and pasted from Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid, what's left qualifies for A7. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:03, 7 June 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 01:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Garcia[edit]

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

Non-notable young actor. This BLP is wholly unsourced.

Note that the article's creator PAC Events Management (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already been blocked for promotional spam. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 09:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 09:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG at present its WP:TOOSOON . FITINDIA 09:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not met. I have to ask - why was the AfD started when there was already a BLP PROD in place? It seems a bit pointless to me, BrownHairedGirl. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Exemplo347: because one factoid referenced to a trivial mention in an RS would end the BLP-PROD. Given the promotional intent behind this article, I thought it better to use AFD to bury it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. Virtually every hit I could find was about an American junior swimmer with the same name. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:13, 6 June 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. So Why 07:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coraline Ada Ehmke[edit]

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

Lacks Notability, Vanity Article CamelMike (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sourcing to meet the WP:GNG. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. There are two or three reliable sources in there, but there's still the notability problem. Creation history and tone seem promotional. Also the article refers to its subject by first name. --Lockley (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The first point is a fair reason to delete an article, so I won't argue it; but it's silly to argue an article should be deleted for the rest of those reasons when they could be easily fixed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y'know what, I'm going to stay out of this particular conversation. --Lockley (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per GorillaWarfare. Ckoerner (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand as I was editing via mobile earlier. There are 17 inline citations to reliable sources in the article and multiple unused sources in Google News. I addressed first name concern. Ckoerner (talk) 22:13, 12 June 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. If somebody wants to create the redirect on their own, that's fine, but I don't think I can reasonably call that the consensus here. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agência O Globo[edit]

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

Organisation does not meet WP:GNG by inheriting notability from its subsidiaries (e.g. O Globo). Clear WP:COI by article creator. I've tried to engage positively on user's talk page to raise concerns and encourage better content and WP:RS. No references have yet been forthcoming, and a similarly named newly-created page on pt.wikipedia does not seem to suggest sources other than business-related ones which would meet WP:ORGIND if used here. There are many Google results referring to Agência O Globo, but seemingly as the disseminator of news, not as news in itself. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promotion. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, good logic. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Grupo Globo#News Agency per WP:ATD. Notability is not inherited but it is already mentioned at the proposed target. Regards So Why 07:41, 14 June 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 despite multiple relists. Before renominating, interested editors should discuss whether a merger to a summary article for the mythology of the show can be a better alternative to outright deletion per WP:ATD-M. So Why 07:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kobol[edit]

