Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 June	8 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 19:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasib Mukhtarov[edit]

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

Non-notable biography, see WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Single contributor, who is no longer active. Only references I could find through search are his social media pages, and ONE mention in an archeological blog. ZarosFlok (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. Just no evidence of impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 06:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. A WP:BEFORE search seems even less generous than the nom indicated! -[1]. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:49, 15 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. Redirects and moves are free at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio[edit]

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

Invalid disambig page. 'Colegio' is a common Spanish word meaning "college". All items in the list are various colleges. We don't put Dartmouth College into college (disambiguation) despite all its prominence. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all partial matches. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's actually detrimental to a search to have a partial list like this at a search term. Station1 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found Colégio, Rio de Janeiro as en entry known solely as "Colégio". -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Should that be moved to Colégio? If so, I guess Colegio could be redirected there. Station1 (talk) 04:19, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Rumm[edit]

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

Declined prod due to challenge by creator. Concern was "Non-notable poorly documented person. Promotional article. No credible claim of significance." Endorsed with "Rather blatant advertising." SpinningSpark 22:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn / advert. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PROD nominator. (Non-notable poorly documented person. No credible claim of significance. Promotional.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after looking at some of the links, not sure if this isn't a hoax. Rogermx (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no credible claim to significance (yet), and as mentioned, only really promotional in nature. No solid sources – all seem to be speculative/rumours, or the three ext. links which are mirrors of the instagram/facebook profile. —72 _talk 16:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Merely famous for being famous does not equal notability. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 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 speedy delete. The article falls under WP:CSD#G11 as it is unambiguously promotional and would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Mz7 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sizwe Faith Sithole[edit]

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

No independent references. Makes extravagant claims in a biography of a living person without verification. Google search turns up nothing but vanity hits, nothing to confirm the information here. Would need to be blown up and started over if kept, but doesn't need keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LJ Looper[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 20:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON? No bio at AllMusic http://www.allmusic.com/artist/lj-looper-mn0003409921 and the only entry is a perfunctory mention of an album without a review. No detailed info as a producer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personally I see little evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 09:16, 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 speedy delete. no substantial content--just a definition, and possibly not even a real one DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planufacturing[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 20:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently only a sentence long and my first thought was that it should go in Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. Having just looked in Wiktionary, the word is not there, which does make me think that this word could possibly be a non-existent portmanteau neologism. Vorbee (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, not notable enough for a move to Wiktionary. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 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. Ok, based on the arguments raised by Anomie and agreed with & undisputed afterwards it seems like this page is not actually necessary even when you don't consider any of the other delete arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot/fodder[edit]

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

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

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

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

Administrator note I declined the speedy deletion as this AfD is active, potential harm to readers or editors that may occur during this discussion are minimal at most. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not an article at all, but an apparent technical workaround to address an issue with VisualEditor, discussed on the talk page. I don't pretend to understand the technical issue, but this does seem to be an inappropriate use of mainspace, which is strictly reserved for encyclopedic content. I think we'd need to see a very good reason that this page needs to exist, in order to supersede that principle. —swpb^T 20:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't it be kept until the relevant issue is fixed, and then deleted? I'm assuming it won't need to be around forever. If you don't understand the technical details, then why nominate it for deletion rather than discussing in another forum? I'm sure people trying to fix bugs in Wikipedia software have better things to do than justify themselves to you. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch the attitude and the straw men – it's not me, as a single user, they need to justify themselves to, it's the community. No small group of people can make a decision of this magnitude, against such a firm consensus, and expect it to go unchallenged. I'm not 100% confident that the page needs to be deleted, but I'm damn sure there needs to be more of a discussion about it, with more people involved, than there has been so far. —swpb^T 15:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Protect (without lock) as author, it is needed for screenshots due to phab:T162454. We need to create screenshots of the interface that most resembles what most users will be familiar with, using only Public Domain and WMF copyrighted content for ease of licensing. Mainspace on this project (the WMF's flagship project) fits the bill perfectly. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. In order to further ease licensing, I have also taken the extraordinary step of releasing my work on it into the Public Domain, as well as via GFDL 1.2, GFDL 1.3, CC-0, and all CC-BY and other licenses accepted by WMF projects in this edit. Please see mw:Help talk:Sample page#on_en.wiki for details. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer should note that Jeff G. is the creator of this page. I would also add that I don't see how PD/GFDL licensing has anything to do with the concerns attached to this page. —swpb^T 14:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Swpb: I view "as author" and "as creator" as equivalent at AfD, and I hope you are not implying that I did not reveal that I had created the page in my first group of edits to this AfD two bullets above, signed at 12:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC) and continuing for 33 minutes. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page is needed for a Selenium test that ensures that VisualEditor is working properly. You can see from T162454, quite a lot of effort went in to avoiding having to use a mainspace page for this, but there was no other acceptable solution found. I welcome input on a better solution to this problem. Until then, this page is a necessary evil and will have to remain. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To editors Deskana (WMF) and Colapeninsula:: Please define "until then" and "until the relevant issue is fixed". For a non-encyclopedic page to reside in mainspace indefinitely, there really ought to be a larger community consensus on the wiki, not just the agreement of the few tech people involved in Phabricator. I get that tech issues sometimes trump community desires, but there hasn't been nearly enough justification made to the community yet on this one. Maybe that slows down your tech work, but that's the price of working on a wiki. —swpb^T 15:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb: If you would like to withdraw this, I can close it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not like to, because I don't feel that the problem has been adequately addressed. The people involved in the VE work for which this was created have clearly convinced themseleves that it merits breaking with one of the most fundamental consensuses of the wiki, but uninvolved community members have not weighed in on that decision. —swpb^T 15:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Or rather, questions:

Don't we have test wikis?
Could not a more standard and encyclopedic article be used as test bench using permlinks to predictable revisions?
Could WP: space not be used for this?
If this is still considered unavoidable despite the above ideas, until when?

Thanks, —Paleo Neonate - 12:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't we have test wikis?" yes, and these are also used for such tests. But nothing compares to en.wp. It's the most complex wiki in the world that cannot be easily reproduced accurately. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two questions here:

Is this the only possible technical solution to the problem?
If so, is the technical problem significant enough to justify abandoning standard practice?