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

Simply put, not a notable fictional entity. This is a plot summary, and all sources I see are plot summaries as well. PS. The box to prior AfD discussion seems borked here, the relevant link would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cylon War but that was a procedural keep due to mass nomination. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:GNG; this is significantly more notable than the other articles in the bulk nomination IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. I explained why this is not notable (no sources discussing this concept except primary/plot summary sources). Please provide links to sources discussing this outside primary/plot summary context if you want to argue this meets GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can look for references, I suspect they will be in the context of articles discussing BSG in general, rather than specifically about Kobol. Would that be sufficient? Power~enwiki (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it depends. The problem is that while we can find some mentions in passing, plot summaries ("Kobol was a planet...") are not good enough. We need to show significance outside BG universe. Ex. "Kobol, inspired by X mythology, has been used as a plot device of the Y form, and inspired A and B." And this has to be worth more than one sentence or otherwise, like Eastern Alliance, the best we can do is to merge the one sentence of real world significance ("EA was an allegory for the Soviet Union") to the main BG article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that in the context of science fiction Battlestar Galactica is BSG, while BG are the Bene Gesserit from Dune (franchise). Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the obvious difference is that Kobol is relevant in both series of Battlestar, not just the first one. [13] may be the type of reference you're looking for. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, BG is used for this series, I am sure. Anyway, User:Power~enwiki, I'd invite you back to look at the sources we found (or pretty much lack of them), in light of your earlier comments. Do you still think this topic deserves a stand-alone article instead of 2-3 sentence mention in the main article on BG(BSG)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep "Battlestar Gallactica" and Mormon Theology (snippet view only), Research Note: Rejecting Monotheism? Polytheism, Pluralism, and Battlestar Galactica (again, no full text) both appear to discuss Kobol in terms of LDS mythology appropriated for BSG. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those even mentions the word Kobol in the available 'snippets'. Please quote at least a sentence showing non-plot discussion of the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jclemens: Update. I was able to access both sources through my university. In the 1st one, Kobol is discussed on second page of this 5-page article in two sentences. First one is a citation from the Mormon scripture on Kolob, second one states that "It appears that both the Lords of Kobol and Kolob have ordained the same governing structure for mankind." That's pretty much is it. So this is just a mention in passing, no in-depth treatment here. In the 2nd one, we get several sentences on the 1st page, no coverage besides that. The sentences read: "Thehumans had a pantheon of deities, the Lords of Kobol, which seemed to matchelements of Mormon theology and suggest the plurality of God", "He has, however, developed the mythology of the Lords of Kobol into apolytheistic system drawn primarily from Greco-Roman mythology. ", and finally "hese deities, like the ancient Greek and Roman pantheons,are related through various social and/or kinship structures and reside (orresided) together in one realm—Kobol. (It is unclear in the series where theGods currently reside, as Kobol, a planet, was discovered by the humancolonists in ruins.) " I don't think those three sentences show notability of Kobol. But I can certainly see how an entire paragraph if not more in the BG article could discuss the religion/mythology of the series, as inspired by Mormon/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for finding those. No, those aren't bare mentions. If I wanted bare mentions, there area a bazillion of them in episode reviews for Kobol's Last Gleaming. While I wish each were longer, they do seem to substantially say exactly what I inferred from the snippet views. My Keep opinion stands, although if we're going to make a consolidated 'mythology of BSG' article, I would support an appropriate (i.e., non-AfD) merge discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sigh. First, the entire real world impact of Kobol in BSG can be summed up in 1-2 sentences (it has been inspired by Mormon religion/mythology). That's it. There's nothing more. This doesn't need a dedicated article. All the unreferenced, in-universe fancruft here is good for is for WP:TNTing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I agree with the nominator that Kobolds in Gaming has nothing to do with the fictional planet from BSG. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you are talking about. Seems like you are down to straw man arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he's simply registering his agreement that the "prior AfD discussions" box at the top lists AfDs that are irrelevant to this one. Mz7 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. I disagree with you often enough, Piotrus, that I go out of my way to say when I think you've got it right. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG. I agree with Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus It needs sources discussing this outside primary/plot summary context and fan stuff. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I agree with the nominator, Kobolds (little Goblin creatures) in D&D - nothing to do with the planet in BSG! Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I am unable to get at the full text of either article that Google Scholar noted as relevant with the tools at my disposal, which are not inconsequential, but neither journal seems to have full text available from either university library to which I have access. GNG cannot be not met when we have articles we cannot get at--per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot assume that the sources are relevant. If you can access them and they show relevance, say so. Otherwise all you are saying "this page I cannot see except heading/etc. seems to contain that word and was found through a search engine". Well, though, but the fact that this word is mentioned somewhere in the source doesn't mean anything for notability. You have no sources, still. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do be sure and read WP:PAPERONLY and WP:SOURCEACCESS sometime. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's irrelevant, as I am not saying there are no sources. There may be sources, but so far neither you nor nobody else have found them, and the burden of proof is on those wishing to keep said content. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an invalid argument. Either find and present them, at which point we agree we have them, or this topic is unsourced and thus fails WP:V/WP:GNG. Those are binary outcomes, there is no middle ground. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - (My need to reply mooted by you finding access to the sources and reporting on them, above) Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Except I didn't find sources. I accessed what you claimed to be sources and found that they offer only trivial, in passing, coverage of this topic, and as such are not sources. There are no sources showing notability of this concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to encourage a consensus to form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might support a merge/rename to a new Mythology of Battlestar Galactica page. This content has enough material to be covered beyond the main Battlestar Galactica page, but I see no existing merge targets. I see coverage in respect to it being a MacGuffin, and in its relation to Mormon theology, but everything else I find is in-universe relevance. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:01, 6 June 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. So Why 07:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Paris Connection[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:GNG Amisom (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable book. I would say redirect, but the crossover book series doesn't have an article. SL93 (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notaiblity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:51, 6 June 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. So Why 07:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balderdash Puppets[edit]

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

Nothing here sounds notable as a theatre company. No significant coverage in independent sources. Boneymau (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found in GNews and GBooks coverage. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a promo blurb cited to non independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 11 June 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 but if a redirect target emerges, anyone is as usual free to create one. So Why 07:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Tucker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of an editor and publisher, referenced solely to his publishing company's own primary source website about itself with no evidence of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. This has been flagged for notability since 2011, and has existed since 2005, without ever having a single valid source added at all — but a publisher needs to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, and is not entitled to an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists. Note that first discussion took place in 2005 — and even then, it closed as no consensus because of a 50-50 keep-delete split (which is hilarious, considering how awful our content standards were in 2005.) Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Loadstar, which Tucker was the editor of. I have to concur that there is no evidence of meeting notability requirements, and we cannot allow biographies of living people to remain without reliable sources. MartinJones (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. WP:ANYBIO criteria not met. --Rpclod (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I was going to say: redirect to Ramble House which is the subject's current venture, but that article does not cite any sources either. Better off deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Thompson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS and GNG. Upon further review, Thompson was drafted by the semi-pro American Basketball Association (2000-present), not the ABA of the 1960s and 70s. His stint with the ValleyDawgs also does not contribute to HOOPS. Essentially, the subject is a semi-pro player whose only significant coverage is a Times article in the 90s. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Rpclod (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to encourage wider participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:46, 6 June 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. So Why 07:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gleason Fournier[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet hockey notability criteria. Played 68 games in AHL (fully professional minor league, which requires 200 games played for notability) and 237 games in QMJHL and 128 games in ECHL lower-level leagues, but without preeminent honors.--Rpclod (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per research done by the first two editors. We have standards for a reason. Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 07:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nesrine Malik[edit]

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

subject fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Could only find her posts on news outlets and mentions on relatively primary sources which I think isn't enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references are primarily by the subject, not about the subject. The few that quote the subject are fairly peripheral. Perhaps too soon.--Rpclod (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:44, 6 June 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. with WP:NPASR. No further discussion took place despite another relist and as such, it's unclear whether Jclemens' !vote could have changed consensus. I cannot preclude that it could, so I'm closing this as no consensus. So Why 07:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TeeKay-421[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fanclub. There is very little to suggest notability (both for WP:NORG and WP:GNG). Last AfD mentioned press coverage in Dutch, but it seems pretty low-key. Still, I do get some hits like [14] and [15], so it seems borderline. From what I can make of the first article linked, through Google Translate, it seems based on the Wikipedia entry and/or a press release; this is hardly independent reporting or analysis of significance, just repetition of base facts from Wikipedia's article (probably copied from the club website and press releases). That may not be enough to make them encyclopedic. Would be nice to discuss it again, 8 years down the road. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:NORG and we have removed many more notable clubs before. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID: "one should generally avoid providing external links to *** Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Presumably the same holds for the fansite as the subject of an article. --Rpclod (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it's hard to evaluate sources not in any language I speak, it is clear that the organization's publication is regarded as a significant source and is quoted by English press. Combine that with everything else I can see in the Google News search above, it appears that the GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to hopefully enable a definitive consensus to be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:43, 6 June 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. Despite multiple relists, no clear consensus emerged. It seems like the subject should be kept in one form or another but how exactly could not be determined. So Why 07:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pansy Craze[edit]