Most of the comments defending this page, including yours above, only address the first question (and not even convincingly, if User:Anomie, below, is correct). —swpb^T 13:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently the presence of this page helps to improve the encyclopedia. It certainly does not make things worse. Thincat (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it makes things worse is debatable. As a mainspace page, it appears under "random article", and on various maintenance pages like Special:Uncategorized pages, which is where I found it. Then there's the harm of reinforcing a pattern of technical decisions made elsewhere trumping community ones made here, on the wiki. —swpb^T 13:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as a computer/software illiterate, can someone please explain why this needs to be a permanent page in article-space (sorry, i had a look at the discussion linked from the article's talkpage but apart from seeing that there are some great people who work behind the scenes, i was unable to understand what is going on, apart from something not working/running correctly)? Could one of the involved editors have a copy of this page on a user subpage and when tests need to be run, copy it temporarily to article-space?, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no consensus that we cannot have such pages in Mainspace. In fact, Mainspace is filled with non-article pages, from millions of (soft-)redirects to pseudo-namespaces (such as T:DYK, P:C, H:H etc.). As Thincat says: If the page helps improve the project and does not hurt anyone, why delete it? (Disclaimer: I was canvassed here from VPP) Regards So Why 13:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is clearly neither a soft redirect, a pseudo-namespace, or any of the other exceptions in Wikipedia:What is an article?#Namespace or Wikipedia:Namespace#Subject namespaces, and consensus to allow those specific types of exceptions are therefore completely inapplicable here. It may be decided that this page can stay, but its absolutely not a question that seems to have been settled before. —swpb^T 13:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Find a solution to phab:T162454 that doesn't require dumping garbage in enwiki's mainspace. I've just suggested two such potential solutions on that task. I find WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments proposed above unconvincing. Anomie⚔ 13:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, per discussion below, this page isn't even used for the stated purpose and was created based on a misunderstanding and one user's (who is not the bot operator) beliefs. There seems to be no Anomie ⚔ 11:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm very much in agreement with SoWhy on this. Avoid sure, but something about being WP:BOLD and the 5th pillar, seems like it would apply here. BTW. I marked the page as NOINDEX. Seemed appropriate. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- NOINDEX doesn't address the page appearing under "random page" and on various maintenance pages. —swpb^T 13:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And nowhere did i claim it would.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say, or come anywhere near implying, that you did. Seriously, re-read the exchange and consider whether a third party would find the defensiveness of your reply to be called for, and whether it helps your case; I'd agree to letting you remove it and this reply, and try again. All I said is that NOINDEX doesn't solve all the problems. —swpb^T 14:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- NOINDEX also expires after 30 days. If anything, it should be added to MediaWiki:Robots.txt but that doesn't stop it from showing up in the internal search engine, and "screenshot" is probably a pretty common search term. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  @Train2104: NOINDEX doesn't expire, if it is explicitly present (as __NOINDEX__) in either the page itself or in a transcluded page. The thirty-day expiry is for the hidden noindex that is an automatic part of unpatrolled new pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Redrose64: I just reread WP:NOINDEX - I was wrong about the timeframe, but it still expires. Articles older than 90 days are automatically indexed. The __NOINDEX__ magic word and the {{NOINDEX}} template do not work on them. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone please explain why the page absolutely definitely must be in mainspace? Why could it not be in Draftspace, which is intended for, amongst others, "experimental" pages? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the ticket, the script works fine with a non-mainspace page, only that the tab text does not say "article". I'd rather see a JS override for that than a spurious test page in article space. Though a test wiki is by far the better route for this sort of application. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the point, isn't it? If you have to use some hacks to generate the same experience, it's not the same experience and thus you cannot test it under real conditions. Which is why a test wiki does not work one imagines, otherwise the page would be hosted there. Regards So Why 17:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I understand it, this isn't for user testing, it's for a bot to take screenshots. What matters is that the screenshot looks right, how that happens (so long as its programatically feasible) doesn't really matter. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is the need to take screenshots ongoing? If so, why? My problems here are fundamentally: 1) that there was no notification before this was done, and 2) that even now, there's no indication how long we're expected to host it in articlespace. The arguments for making this page, and taking the screenshots seem plausible. But the arguments for retaining the page are weaker. Leaving this in articlespace because you expect you'll need to test more later is leaving the metaphorical faucet running. A preferable sequence of events would be to create the article, take your screenshots, and then G2/G6/G7 delete the article. If you need to iterate the process later, then recreate it at that time and repeat. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another reason VE should be put to death. The fact that pure vandalism like this must be in the mainspace is a testament to the incompetency of the WMF. Laurdecl ^talk 23:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pure vandalism, and there is a test Wikipedia to perform this type of actions. If you can't do it there, don't bring it here. —JJ B^e ^rs 23:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a test page - who would !vote to keep that? KMF (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This has been up for almost a month, truly we don't need it around for this long just to grab screenshots? Does VE really change often enough that we need to leave this in mainspace? It shows up in too many ways across the encyclopedia (categories, Google searches, etc.) Edit: If multiple screenshots over time are needed, why not grab random pages that don't have images on them (the only copyright issue I can think of, as some images are fair-use here)? Waggie (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidently this is used to improve the Visual Editor which is an increasingly popular way for users to edit. The harm here is it coming up in random, which is literally a one in 5.4 million chance, or in maintenance categories, the latter of which does no harm to readers. I would however add an explanation of its use. Having some more complicated Wikitext markup might even discover some hidden bugs that couldn't be found with just text, however unlikely.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it should be possible to have an "overlay" system, where for certain test pages the test content is shown, and for other pages the full en.wikipedia.org domain is shown. There's no permanent technical reason why it should need to be on the main public site. There appears to be be a temporary reason why this is necessary; Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet is the title I would recommend. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ... thereby making it harder for readers who happen to type the first five words of Lorem ipsum to find that article. Pppery 14:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seriously? This is what links (e.g. Lorem ipsum) are for. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Links are not the only method of navigating (nor should they be). Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet is a plausable redirect to Lorem ipsum, and should not be overwritten with this non-article. Ppp ery 00:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please just let the WMF people do their jobs. Neither the fact that someone clicking on "Random article" has a 0.000018% chance of landing on this non-article, nor the fact that it shows up on certain maintenance pages that no-one but dedicated Wikipedians ever visit, justifies the abandonment of a simple technical workaround to make VE work better. Those supporting deletion have not demonstrated any harm being caused by this page. Also, trout the next person to make a ridiculous bad-faith accusation of vandalism. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting I wrote my response before seeing that of User:Patar knight, who I see wrote much the same thing as me. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really at the point now where we tolerate this? Imagine a reader clicking through to this from Google. This is nothing but pure vandalism, plain and simple. Laurdecl ^talk 06:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm imagining it, and not finding any problem. Most of our inner workings are indexed by Google, from our bad image list to our list of hoaxes on Wikipedia. What do you fear will happen if a reader reaches this page? And can you please read at least the first sentence of WP:VANDALISM? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the WMF so utterly incompetent that they must vandalise (yes, that's what this page is – graffiti) the mainspace to get their crappy tool that we don't want to work? This from a corporation that raised $72,000,000 last year? Laurdecl ^talk 08:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first sentence of WP:VANDALISM again. No amount of incompetency can result in vandalism without a deliberate aim to disturb the encyclopedia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comes up as second item on typing "Screenshot" into the internal search box, thus has impact on any readers following that link. Title format looks like a subpage, but isn't (the subpage feature is disabled in mainspace): Noyster (talk), 09:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an article. If the bot needs to do it automatically, maybe it should have a list of pages to screenshot (one for each wiki) instead of using a test page like this one. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Simply not an article under VAND. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment, leaning on keep for now, get back to deletion in a month. I am a small time coder, I do not understand the bug at hand, but I understand that sometimes you need a ugly hack to keep things moving. So I think that keeping this for a short period would not hurt, and if it helps development then fine. I think the first and foremost interested in getting this page deleted as soon as possible are the devs that currently need it as a workaround; if this page needs to be kept for more than a short time (say, this month) it will be a monument to unsolved problems with VisualEditor. And no one wants that. I hope the suggestion from Jc86035 get some sort of reply, or in some way we get layman explanations on why there must be a dummy page, why not use "Main Page" or "Wikimedia", that is, some real page that exists everywhere, anything else will be detrimental to the devs. - Nabla (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an article, plain and simple. SkyWarrior 18:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete usage of the enwiki mainspace for testing is non-ideal. The difference between this and a redirect (soft or otherwise) is that it is abundantly clear that those are navigational aids. While some/even most of us might know what a Lorem ipsum is, not all editors do, and certainly less readers would if they somehow ended up on this page through some means. Use the test wiki for testing. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mainspace is for article content and redirects to article content. Fails GNG, null content. If this is somebody's lazy workaround to solve a technical issue, find another workaround. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every "keep" !vote here seems to be assuming that this page actually is being used for screenshots. But the code being discussed in T162454 doesn't actually use it, or else I'm looking at the wrong code. Jeff G., Deskana (WMF), is this page actually being used (and if so, where is the relevant code?), or is it just a page Jeff G. created because he wants it to be used instead of Help:Sample page? Anomie ⚔ 16:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomie and Deskana (WMF): I created it because I saw from https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T162454#3193282 a need for a page in mainspace on this wiki, and I saw in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T162454#3172528 and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T162454#3174759 a need for public domain text to be on that page; lorem ipsum is perfect because it is in the Public Domain and has been used for decades as filler text, directing the reader to look at layout rather than the meaning of the text. I used a virtual subpage to disabuse readers of the notion it was an article. I named it as fodder for a screenshot, and another, and another... ad infinitum as bots are wont to do. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Subpages are not enabled in mainspace. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming that the page is in fact not currently used and not at all necessary except for your sole insistence that it somehow needs to be an enwiki mainspace page because the screenshots would otherwise be "different" in some unspecified manner. I further note that phab:T162454#3193282 was fixed in the bot script in Gerrit change 347595 patchset 5, almost a month before you created the page. Anomie ⚔ 11:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anomie. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 19:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending a better explanation, this is not an article. From what I've gathered, User:Jeff G. created this page so that a WMF contractor, User:ZFilipin (WMF), who runs a bot on commons, commons:User:LanguageScreenshotBot, could read the page, take a screen shot, and upload it to commons. Is there any input available from the bot operator? If this is all being done for the purpose of build a manual (per commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/LanguageScreenshotBot) why can't this be done on testwiki or test2wiki? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Neither looks exactly like the real thing, especially in the logo area. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: How will that stop a reader from using the manual? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Do you like manuals for production items that have images or diagrams which refer to beta or test versions of those items? I don't; they are unprofessional, and reflect poorly on technical writers, support staff, items, manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: could this process use a specific version (e.g. this link)? That should help keep the data consistent without also needing permanent protection. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be an edit link? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's taking screenshots of VE's UI. Anomie ⚔ 11:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Xaosflux: Note this page isn't even being used for the screenshots currently, Jeff G. merely wants it to be used. The "do you want the manual to exactly match" argument doesn't really work anyway unless the bot is changed to generate its screenshots per wiki instead of per language and to use a page on each project instead of using w:en:Help:Sample page (with uselang) for them all. It also hasn't been specified in what way a testwiki page or a page in a non-main namespace is different in such an extremely detrimental manner. Anomie ⚔ 11:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this page is required for "below the hood" purposes, deleting it could harm the project. doktorb _words^deeds 05:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the developers really, really need a dummy page in mainspace, could they not rename it to a random string of letters rather than a title that may be found by searchers and falsely suggests that it is a subpage of a real article?: Noyster (talk), 10:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator, I've already had my vote, but I want to comment on the developments in this discussion since I started it. I contended that the page was an inappropriate use of mainspace even if it was serving its stated purpose and was the only way of doing so (and it seems there's a lot of agreement on that). It now seems clear that this page is not being used as intended, and is not the only possible solution to the purported technical problem, but merely the most convenient or elegant, and only from a particular (developer-oriented) perspective at that. Without this extended discussion, that would not have come to light. The discussion is not over yet, but I hope, WADR, that certain editors will be more cautious in the future about suggesting a premature withdrawal of an AfD based on a few preliminary comments, even if they include comments from Foundation employees. —swpb^T 12:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I never "suggested" it: I told you that if you wanted to withdraw it I'd close it for you as a courtesy. It's the last time a "certain editor" will ever extend as much to you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, what a terrible reaction. It reads to all the world as a suggestion, but whatever you want to call it, it was ill-advised, especially given the higher standard expected for non-admin closures. You're entitled to make errors in judgement; its whether you accept and learn from them or just get publicly crabby that matters. I'll agree to let you remove your reply and this one if you'd like another try at civility. —swpb^T 14:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Anomie. Mainspace is for articles or redirects, not for pages like this. It's not an article, keep it out of mainspace. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anomie. The author of this test page made the mistake of canvassing the editors on that Phab ticket because they continue to believe the ends justify the means. I want to reify that falsehood of that concept. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per WP:PN; my earlier questions have not been answered satisfactorily. While I understand the whoes of software development (being a developer myself), there are be better solutions to this. We have multiple namespaces, sandboxes, permanent revision links and test wikis... —Paleo Neonate - 23:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were required for testing, even of vandalism-creating apps such as VE, it might be reasonable. However, the Phabricator ticket makes it clear it is not required, even if the generated screenshot were necessary even in the opinion of the bot creator, as the screenshots are supposed to be per-language, rather than per-Wiki. (I'm not sure why the speedy was denied. Other articles have been speedied during AfDs, and even during VfDs.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy due to: there already being reasonable keep arguments here; low reader or project reputation risk of waiting a week; possible technical constraints (that do not appear to now be present). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Anomie, this page does not seem necessary, and should not be in the mainspace as it is not an article. --Imminent77 (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the page is not actually used or needed. I would tolerate creating the page temporarily for the duration of the test/screenshot taking/etc., as long as it was deleted immediately after the test was over. Creating it in advance in case there was a use for it is no good. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:29, 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 keep. So Why 19:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana International[edit]