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

The title is a neologism that appeared in one 1994 book; the very few other references all quote that book, and the term has not caught on. The article itself is a compilation of mini-biographies but there is no unifying focus. More detail can be found at Talk:Pansy Craze#Neologism.2C and original research.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Looking at the usage in books and scholarly works, the term is likely notable, through I couldn't find a proper definition anywhere. The article does seem to have major OR issues, and its narrow definition of the term as related to 1930s seems to contradict the sources I see which seem to talk of a longer time period. I am not sure if WP:TNT deletion would be needed here, of if this can be salvaged, but I do disagree with saying this is a non-notable neologism; this term, indeed likely created by Chauncey, has nonetheless garnered sufficient use to suggest it can likely be properly defined. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the article is synthesis and original research as written. There is some scholarly use of the term, but generally referring to the 1920s rather than the 1930s. I support keeping the term as a redirect target; Timeline_of_LGBT_history#1920s is minimally acceptable. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - not enough participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is certainly a niche term, but given that it was used historically and represents a specific and identifiable social movement I think this would be better marked for improvement rather than deletion. Relevant information would be lost, or a large amount of specialized info would need to be added to more general articles on the history of homosexuality in America, if it were removed. There's really no need to remove relevant and specific niche articles that meet the criteria for notability. TheGrinningViking (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheGrinningViking: I'm not against a 'keep', if that's what's correct here, but can you please elaborate on your "given that it was used historically"—was it really? From what I see, it's one guy in one book, and a few repeats. If by "used historically" you mean, "a few people used it [but it never caught on]" then I guess you're right, it was used historically. But the number of terms that are used a few times and never catch on is limitless, and I question whether they deserve an article, or even a mention. It's a feather in an academic's cap, if they come up with a term that gets picked up on, but if a couple of their friends or colleagues quote them here and there, and then it goes nowhere afterwards, this is not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, the way I see it. But I may be misunderstanding the criteria for notability, which is why I ask for clarification about what you meant. Mathglot (talk) 06:30, 8 June 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. Despite the sources mentioned later, consensus is that this person does not meet the notability guidelines at this point. So Why 07:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katie McHugh[edit]

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

As far as I can tell (and find) she's only 'famous' for being fired a few days ago. Doesn't meet the notability criteria, and there's also WP:NOTNEWS. Yintan 07:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Only notable for being fired and tweeting about it. Other than that she's just a run of the mill racist, one of many. Neiltonks (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She wasn't notable before she was fired; she's not notable now that she has been. — D. Wo. 13:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If necessary to document, should be noted on Breitbart page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironpaw (talk • contribs) 14:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure her firing is even notable enough to be mentioned on the Breitbart page.--Calton | Talk 14:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ONEEVENT. There is almost no coverage of her in reliable sources prior to her termination.- Mr X 14:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her accomplishments and background do not merit a BLP. Most of the sources are self-published, irrelevant, and verging on tabloid. Per the standards: Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. . — Mrpabesteves 15:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. !Votes based on the argument that McHugh is only notable for being recent fired by Breitbart should be disregarded since they're verifiably incorrect. Here are some reliable sources with significant pre-firing coverage:

Boggioni, Tom (September 17, 2015). "Slaves built the US the way cows built McDonalds and other historical facts from a Breitbart editor". The Raw Story.
Grove, Lloyd (March 1, 2016). "How Breitbart Unleashes Hate Mobs to Threaten, Dox, and Troll Trump Critics". The Daily Beast.
Harkinson, Josh (October 27, 2016). "Meet the White Nationalist Trying To Ride The Trump Train to Lasting Power". Mother Jones.
Weigel, David (August 20, 2016). "'Racialists' are cheered by Trump's latest strategy". The Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
Sherman, Elisabeth (November 23, 2016). "10 Most Despicable Stories Breitbart Published Under Bannon". Rolling Stone.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Neiltonks, Dwo, Ironpaw, Calton, MrX, and Mrpabesteves in case they wish to opine on my research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry DrFleischman, but on review, I stand by my original comment. Raw Story is not a very good source. The other sources only mention the subject in passing and lack and meaningful biographical detail.- Mr X 18:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. I just don't think there's enough in depth coverage of her. Neiltonks (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. My decision stands; nothing really there. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I reviewed the sources listed above and I don't believe that, collectively, they represent SIGCOV. They are passing mentions mostly confirming the subject's position at Breibart and that she indeed holds racist views. However, the totality of coverage does not convince me that the subject has encyclopedia notability just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 7 June 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. So Why 07:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard memes[edit]

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

This event appears to fail the notability criterion at WP:EVENT, particularly with respect to geographic coverage and persistence. VQuakr (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is misleading: it doesn't describe memes, it's an article about a minor incident at Harvard where some prospective students had offers rescinded. This is not a major event with lasting historical significance or international coverage, hence failing WP:EVENT. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's international coverage; today I saw an article in the Jerusalem Post about it: link. I'm not sure what the title can be called, but I'm fine with any name Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a long, long way from an event of "lasting historical significance". VQuakr (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"or", not "and", Mr. Quakr Ethanbas ^(talk) 19:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly not significant. Might be worth mentioning on the page for Gina Grant college admissions controversy or some other college admissions-related article.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable transient item from the news, no lasting significance in itself. --Lockley (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 10 June 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. So Why 07:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otilia Brumă[edit]

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

A previous article about this woman, with an unaccented version of her name Otilia Bruma was deleted multiple times, salted, and its creator blocked as a banned user. This version has different text and I've no reason to suspect its main editor, but there are still questions about notability, so I'm bringing it here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for the moment. I'm restricted to English-language sources, and a Google search suggests that she's certainly popular and famous, but neither of those necessarily equal notability. Sources in Romanian or another nearby language may change my opinion - or even those in Urdu, weirdly, as she seems to be popular in Pakistan for some reason - but I'll have to rely on translations for those. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - YouTube fandom is not enough to demonstrate a singer's notability. Right now, sources are inadequate, to say the least: a press release in a local paper, a tabloid piece about the subject's Turkish ex-boyfriend and another tabloid article about how she was sick in bed for a few days. With this level of coverage, WP:MUSICBIO simply is not met. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted under G4 RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. Palan[edit]

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

promotional article with total lack of RSs. There is no reason to think either his government appointment or his business enterprise notable. Judging by worldcat, his books are essentially self published. [16] DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the above, simply promotional with no obvious notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to be the same as Dr palan, which was speedy deleted some years ago. Also see User:Drpalan. --– jfsamper ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 06:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (CSD G4): Also deleted at AfD just over a week ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palaniappan Ramanathan Chettiar. No reason to overturn that consensus. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 6 June 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 deletion (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TTR Data Recovery[edit]

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

Am having trouble finding secondary sources to support notability. There are five provided sources, two of which are primary (though one does contain two signed letters from NASA employees), one of which Google Chrome insists is a bad site and won't let me access, and the other two are just sites that confirm the businesses exist. No news coverage whatsoever. Blue Edits (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. comment by ⚞Lil Johnny⚟ (t·c) on 04:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a firm, sourced to routine listings and a case study on their own site. Notability is not inherited from doing a piece of work for NASA, and nothing in the article suggests more than a run-of-the-mill company going about its business and I am finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A7 might have been the best course here. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 6 June 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. So Why 07:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Gruchet[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (Daily Mail is not a RS). duffbeerforme (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if we did consider the Daily Mail a reliable source, the article is arguably not even really about her, although she is cited as an example. This doesn't mean that she's not doing great work on the body image problem, but there's not enough sources as far as I can see to write a good quality, neutral biography of her. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
delete as above, the daily mail story is essentially about her as an everyday person. The other sources are primary, and one is a dead link. LibStar (talk) 14:18, 6 June 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 Bertelsmann Music Group#Production music. So Why 07:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X-Ray Dog[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. I was unable to locate significant coverage of the subject outside of the sources already provided. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bertelsmann_Music_Group#Production_music There aren't enough sources for an independent article, although there's a bit of coverage of its purchase by BMG[17]; this purchase means it's unlikely to become more notable in the future. I added a section to Bertelsmann Music Group on the company's production music interests. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect name only to Bertelsmann_Music_Group#Production_music. Not independently notable & no need to preserve the history which is strictly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 9 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Federation of Cuba[edit]