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

Non-notable badminton event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See WP:NSEASONS: A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable. This is above the national level as well as above the top collegiate level, so as conclusion this event must be notable as well as every season of it. Florentyna (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not an individual season, so WP:NSEASONS does not apply. Furthermore, there is a lack of GNG so its not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This tournament sanctioned by the Badminton World Federation as level 4 grade same with Uganda International. The point earned by the competitors will be calculate for competed at the major event such as African Badminton Championships, BWF World Championships, and also 2018 Commonwealth Games. Stvbastian (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internationally sanctioned professional tournament. Whether individual seasons are notable is another issue, but the competition as a whole is clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 15:13, 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. Sandstein 05:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ordicate[edit]

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

Seemingly a neologism - a search turned up only links back to or scrapes of this article. Fails WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO. Narky Blert (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and we do not publish original research. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Raisin Reserve[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, and seemingly skewed coverage in violation of WP:NPOV. Not finding enough coverage beyond what's there to meet WP:GNG. Specifically not notifying page creator, as they're globally locked per WMF. PROD removed after expiration. Waggie (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Waggie (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit. Passes GNG. See source examples below. ~~Another secondary option is to merge to Raisin~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Associated Press
The Seattle Times
NPR
CNBC
National Review
Bloomberg Businessweek
Bloomberg (WP:NEWSBLOG, authored by a professional writer who has written for Newsweek, the Atlantic and the Economist)
Consumerist
The Washington Post
The Washington Post
Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Newser
Harvard Law Review
Business Insider (short article)

Keep clearly passes GNG (and is a cool topic). I would not merge to raisin, should be brief mention there at most (US specific price control, not related to the sctual product) Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of my !vote above regarding merging. Better as a standalone article, imo. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd be interested in a more historical approach to much of the article, but it clearly passes WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:GNG. As for NPOV, if I understand the concern correctly, the article takes a view in favor of Horne's case, but this seems to me based on RS and could be balanced without deleting the article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG, has historical significance to American agriculture. If a redirect were to be considered the best target would probably be Horne v. Department of Agriculture, but I think this subject has enough significance apart from the Supreme Court case to warrant its own article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:51, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given no input other than by nominator Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avaza[edit]

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

Non-notable software, based almost entirely on interviews on advertising platforms and entrepeneur "communities". Google search revealed no additional independent in-depth coverage (there are a lot of false positives from other "Avaza" topics). Note: I have removed one misrepresented user-review site (see history). GermanJoe (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

ref #1 (Startup Daily): Interview-based, no author information. Every single bit of information is based on the founder's say-so. No evidence of independent journalistic coverage.
- ref #2 (PRWeb, now removed): Not independent coverage, but atleast they are transparent about it.
ref #2 (Enterprise Times): The best of all available sources. Partially based on company information, but it includes some additional critical analysis and uses relatively cautious measured language. Sums itself up neatly with "This could be a company to watch." (WP:TOOSOON).
ref #3 (G2 Crowd): User review-based "research" site, conveniently combined with a purchase advice chat.
ref #4 (nine.com.au): PR announcement based on company info (see the site owner's mission statement), no author info.
ref #5 (Anthill Magazine): 5 shared tips by the company founder, not independent coverage. No author information, but the author added almost no content on their own anyway.

With only 1 OK-ish source and 4-5 fluff pieces, there is not enough independent in-depth coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 10:38, 23 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 17:41, 31 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) 18:00, 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Linguist ^talk|contribs 07:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estevão Toledo[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable furniture designer. Unambiguous self-promotion. Tagged for notability and sourcing concerns for months now. Slashme (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 23 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 17:40, 31 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) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. The article seems self-promotional, like an advertisement for a non-notable designer. A news, newspaper and book search did not turn up enough to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 14:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 17:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of documents relating to the News International phone hacking scandal[edit]

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

This appears to be an outstanding example of what Wikipedia is not, mostly as an indiscriminate collection of information. I certainly see why Lotje chose to split it out from News media phone hacking scandal reference lists, but I can't see why it (or, for that matter, the parent agglomeration) needs to be kept. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times and The Guardian refs are everywhere, a clear example of what is RS.--Biografer (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into News International phone hacking scandal. Possibly delete if that article is too large for a merge to be feasible; it needs significant copy-editing by someone familiar with the matter. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - important supporting article, merge would probably be unwieldy. Artw (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has apparently confused discriminate and indiscriminate. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - chronological dating lists are very helpful. Lotje (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article is very helpful.--連綿 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes this format is a little unusual, but is notable and verifiable. It was a reasonable idea to calve this from the larger article, which is quite large. --Lockley (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails LISTN, no indication that this list of documents as such has received coverage and is notable. The scandal is what's notable, and if this content is relevant it should be covered in that article. Sandstein 05:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A valid WP:SPINOUT article that directly relates to the News International phone hacking scandal. The main article is at 226,970 bytes, and per WP:SIZERULE, articles over 100 kB "almost certainly should be divided". The main article is over double the recommended size for spinouts to occur. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ordinarily I'd think this cruft, but it's a useful spinout from News International phone hacking scandal, which is an enormous article that would warrant inclusion of this if it weren't so long already. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:28, 15 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic cellular dehydration[edit]