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

A search on internet reveals the organisation isnt much covered in press, hasnt done anything notable. Not notable enogh for encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep a search by its Spanish name "Federación Cubana de Béisbol" finds lots of coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: would you please add a litlle content, and RS to the article? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how does that have any bearing on the article's notability? WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP LibStar (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 07:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously? This is Cuba's equivalent of the MLB, the governing body of a national sport league...or in this case an interconnected system of amateur leagues...is automatically notable. Deletion is not an alternative to cleanup. TheValeyard (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My gosh. This is Cuba's national baseball federation and Cuba is a country that has loved baseball for generations. Indisputably notable. For penance, I request that the nominator improve the article, which should be a straightforward proposition. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @TheValeyard and Cullen328: I see you two passionately commenting here abouttje federation, but i dont see any work on the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

I hereby withdraw my nomination. But I think the users who voted for "keep" should at least try a little to work on the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant as per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Perhaps you should work on it instead of telling others. LibStar (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: The only reason I brought the article to AfD was because even after a thorough search, I couldnt find any sources. I would have already done it if I could find anything. And wikipedia doesnt forbid the editors from changing the article. You should take a look at WP:LAWYERING. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:15, 6 June 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 improvement, the consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mabrur Rashid Bannah[edit]

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

Fails notability per WP:ARTIST, WP:BIO . Nominating for AfD as existing requests for improvement were not paid heed to since Jan 17. Devopam (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is incomprehensible, so my first reaction was WP:TNT. There are many independent reliable sources available, however, so he is notable and Wikipedia should have an article about him. I'll take a stab at rewriting it tomorrow. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 08:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I blew it up and started over. It took more effort than I wanted to expend, but the result is, I think, understandable, accurately sourced, and of value to the encyclopedia. If nom's concerns have been addressed, please consider withdrawing the nomination. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I commend Worldbruce for their work improving this article to demonstrate notability. Their work is a benefit to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:ARTIST. Lack of quality doesn't automatically warrant deletion. --nafSadh did say 18:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Konami code. There is consensus that a stand-alone list is not appropriate but also that deleting the material altogether is neither. So Why 06:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Konami code games[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:CATALOG. WP:GAMECRUFT material. A couple of examples are more than sufficient to mention on main article Konami Code. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated List of non-Konami games using the Konami code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. It's been a while since I nominated two or more articles, so I'm a bit rusty. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, as per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. All the content appears to be is how to use the Konami code in every game, not encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim and potentially merge to Konami code The code's use in games is a notable topic, and there are definitely some that can be sourced. As per WP:TRIVIA, we should only include those that have been commented on by third-parties, which would gut several of the games from both lists. As this might leave something rather short, that combined list can then be moved over into the Konami code article proper. This !vote should not be taken as a "keep as is", these need cleanup regardless. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note, like @Masem said, merging is also an option of course, to keep the best examples. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per what MASEM said OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, the info can be adequately covered at the Konami code article. TheValeyard (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm not 100% sure but Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists seems to apply better than WP:NOTCATALOGUE and the concept seems to be notable. Reducing the list to the "best" examples brings us into the OR terrain, so better keep it. Shaddim (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaddim, your reasoning does not make sense. The concept is Konami Code, which is notable. List of Konami code games has one reference and List of non-Konami games using the Konami code has nine references, but you're saying that if we would merge it to a neatly sourced section on its main article, that would be original research? So the largely unsourced stuff currently, that's not original research? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being here unclear, "merge" by itself is not OR. I meant the "reduction to the best subset" (exmaples) could border OR (or at least I have seen this argumentation repeatedly elsewhere in WP against incomplete "example lists"). About the reach of notability, only the notability of the multiplicity of concrete Konami Code instances was shown (not the abstract concept as especially important or well designed or novel) so I would argue we HAVE TO represent the instances. The natural form is a list. Shaddim (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Nothing against merging sourced entries on the list in theory, since Shaddim's OR objection only applies if they're presented as an example list instead of used to illustrate a point. However, looking over the sourced examples I don't see much of use, just iterations of "This is how to use the Konami Code in this game." Shaddim's claim that the notability of multiplicity means we have to list individual instances makes no sense; by that logic, Black Death should have a list of every person killed by the Black Death. Notable multiplicity is precisely why we shouldn't keep a list of individual examples. This is the same reason why articles on pop and jazz standards don't list every cover version.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There seems to be still a mistunderstanding against what I argued: the middle ground -> reducing the list to a list of examples, this act could (and maybe should?) be seen as OR. All the other solutions are fine for me, which are from my perspective: keep, merge (full?), delete the list or both. Regarding the Black Death, this is quite the opposite: Black Death is notable (in the meaning relevant) not in its individual instances of killings but as concept, it has properties which where novel and had impact on humankind in many signficant ways (while a complete list of all black death victims would be of great historical interest ;) ). The opposite is true for the Konami code: it's (small) relevance grew with every instance where it was used (or at least was WP notability established that way!). By itself it is an quite unimportant, non-novel and boring thing. PS: what about a Category instead of a list? Shaddim (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the appearance of the Konami Code is not a defining characteristic of a video game (WP:CATDEF). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:20, 11 June 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. So Why 06:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Syed Modi International Grand Prix Gold[edit]