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

Topic doesn't seem to get substantial coverage in any sources. Google search only gets sources mirroring the WP article. Can't find sources discussing the term's use by alt. med practitioners (though it would be great if some others could look as well). Only scientific discussion is here and papers that cite it, but it's not enough to build an article off of. I'm unclear if topic meets WP:GNG. Comments would be much appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. —Paleo Neonate - 06:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at User talk:CyborgTosser (reason: Article creator). —Paleo Neonate - 06:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to build authority for this term and what it represents. A Google Scholar search makes pretty clear that the academic literature has not adopted this term nor concept as a researchable notion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This article is essentially being used to flog quack medical treatments. For notability, at least one independent secondary source is needed. The only proper citation that I could locate is PMID 11382793, but that is a primary source. There is one review article PMID 16028569 that cites the first source, but only briefly in the context of dehydration in different compartments and concludes that the proportion stays the same undercutting the importance cellular dehydration. Boghog (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale JeanOhm (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Nothing plausible that Dehydration doesn't provide. Could even be considered a POV fork of dehydration. —Paleo Neonate - 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form. The concept does exist as an unrecognized pseudo-illness along the lines of Leaky gut syndrome or Heavy legs, but any article on the topic would have to be rewritten from scratch to make it clear that this is an article about an alternative diagnosis promoted by health food stores and crank practitioners, not a genuine and recognized condition. For an article with traffic this low, it's really not worth anyone's time, and medical articles are a field where WP:RUBBISH is a valid argument for deletion as an incomplete article can be actively harmful and is consequently worse than no article at all. ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The three book references provided are self-help pseudoscience. Only one of them even mentions "chronic cellular dehydration". The fourth reference is generic recipe for rehydration. I could not find any suitable references that describe this topic. Ritz's paper is the closest, but that is a primary source. The phrase is so rare that it does not even qualify as a neologism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a content fork of dehydration. The first paragraph of the article could be used here as reason for why the article should be deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete good lord this was created in 2004. seems well intentioned to debunk the concept but this is so fringe that not even our regular sources per PARITY like Gorski discuss this. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we do not publish original research, nor do we recognize non-notable fringe theories, nor are we a place to describe pseudoscience, nor are we a free webhost for any rando on the Internet, nor are we a soapbox for advocates of ideas. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Linguist ^talk|contribs 07:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damon S. Davis[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Article's current sources reflect this non-notability by Wikipedia's standards. They are nearly all primary sourced (Indexee.com) and self-published (damondavis.com and legacyworldwide.com). As such they are neither sufficiently third-party or distant from the subject to constitute a reliable source. Furthermore, a WP:BEFORE search demonstrates no coverage in any other reliable sources, of any depth, with no persistence- for example, [2], [3]. As a result, the biographical subject of this article fails the criteria to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 17:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. The article opens with "...multi-national media executive, author, direct response marketing entrepreneur, and a Television interview talk-show host" and goes downhill from there. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) *Delete as per analysis by nom. I wish more people would vote on these to prevent relisting. Even the relisting editors could throw in a delete or Other opinion and save the relist. Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 15 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. As usual, this outcome does not mean the article can't be recreated if and when the subject meets the notability guideline(s). So Why 19:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Tomasello[edit]

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

I'm not finding anything to indicate notability or passage of WP:NFOOTY (never played in a top-tier team). References on the page are just generic transfer notices, and only give information about where he was and where he's going. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- [[4]]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballPro (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an online content-free, collaborative encyclopedia, this entry has a disclaimer that respects all the basic information needed for an encyclopedic entry with details and official references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballPro (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was born as an encyclopedia, written voice has all the requirements that meet and meet the requirements for a Wiki entry. What do you mean by important team? Real Madrid or Barcelona?! It's important to play for professional teams for many years. Transfers dettails and not just words must be detailed here.

Some articles article whit this player on internet

- [[5]]
- [[6]]
- [[7]]]
- [[8]]

Delete. Subject fails the football-specific notability guideline because he hasn't played in a fully professional league or at senior international level. And there's no evidence of enough "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" to pass the WP:BIO guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

accept the font is specific for professional football player Are completely exhaustive — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballPro (talk • contribs) 13:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!!! i remember having seen playing this player in professional categories on CFR Cluj, I'm glad I found it in this encyclopedia with my search  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.97.8 (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept Satisfying WP:NFOOTBALL FootballPro (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Surely the league appearances for CFR Cluj are enough to pass NFOOTY? Spiderone 13:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spiderone, normally you'd be right, but I genuinely cannot find any indication that Tomasello actually played for CFR Cluj. If the article is to be believed, he made 23 appearances and scored 20 goals, but I have been through every stats and history page I can find (in English and Romanian) and he's not mentioned in a single location for 2013 or 2014. I don't know if the refs given for him being signed are unreliable, or the deal fell apart, or he simply never made it off the bench, but either way it looks like he spent no appreciable time at CFR Cluj. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He never played for Cluj's first team. According to tuttocalciatori.net, the apps/goals are genuine, but in a league annotated as "SG", which stands for settore giovanile. That isn't necessarily youth team, can also be used for reserves with an age limit, like in England the reserve league is currently an under-23 league with over-age players permitted. There was a page recently deleted from the Italian Wikipedia which is still available in a Google cache: that lists his Cluj appearances as for the reserve team. Either way, it's not Cluj's first team: see e.g. Soccerway (select season via dropdown menu), romaniansoccer.ro. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per responses to my question above Spiderone 15:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Accept The cancellation has no valid motivation, because the championship where he played was professional contract, say good Spiderone, the reserve championship is same in England, though to see in SG. The Wiki entry meets all the requirements and basics required for the encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballPro (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)struck as second vote CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FootballPro: Please understand that on the English Wikipedia, the player must play in the fully professional league to pass WP:FOOTY. It isn't enough to have a professional contract, or to play for a professional club's reserve team. He must play for the first team in a match in a fully professional league. Mr Tomasello has not done this. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Perfect he played for first team and professional league in Hungary and Malta — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballPro (talk • contribs) 16:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the list of fully professional leagues HERE, at WP:FPL. Mr Tomasello's clubs played in the Hungarian second division and the Maltese second division. Only the Hungarian top division (Nemzeti Bajnokság I) is listed as fully professional; the second division, Nemzeti Bajnokság II, is not. No Maltese leagues are fully professional: the top-division Maltese Premier League is listed explicitly as not fully professional. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FootballPro Please note you only get one !vote. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:41, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chand Mia[edit]

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

The cited sources are a memorial newspaper piece, a list of 155 award recipients, and one sentence in an "On this day in the war" chronicle, a sentence that relates how he led a team in an attack on a Pakistani camp that killed "three associates of the Pakistan[is]". Searches of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and eight national newspapers, including by Bengali-script name, found no other reliable sources.

The notability criteria for soldiers says they are notable if they were awarded their nation's highest award for valour or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour multiple times. The Bir Protik is Bangladesh's fourth-highest award for valour, analogous to a Bronze Star Medal in the U.S. military. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:SOLDIER. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear as the article is now written to be notable. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOLDIER is a project notability page. The Bir Protik is fourth-highest award for valour in Bangladesh. Subject is passed in accordance to WP:GNG. ~ Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 18:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see anything that would pass the threshold for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Warrant officer equivalent with a low-level decoration. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 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. It's unclear whether the subject really requested deletion but even if they did, consensus is that he is notable enough to warrant an article. Any problems with the content of the article can be fixed by editing. So Why 08:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Radelet[edit]