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

not much coverage in secondary sources and the article is limited to the 2017 event Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this tournament is the series of the Syed Modi International Badminton Championships and already passes WP:SPORTSEVENT.Stvbastian (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much like what Stvbastian said as its part of the 2017 BWF Season and as it has been a Grand Prix Gold event since 2011 I think it does pass WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG Matt294069 is coming 23:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, also these badminton events are not notable to stand alone as individual articles. Alternatively a merge can possibly work. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Firstly, the above event was a notable one and all of the major Indian newspapers had dedicated full-fledged articles to it. The information present in the article can be reliably & independently sourced, e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26],[27], [28], [29], etc. In fact, Hindi language newspapers had started publishing articles on the event before it was even started, e.g. [30], [31], [32], etc.

Secondly, if someone still thinks that it's non-notable, then it's surely a valid case of WP:SPINOFF, as it isn't possible to merge such a huge amount of details of every individual event to the main article. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like routine coverage of a sports event which is not enough for notability. Yes, we have articles about major events like the Superbowl and the Stanley Cup, but we dont have individual stand alone articles for every American Cup in Gymnastics, just one main article American Cup (gymnastics) which seems to be enough. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Cup (gymnastics) have stand alone articles in 2015 and 2016 and well justified to complete the main page. So, this subject also worthy as standalone article, like NitinMlk said it isn't possible to merge such a huge amount of details of every individual event to the main article.Stvbastian (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, yes there are stand alone articles for those two years of the American Cup, where Olympic gold medalists competed including Simone Biles. That is enough to establish notability for the event. I don't see anything but routine press coverage here, not enough to establish inherent notability. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Routine press coverage is passing mention of match scores/results. But, as I told earlier, five of the sources cited here – [33], [34], [35], [36], & [37] – were published before the beginning of coverage, i.e. before the event was even started. And they describe each & every relevant detail of the event. In fact, the remaining sources are also dedicated to the event. And read my previous comments to understand my points. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is one of the major badminton tournaments and passes WP:SPORTSEVENT. Event is also covered by reliable sources in detail with almost every Indian newspaper having an article about it. Passes WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not pass WP:SPORTSEVENT as stated. The relevant line: Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. This is a problem with a lot of badminton events. It is also a problem with a lot of other sports events. WP:NOT#INFO.

Also against the bid that it qualifies for WP:SPORTSEVENT; it is not the final series, it is one set of matches in a series; it is not a college bowl game; it is not an exhibition or all-star game; and it was not covered outside of the routine coverage of badminton matches of this sort.