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

Michael L. Radelet has requested that his Wikipedia page be taken down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumo76163 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Radelet seems to be the "go-to" guy whenever the death penalty gets brought up, but with that being said there's almost nothing about him; every source I can find is either a quote from him or a reference to his work. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per subject request Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't matter what the subject thinks, it only matter whether he is notable or not (well, that and WP:BLP stuff). The article doesn't seem to have BLP issues, it is hardly quality coverage, but it is on par with what we usually have (often written by the subjects themselves, or by their friends/students/etc.). The subject passes WP:PROF - Google Scholar shows numerous articles by him (often co-authored, but still...) with 200+, a lot more with 100+, citations. He has a solo-authored publication in American Sociological Review, that's a flagship sociological journal. As far as works about him and his impact, there's not much (he isn't dead yet, so no obituaries, etc.) but I found C. Ronald Huff; Martin Killias (2013). Wrongful Convictions and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes and Remedies in North American and European Criminal Justice Systems. Routledge. pp. 402–. ISBN 978-0-415-53993-7.: "His work on erroneous convictions... is widely credited with introducing the "innocence argument" into contemporary death penalty debates". Granted, that's from a section on contributor's biographies and it might have been written by him, but it is in a reliably-published academic book. Overall, I think he is on the notable side of notability, and that means his bio stays. If the subject thinks there are inaccuracies/bias, he should be more clear and report them on the talk page/here/help forum, and we can take a look at fixing the article. Also ping User:Randykitty. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet NPROF. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects." Based on that, I don't believe he meets NPROF#1, and I see no claim he meets any of the other standards. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Primefac and Power~enwiki. I can not add much more to their words. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Heavily-cited researcher and based on that easily clears the bar of WP:PROF. I'm not sure how much we should weigh the subject's preference. I tend to agree with Piotrus that this is more a situation where the article should be fixed than one calling for deletion. I'll leave the decision to the closing admin, my personal opinion being that this subject is clearly notable (note to Primefac: academics are usually notable for their work and that is what is being covered), but I don't think it would break the encyclopedia if he's not covered. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I'm only a weak delete - he's clearly a well-respected individual in his field, but I'm just not finding any significant coverage. I begrudgingly accept that PROF exists, but I haven't yet seen it demonstrated in the article. Either of these will change my opinion. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete On balance, not notable enough for wikipedia. Doesn't pass criteria on WP:NMUSIC. Darx9url (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Darx9url, Radelet isn't a musician, so why would NMUSIC matter? Primefac (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted and saved comment into wrong window, sorry. Please ignore. Darx9url (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus. Doing a quick Google Books search shows that his work led to a sea change in how the subject of wrongful executions was studied in academia, which would meet PROF in my view. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST and WP:BLPDELETE do exist, but in this case it's unclear if the subject as made the request via WP:OTRS, since the claim that a request has been made is from a student enrolled in a Wikipedia-related course at Prof. Radelet's university. I also believe that the subject is above the level where a delete request can be actioned without consensus at AFD. If closed as keep, the subject should be contacted and asked what they find objectionable about the article.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:17, 16 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 19:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meister Cook[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP. Non-notable business where the claim to fame seems to be that it has appeared in Inc's list of growing businesses. This doesn't confer the depth of coverage needed by WP:ORGDEPTH and there isn't substantial coverage in other sources that we typically expect for businesses to meet WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a promo blurb. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:17, 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 19:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music Crowns[edit]

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

A WP:SPA The creator of this wikipedia page has a close relation to the owner of the business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. 24.9.98.30 (talk) 1:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a short press release, and I am not seeing enough to suggest this meets WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 15 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. Consensus is that this incident does not have a lasting impact sufficient to overcome WP:NOTNEWS concerns Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 31[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. List of American Airlines accidents and incidents already lists this incident, which should suffice.

Also note that the previous AfD is unrelated to this incident. SkyWarrior 03:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 03:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 03:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Contemporaneous daily news coverage in newspapers (and daily stock-price fluctuations) are not sufficient for general notability. In any case, it shouldn't have this article title; coverage under List of American Airlines accidents and incidents is sufficient IMO but I'd entertain a rename proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC) (as amended)[reply]
Keep The incident involved the FBI and Air Force and was covered by many major media outlets including ABC, CNN, NBC, WaPo, and USA Today. I believe that the article is sufficiently notable right now, and will become more notable over the next few days or weeks as the story continues to develop. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It was a passenger altercation, just like other airlines, so why delete if one article has a similar incident like this, like United Express Flight 3411, that the result was a keep? I believe that it is notable, and it should be kept.174.52.246.30 (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No injuries or fatalities. Just another crazy guy being stupid. Slow media day so they jump at another possible airline controversy where there is none. Story died and so should this article. WP:NOTNEWS Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to comment on this entry, please be respectful and don't bite at other users.204.113.195.150 (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And lets all assume good faith also.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The incident received significant coverage and had a lasting impact due in part to the effect on the company's stock price, not to mention the rest of the fallout. Passes WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What effect did it have on the stock? And what other fallout? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The incident dropped some stocks from the airline, because the flight disturbance made some people upset of the behavior of what the passenger did, and if the incident might occur in the future. Other fallout is that the Homeland security is going to monitor flights seriously and with caution.GoMan195531 (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it dropped stock, but that would happen with any incident, no matter how minor it is. That's not a reason to keep an article, and chances are good stock will recover. As for the fallout, Homeland Security is already monitoring flights with caution, as they should be, well before this incident occured. They may heighten security for a little bit, but that's typical for an incident like this. All in all, this appears to just be a run-of-the-mill occurrence that happens occasionally, no different from other incidents that people have forgot has happened. Seriously, a mention on List of American Airlines accidents and incidents is enough, and unless you can convince me otherwise, I will stand by that point. SkyWarrior 18:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are other flights which had disturbance that occurred, and this is one of them. Not a lot of these are found on Wikipedia, so I think we should keep the article, because it is notable, and might be improved more sufficient when more information is available towards the public.GoMan195531 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS exists for a reason. Just because "not a lot of these are found on Wikipedia" is not a valid reason to keep an article. SkyWarrior 18:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Part of the real or perceived war on terror, which needs to be documented for future reference.--Petebutt (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: AS per WP:NOTNEWS, total non incident. The only reason it even made the news is the total over-reaction by authorities. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no lasting impact or societal significance. Let's reserve such articles for real terrorist acts, such as the Manchester bombing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 02:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor incident that will soon be forgotten. Notnews. MB 15:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not the type of incident worthy of a stand alone article. Samf4u (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether to redirect this to List of American Airlines accidents and incidents#2010s in case of deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of American Airlines accidents and incidents where possible. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All the relevant info is already in List of American Airlines accidents and incidents, we don't need a separate article. Sario528 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above - I see no need for a redirect either. YSSYguy (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unruly passenger is nothing notable. Wykx (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It think WP:NOTNEWS does not apply automatically, as there it is only written routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities, and "announcements" I understand as announcements of the planned events like sport events, or concerts. Audriusa (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It very much applies; what you stated is prefaced by the words "for example", which means it's not exclusive to just those instances. SkyWarrior 17:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not deserve an article it is just run of the mill disturbance Jkd4855 (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disturbance by passengers is not that rare or noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 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 10:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 South Australia Cessna Conquest crash[edit]

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

Tragic but not notable small plane crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 31 May 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? 11:22, 31 May 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? 11:22, 31 May 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? 11:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-commercial training flight not really noteworthy for a stand alone article. Light twins do crash regularly hardly any of them worthy of a mention and nothing here stands out. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely routine accident, nothing special - EugεnS¡m¡on 13:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- KEEP - You have been VERY keen to DELETE this entry, SO QUICKLY, that has a significant mount of interest for Australian readers of WP. What is your hidden reasoning? Do you have a hidden link with Cessna? DISCLOSURE, please! - Peter Ellis - Talk 13:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not actually explained why there was a 'delete'. Why not question this on the page? I also do not see any explanation on the Talk page. BIGLY un-helpful! - Peter Ellis - Talk 13:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - once an article has been nominated it usual practice to discuss it here rather than the article talk page. Currently only four people have the article on a watchlist so any discussion here gets a wider audience to comment on the merits of the proposal. Please dont comment on the motives of others and assume good faith, the proposer has been around aircraft accident articles a long time and is able to make such judgements based on experience here on wikipedia, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second milbornes support of the nominator. The author would be well served by reading the essay at WP:AIRCRASH to help in deciding if it is worthwhile writing a particular accident article!--Petebutt (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS - a non-notable accident, though tragic, undeserving of a place in an encyclopedia!! This is not a repository of everyday snippets!!!--Petebutt (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will say weak keep- It was an airline crash and had fatalities...other than that I agree with the nominator that, basically at least, it's a non-notable albeit tragic incident. A re-direct to the airline's article maybe?? Antonio Taking Adelaide on Alice's Spring mattress Martin (Antonio Martin...Australian for crazy talk) 06;53, June 1, 2017 (UTC)

Rossair is not an airline, and even if it was, that is not sufficient to make the crash notable; nor are the three deaths. YSSYguy (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually isn't Rossair a charter airline as defined in the article? Either way we can do a redirect, which i think considering we are so far (as I write) tied on the vote, would be most convenient for everyone.Antonio Queensland's now Antoniosland Martin (here) 06:56, 4 June, 2017 (UTC)

Weak keep - It isn't a commercial flight, but it did generate a lot of news coverage, and it is the deadliest crash in the state for some time. If it is not kept, I would strongly recommend a redirect to another article as it is a plausible search term in my opinion -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been an average of one fatal air crash in South Australia each year for the last ten years. The last time an air crash in SA killed three people was in 2011, when the ABC television news helicopter crashed and killed Paul Lockyer. That crash generated far more coverage than this and - "other stuff exists" (or in this case "other stuff does not exist") arguments notwithstanding - WP does not have an article about that event. It is covered in the article about Lockyer; the subject of this discussion is covered in the article about the company, I think that is an appropriate level of documentation. YSSYguy (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most general aviation accidents are found to involve a significant amount of inexperience, poor airmanship and poor judgement. The three occupants in this crash were two Chief Pilots being observed by a third who was a Flying Operations Inspector representing the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. No shortage of experience here, so this accident is highly unusual. There will inevitably be a strong focus on the airworthiness of the aircraft, possibly resulting in an Airworthiness Directive. Alternatively, there is likely to be a significant change in the procedures for conduct of check and training flights, and flights involving oversight by a supernumerary checking pilot. Dolphin (t) 02:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these days everything generates news coverage; the coverage of this event has already died down. I can easily think of three other crashes non-general-aviation crashes in Australia in similar circumstances (crew training flights): a Tamair Metro (with the crash mentioned in the Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner article), an Air North Brasilia (mentioned in the Airnorth article) and a Royal Australian Air Force Boeing 707 {mentioned in the RAAF Base East Sale article). All three crashes involved airliner-type aircraft, all three crashes generated coverage and all three crashes resulted in changes to 'the way things are done'. As WP is not in the business of crystal-ball-gazing, it is not valid to argue that the article should be kept because the crash might become notable in the future. The crash is mentioned in the Rossair article and if it does become notable in the future the article can easily be recreated. YSSYguy (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that a pilot should particularly know how to fly (which is said for this crash) is not news. Wykx (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and Petebutt. WP:NOTNEWS states: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This might be ideal material for our sister, WikiNews, but I can see no reason for its retention as a stand-alone article here. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to continue consensus. No bias on final decision
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 12:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The Essendon crash in February was borderline notable enough for inclusion, I suppose because paying passengers died, it crashed over a built-up area and was witnessed by many, covered by video footage etc. This accident does not even have those characteristics. If it really turns out that something extraordinary happened that will require rewriting of designs, procedures etc, we can always reinstate the article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No lasting impact, small number of fatalities. A car crash or boat sinking with the number of deaths would almost certainly not have an article. Emu-warrior (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. tragic but not overly notable Jkd4855 (talk) 01:21, 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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial Physician[edit]

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

A short story with no indication of notability. Current article consists of a short plot summary and two quotes from a single essay source. Searches turned up thousands of hits for the expression, but I couldn't find anything on this particular short story. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The footnotes clearly cite multiple independent sources on literary criticism of this classical short story. Deryck C. 13:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Nominator has no idea what he's talking about and did not perform his due diligence (perhaps realising that there would be way more foreign-language coverage) in nominating this article for deletion. Sad indeed! Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above. Also an example of WP:BIAS. ‑‑Yodin^T 14:06, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 19:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory Robotics Interest Group[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 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) 08:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't even has a link to their webpage, total failure of WP:V, in addition to GNG and likely OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:44, 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 no consensus. This discussion has received ample input, and no consensus for a particular action has transpired herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump orb[edit]

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

The page was created too soon for a significant coverage to appear. WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to create this article yet, as it is not clear if this meme will become a notable one. There is no need to speculate about that. WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ceosad (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, the WP:CRYSTALBALL argument is quite appropriate here. ^^ --SlvrKy (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is already part of contemporary history, despite various attempts at deleting/revising it. If someone argues this not belonging to Wikipedia according to some guidelines, then those guidelines are wrong. I don't think this being the case here.Crocobauru (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above user has ten edits on their account. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Glowing orb. Herostratus (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as per nom; this is another "whatever Trump did today must have a Wikipedia page" article. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need to create an article for this. If it stays in the news we can create a new article. Sjö (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note. "It is not clear if this meme will become a notable one" isn't true -- it is already highly notable. There are extensive -- and I mean lengthy and detailed -- pieces about this phenomena in the Guardian, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the two other New York papers, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Newsweek, and other highly notable reliable sources, with more coming in every hour.

You know, I've seen some articles rejected recently on the grounds "OK article, good arguments for keeping, and most participants wanting to keep, but sadly must delete, as does not meet WP:GNG and WP:GNG is policy that must be followed" (it isn't, but you do see that). Well the converse is also true. If we're going to treat WP:GNG more like policy that must be followed, it works both ways, I would think. This article, with extensive coverage in many of the biggest, most notable, most read/watched media entities on the planet, not only meets WP:GNG but smashes it to pieces and bathes in its blood while screaming a victory song. (So to speak.) I would guess that this article has more proof of notability than easily half of our five million articles.

There are five articles (including this one) in Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017 and we more than a third through 2017. So at a guess let's say we end up with 20 or so articles in that category (which seems a reasonable number of articles for a category like that). This one will be one of the twenty, and rightly so, just based on coverage so far (assuming there isn't a meme explosion on the latter part of the year).

Yes I get that it is recent. Sometimes things happen fast. That is why nominator's statement "The page was created too soon for a significant coverage to appear" isn't accurate. Significant coverage appeared very quickly. The argument that I think you want to make is "Well, but who knows if this has staying power? Maybe it is ephemeral" Sure maybe, but it your crystal-ball gazing to say "This highly notable event will be unnotable in 20 years". You don't know that. Notability, once established in the historical record, is hard to erase. Yevdokim Zyablovskiy (1763–1846), once notable, is now utterly forgotten. So? Keeping a record of stuff that has been forgotten is part of our remit.

Update, here is the Hindustani Times out of New Delhi coming on line. The Boston Globe and CNN have also picked this up -- again, extensive full-length articles, not passing mentions.

Nomination is completely out of order, to be honest. WP:GNG Notability is established beyond any doubt. Only argument for deletion is "may become unnotable in the future" and I suggest a nomination be made when and if that does happen rather then nominating on the guess that it might happen. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Trump sneezed during a speech, there would be at least three major newspaper sources covering it. There's (rightly) no coverage of press memes from earlier, such as Trump referring to Chuck Todd as "Sleepy Eyes". Both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON are reasons to delete this article independent from "notability" concerns. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read WP:TOOSOON or know anything about it beyond its title, you know that WP:TOOSOON simply says "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered". That's not the issue here. There are plenty of sources. The essay actually says the opposite of what you seem think it does... Herostratus (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, any coverage within 24 hours is effectively a primary source; it's too soon for a secondary source to exist on the topic. Perhaps WP:TIND is what I should be referencing. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, IMO the primary sources for a meme are the meme-carriers itself (tweets, mostly). Articles about this in Time magazine and the Atlantic and the New York Times and... well, a lot of people. RT (Russia Today) has lit up, along with the Irish Times and there's already lot of Indian coverage, and of course Australia. Lots of areas like non-Anglophone Europe, and Africa and East Asia, we're still waiting to see. Anyway, these are secondary sources. I mean, OK, it's been 24 hours, so are they good now? We're already seeing further-downstream references in the new section "Spread to political discourse".

Yes, OK, I read Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Yes, that's more like it. It's good advice. It's an essay with reasonable point of view which I can see paying attention to. My judgement in this case is that's it a service to reader to bring this article on line fairly quickly, since people do turn to us to get a quick overview of notable things. It's a judgement call. I notice that that essay also has a section "View two: Don't rush to delete articles"... I would say that this article is notable right now. Down the road, it may have to be edited quite a bit, depending on how things shake out in the longer term. Another 2017 meme article, Nevertheless, she persisted, is continuing to evolve. So we'll see.