This event did not receive coverage to warrant notability. This event will not have a huge impact on the future of badminton as we know it and did not have suitable coverage for notability.The coverage was short term (only lasting for the duration of the event, and enough time to hit the papers). The coverage (looking at the major Indian newspaper coverage from above) was all routine, some of it is the same exact copy published in different papers - of particular note, the First Post and Indian Express articles are the same, the First Post's just cuts off at an earlier paragraph. About 2/3 of the articles are all written by PTI, the Associated Press equivalent in India. The only substantial coverage I could find from above was The IB Times which is the only one to mention that players were dropping out like crazy at the last minute. A substantial problem for the tournament. Or this lovely tidbit from the Patrika article (which is also word-for-word the same as the lnvindia article) that there would be a blood drive at the event - no clue if it actually happened, though because I don't have any other sources.

Being one of 28 tournaments in one of 8 (skipping individual tournaments) such series doesn't make it a major tournament unless something spectacular happens. By my count, (assuming that each series has half the number of tournaments, and this is the exception) that makes it one of ~110 "major" tournaments per year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menaechmi (talk • contribs) 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Keep per comments below. menaechmi (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Your whole analysis sounds like WP:JDLI. Even in the articles of Rajasthan Patrika [38], Hindustan (newspaper) [39], and others – which give good overview of the event & its every relevant detail – all you could find is the mention of "blood drive". In fact, that "lovely tidbit" is what you call a routine coverage or a passing mention. And don't worry, blood donation did happen. ;) As far as "well-sourced prose" is concerned, the above sources are sufficient for that, but no one is forced to clean-up articles during AFDs, as presence of reliable sources is enough. Also, you mentioned that "it is not the final series, it is one set of matches in a series". What does that even mean? The above event is a full-fledged international tournament, which is organised annually, and it awards world ranking points. Anyway, for those who just don't like badminton-related articles, the above one will still remain a valid spinoff, as explained by me earlier. In fact, WP:SPORTSEVENT also states the same point: "For a games or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted." And as you can see, the above article is already quite long. Finally, don't limit yourself to the sources provided be me, as you can find a large no. of other sources by searching terms like syed modi badminton 2017, Syed Modi India Grand Prix Gold 2017, Syed Modi gpg 2017, etc. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it does sound like that, doesn't it? And that's just not right. You have effectively and clearly refuted the points that I made, and I have withdrawn the delete because you have a valid point, with the addition of the blood drive it (and the amount of money awarded to rankings etc.) there really is no reason to delete this article. I think I realized that halfway through and then for some reason kept going. This has the potential for quite a bit more than what it has now, and it will probably get there eventually. It definitely doesn't qualify for deletion under under the nom. menaechmi (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a thoughtful response. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:40, 12 June 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. So Why 06:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Witkoppen Reserve[edit]

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

Not sure what's going on here, but I can't find any reliable sources which confirm the existence of a "Witkoppen Reserve". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not locate any either. Apparently whoever posted this article got confused by the fact there is a reserve near Witkoppen, but not in it.TH1980 (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no, there simply isn't one anywhere round there or with that name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly, it does seem to exist and I can find mentions of it, but nothing substantial or independent, e.g. http://www.siteform.co.za/Projects/Witkoppen-Reserve-Verkykerskop/, other than that its promotional material or trip adviser reviews of accommodation. Needs to feature in travel press, wildlife site guides etc. Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quetzal1964, Although the lodge says it is in the Witkoppen Reserve, I found some sources such as [40] that confirm the "Witkoppen Tor", a large granite formation (and pictured in at the Lodge's website) is in a "reserve", but called "Fourways Reserve" or "Fourways Gardens". But I'm not yet sure there are enough sources to support an article at "Fourways Reserve". MB 21:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal that refers to a different place with the same toponym, I think it means "White Hill" in Afrikaans. The one in this article is in Orange Free State whereas the one you found reference to is in Gauteng. Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40236305

[2] ttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3774338/isis-fanatic-40-behind-notre-dame-hammer-attack-secretly-radicalised-himself-online-and-was-totally-unknown-to-cops-so-is-it-impossible-to-stop-lone-wolves/

[1]

[2]