Compare to 2017 meme San Escobar. That also was created with a couple days of the event. It seems a worthwhile article. That event was in January. So I don't know. But President Trump is far more notable in the Anglosphere than the Polish Foreign Minister. But maybe that article should also not exist... I would not be surprised to see someone, six months from now, writing something referencing the glowing orb in a major paper. In that case we should have this article so people can look it up. It's possible that this will drop off the edge of the table, that is true. We'll know more before the AfD is out. Possibly waiting on the AfD should have been done. And yeah 10-20 years from now, it might be very obscure. Might be. But we already have a lot of articles on extremely obscure topics that are far less well documented than this -- random hills, chemical compounds, extinct beetles, 18th century sailors, and so on -- and this is considered OK. Herostratus (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely support keeping Nevertheless, she persisted. I would probably support a second AfD on San Escobar. Perhaps it will be clear which category of meme this is by the end of the week. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I agree that Nevertheless, she persisted clearly has legs that put it in a higher category; I'm not trying to tie this article to that one. To some degree its a matter of taste, I suppose. I mostly write serious articles about serious subjects, but I've done a few meme articles and I don't mind us documenting memes. Even if it doesn't have legs it's already notable. I have no problem if Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017 grows to a dozen or more, in which case this maybe ought to be one. We're a large encyclopedia and serve a wide audience. This article is much better documented than... I just hit the "random" link ten times, and this article is far more extensively documented than any of them, and longer than nine of them... and possibly more notable than any of them. An actor, a person who was "the keeper of several lifeboat stations", several extremely obscure bugs... a Polish village with a population of 255... Yemeni political party, that is more notable. We sure have a lot of obscure stuff here. Doesn't bother me. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Not only is the article is extensively cited, it speaks to the optics which can befall an international presidential journey, and it is a spectacular meme in its own right. kencf0618 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - It is just news. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A perfect example of WP:NOTNEWS.LM2000 (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, reading pages pointed to rather than than just relying on their titles is recommended. We just went over this with WP:TOOSOON which essentially says "wait until there are reliable sources"... OK here is what WP:NOTNEWS says: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", although "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion", and then it drills down with four bullet points. #'s 1 (no original reporting) and 3 (we're not a Who's Who) and 4 (we're not a diary) pretty clearly don't apply, leaving #2 as the only possibly germande guidance. It says

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.... Wikipedia is also not written in news style.

I mean, it's fairly general... "most' newsworthy events do not qualify... including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate", so it's not a blanket proscription against recent events. And then the example, the only example, it gives of the kind of stuff we don't want is "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", which has nothing to do with this article... It does say "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", which, fair point. Enduring notability is difficult to know, nor is guidance given over whether "enduring" means 1 year, or 10, or 100... 2017 Manchester Arena bombing now exists and that is event is even more recent than this one. If WP:NOTNEWS applies to this article it probably applies to that one too. In ten years which of these two events will be more notable (outside Manchester)? It is hard to say... essentially citing W:NOTNEWS proves nothing, and can be countered with WP:NOTPAPER which says there's "no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover"

Jimmy Carter rabbit incident is averaging 334 pageviews over the last nine months, and that was almost 40 years ago. For some reason there was a spike to 4,250 views on March 6th -- probably in response to a mention somewhere. Is this article going to average 334 page views with an occasional spike 40 years from now? I don't know. Maybe. Probably. The rabbit incident was pretty obscure. 40 years ago is someone going to write "this reminds me of the Trump orb thing", sending readers looking for info here. Which they won't get if we delete it.

It comes down to opinion and one's idea of what we are trying to do here, really Your opinion is that we should provide readers less information than we do, at least in this case. OK. Fair enough. Honestly, though, I wish when good articles like this are deleted we could at least replace them with a banner, something honest like this:

Hi, I see you're looking for information on [subject]. We could have an article on this subject. In fact we did have an article on this subject, a nice one. But we deleted it! Because, while we are here to provide information, we don't think you should have too much information. We hope your Google search for information on this topic is successful, though!

I don't see the upside to deleting it in the first place, though. I would like to see one person explain to me "It would be a service to our readers and enchancer their experience here if, when looking for information on this topic they find nothing, because _________". What goes in the blank? Herostratus (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because it is an editorial decision of an encyclopedia. Having too many unnotable fluff or vanity pages would make finding compact and useful information more challenging. Deleting excessive Trump-related articles is useful in that regard. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ceosad (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of one article doesn't impinge on accessing others. The existence of this article doesn't make it harder to get to Corneal-cerebellar syndrome, which has two (or four) special-interest references and averages 1 reader a day. This one has 30 notable general-interest refs and is averaging 7,800 views a day. I don't go after that article, obscure as it is, waving WP:NOTTEXTBOOK or whatever, because the Wikipedia is a big project and big encyclopedia with many readers with a very wide range of interests and needs. We're a team here. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see enough to pass Wikipedia:GNG, which contradicts the reason for nomination. Isingness (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; Ask youself this question: Do you seriously want Wikipedia to be a chronicle of every 15 minutes of his presidency and make Trump unavoidable on even Wikipedia? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked no one was required to read the article if they don't want to. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; yes it's been covered many times by reliable sources. MB298 (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless there's some roundup article of trump Trivia for it to be merged to - on its own I think it's a little too fine grained. Alternatively is there an article for the fakey looking mission control thingummy it's a part of? Perhaps that should have an article. Artw (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On review, and it's hard to believe I am saying this, weak keep, as the article appears to be strong enough to stand on its own merits. Would not object to a merge to Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology if that ever gets an article. Artw (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep "as it is not clear if this meme will become a notable one"- guess again, it is! :-) Notable event, and now referenced with it's own Meme. Seems to have enough to pass Wikipedia:GNG. Possibly substantiated from it being a rather bizarre, visual meme, but also in the context of the actual event. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unfortunate photo op / nn meme. No lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is the gift that keeps on giving. Bearian (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the aforementioned rationales, I am tired of seeing garbage tier memes and WP:RECENT flooding this website.--Catlemur (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. With all due respect, who cares what you're tired of? I don't go after your articles such as Macedonian Mule Corps on the grounds that it is about a profoundly obscure gaggle of illiterate flea-bitten mule skinners from a backwater of the Empire carrying soup cans for a doomed army on a forgotten front in a stupid war, do I ? This is not even considering Düsseldorf Cow War ("Casualties: 2 Civilians + Herd of Cows") and so forth.

I don't go after those articles because it's a big project with a lot of editors interested in a lot of different things, and a lot of readers with a lot of different interests and information needs. FWIW this article is averaging 3,500 page views a day even though it's not indexed, while Düsseldorf Cow War is averaging 2. We are supposed to be a team, and how about you work on articles that interest you, and I'll work on articles that interest me, and together we will build the world's greatest encyclopedia. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Did you even read the articles before leaving this comment? "The Corps were dissolved in March 1919, by that time 12288 men had served in the unit or approximately 20% of the Cypriot male population between the ages of 18 and 39". As for the Cow War it was a major political event, however it seems that the internal politics of the Holy Roman Empire are simply beyond your comprehension. What did you expect? Of course people have a craving for dumb memes instead of military history. I refuse to follow your sophisms and help turn this place into some sort of Huxleyan meme dump spiced up with clickbait. Content that interests you does not belong here, there other websites where your expertise would be more than welcome.--Catlemur (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the articles, no; I scanned them. I didn't read them because I'm confident that they are useful articles, just as this one is. Call me crazy, but I even believe that articles such as Pachytegos (one barely-referenced sentence about some extinct and forgotten lifeform) have a place here. Why not? What you don't seem to understand is that the existence of one article does not not impinge on another. We are not limited to 40 bound volumes where one article pushes out another. Even if articles like this draw readers whom you personally would cross the street to avoid, so what? It's no harm to the project. The attitude "I think my articles are great -- history, yay! -- but I'm going to try to delete your articles -- current events (or moth taxonomy, athletes, villages with 42 inhabitants, individual buildings, chemical compounds, whatever), boo!" -- just leads to the war of all against all. There's no upside that I see, and "You kids get off my lawn" is not an actual argument. Herostratus (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:NOT. Lets end it at that.--Catlemur (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Speed74 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Riyadh Summit 2017 is a potential merge target, though that article may have its own issues. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because none of the alleged policy-based reasons for deleting stand up to scrutiny. It can beggar belief sometimes what the media chooses to make notable, but it is what it is. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Andrew D. (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not Know Your Meme. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, but on the other hand Category:Internet memes has 712 articles plus 13 subcategories with hundreds more -- so, along with being a gazeteer of populated places, a compendium of obscure historical events, a list of moth species, a database of comic book characters, an atlas of landforms, a collection of chemical compounds, a biographical dictionary, and very much else, maybe it is a documentary compilation of 21st century cultural nonsense. Oh well. It's a large publication, that's for sure! Anyway, if you're against this -- not sure why you want to pick on this subject and not get to work clearing out the articles on ultra-obscure lichen species, but whatever -- I don't know if picking out this article, with 39 refs to in-depth coverage in many of the more famous publications in international news journalism, would be the place to start. Herostratus (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article just looks ridiculous. I would not be opposed to mentioning the meme in a section within an article related to the event at which the photograph was taken. Adlerschloß (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Riyadh Summit 2017 would be the most suitable one for a Merge, considering that we do not have an article for the Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology (Etidal). That would be fine for me too per WP:PRESERVE. Ceosad (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article does not "look ridiculous". It's large enough (22,000 bytes), properly divided into sections, has a couple photos, has 42 refs properly formatted of which easily 3/4 of are to substantial coverage in reliable sources. It's written in acceptable prose, describes facts properly, and each fact is tied to a reliable-source ref. There's no apparent bias, no BLP violations, easily meets WP:GNG... what more do you want? It looks like something that could at least be considered to begin to approach Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

I think what you probably mean to say is the subject of the article is one that you, personally, do not care to read about, which is a different thing. My go-to in these WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments in this discussion is to say "I don't read your articles but I also don't try to to delete them". You don't write many articles -- you do other things around here, extremely needful and useful things I am sure, and thank you for service -- but looking at your last one, I could critique it pretty seriously, but I won't.

So maybe a good compromise here could be, I won't make you read Trump orb, and you won't make me read Beth Kelly, and we'll let them stay in place for those readers who do want to read them. Sounds like good plan for building a large and comprehensive encyclopedia, to me. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Herostratus, but many of your arguments seem to imply that notability is mostly based on the fact that certain other articles or topics are covered in the Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE for arguments to avoid in the AfD. Certain guidelines also exist on the fact that notability is not inherited from elsewhere (Donald Trump or other memes). Ceosad (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". So, by demonstrating that Wikipedia contains many hundreds of other similar cases, Herostratus has well-demonstrated that this notable case should be included too so that we are consistent. Other shortcuts which the nominator should be reading include alternatives to deletion and checks, which might have saved us this otiose discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and OSE (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is an essay and it is only good advice if those other articles shouldn't exist either. There are well over 1,000 articles in Category:Internet memes (about 700 in the main category, 287 alone in the subcategory "Viral videos", 40 in Category:Political Internet memes, and so forth. If you want to say "we should zero all that out" then you have a valid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument -- but that'd be some heavy lifting, to get people to agree on that. If you want to say "Well, we should reduce Category:Internet memes from 1,000 to maybe 200", fine (also heavy lifting, but not quite as heavy), but in that case note that this article has 42 refs and 3/4 of those are significant coverage in reliable famous news outlets, so you'd think that this might be one of the 200 kept.

WP:GNG is a guideline, not an essay; it's not a policy but it is an important and much-used touchstone. On another mission, I just looked closely at 100 random articles. One of them had as many refs as this one, a couple had half as many. Maybe five were "better ref'd" depending on whether you define "better" as broader, deeper, more reliable, more scientific, or what. Probably not even five. I would be surprised if this article wasn't in or near our top 5% of articles that most robustly meet and exceed the GNG. So there is that. Herostratus (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Riyadh Summit 2017. This stupid Twitter meme doesn't warrant a page of its own. (Also WP:TOOSOON, etc.) Kakurokuna (talk) 15:43, 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)}}} 05:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge and redirect to Riyadh_Summit_2017#Arab_Islamic_American_Summit, where it should receive only WP:DUE coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect a condensed version to Riyadh_Summit_2017#Arab_Islamic_American_Summit. The photo isn't going away. Explaining what the thing was is useful to our readers. But the media attention has been on the level of gag-of-the-day; no sort of consensus appears to have formed around this odd photo as metaphor or symbol.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than enough significant coverage to demonstrate notability, with nearly every news organization having covered it. NOTNEWS doesn't apply here, as this is scarcely "routine news reporting." Time will tell whether the coverage is lasting, but here we are, 9 days later, and there continue to be news articles written about this on a daily basis. In the last 24 hours we have articles in Time, The Hill, New York Magazine, Newsweek, AOL, Uproxx, HuffPo, and The Telegraph. Also, five European prime ministers just got together and reenacted the photograph. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete for now It is impossible to establish the notability of a media event involving the president in less than a week, or for that matter, less than a month. A textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS; come back when it is clear that anyone cared in the long run. Mangoe (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this got, and will continue to get, a lot of coverage. People want to know what those photos are about. Let's let them find the info. No opinion of the obscure cow war page. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone's WP:CRYSTALBALL seems to be working..... Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but then it works both ways. It's famous now. Isn't it crystal-balling to say "but it won't be in a couple years"? Maybe, maybe not -- Jimmy Carter rabbit incident is is averaging 339 pageviews a day (!). So you never know. Herostratus (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this got me interested, and here's some more (all are pageviews per day over the last 90 days):

Jimmy Carter rabbit incident - 339 pageviews
George H. W. Bush vomiting incident - 221
Bill Clinton haircut controversy - 56; its just a redirect.
Dick Cheney hunting incident - 681, wow.
Binders full of women - 158
Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph - 179

For contrast the cow war is getting 2 pageviews a day. None of our rules or practices mention pageviews, but it's reasonable to look at those numbers and figure that the existence of the articles is a service to the public, and that that might matter.

FWIW This article is at 1,872, but falling fast, but of course that's artificially high. It's falling fast, but it's not indexed (has a __NOINDEX__ tag) I guess because it's at AfD. This prevents it from showing high in Google results, and so artificially (and probably massively) deflates the views -- no one can find it, which is too bad, because its highest usefulness ever is probably now, and I kind of wish people could have a waited a bit to nominate it, for that reason. Oh well.

Another thing about this article is that, unlike ever before, the current president generates something like this about every two weeks (see Covfefe comment below). It's quite a different situation. Let's see, every two weeks for four years -- that's 100 articles. Eight years, 200 articles. But lots of categories have 100-200 articles or more. But on the other hand, we have separate articles on all the moon landings, but if they were occurring every two weeks, would we still? Well actually we probably would if they were big news and got lots of coverage. It's just a fact that the current president generates "rabbit incident" type news at an extremely elevated rate, and this gets massive coverage.

If there was a major train wreck (or whatever) in the US every two weeks, probably significant coverage would drop off -- paragraph on page five, "Another train wreck". It's not happening here. We might think it's silly for this stuff to keep getting major coverage, but our job is to document what is notable, not what we think or wish should be notable. Herostratus (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If there was a major train wreck (or whatever) in the US every two weeks, probably significant coverage would drop off." This is exactly why there is every reason to suspect that this is yet another Trump meme or "scandal" that everybody forgets about in a couple of months, like all the rest. I really don't think that the WP:CRYSTALBALLy comparisons and predictions being made in this AfD are even particularly relevant here, given how... unique this phenomenon is. The man's a ratings magnet too, so we're sure to get more pageviews than Carter's rabbit, but I've never heard of page views being a criteria for notability or inclusion before. Kakurokuna (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Comment Years from now, in Trump's apocalypse, little children will ask why did the "Trump Orb" give the three evil men the power to start the fall of society. Only you can decide, by vote, if they will have a wikipedia page to provide that answer. Vote Keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Above, regarding "ridiculous" -- I am not disparaging efforts of editors doing their best regarding sourcing and writing quality on a strange subject. I am saying it looks ridiculous because it is unencyclopedic. So look at what is the top news story today regarding Trump -- covfefe. Should we have a Covfefe article on Wikipedia? (Now wondering if maybe we already do, scared to search...) It seems based on news coverage in major sources describing social media reaction, it would qualify as much as this article. I would not see the logic in not having a Covfefe article if Trump orb stays, actually. Does every silly thing associated with Trump that draws silly social media frenzy that media then reports on for clicks really deserve an article? Adlerschloß (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Covfefe does exist. Unsurprisingly, it is already being discussed at AfD. Sadly WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS do not offer encompassing advice for handling social media related topics. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL discourages rumours, but that's it. Ceosad (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. He took a picture with an orb. The significance of the picture is nil aside from some memes that will fade (or have they already?) with RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Seriously? Trump takes picture with orb, and it merits a Wikipedia article. Also, I can think of many memes that have more notability than a stupid "orb" photo. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Riyadh Summit 2017. Information about the event doesn't need to be sanitized from Wikipedia, but there's no inherent need for a separate article about this. --Jayron 32 23:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good deal of secondary coverage from reliable sources. 44 references in article. Samboy (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unambiguous Keep per REMOVETHESTICKFROMYOURRECTUM. This magic Orb is the news story of the year. Has everyone here gone mad?( I'd like to request the Trumpkins pipe down; the adults are having a conversation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B412:5FA5:A58C:E7D4:A132:5E0B (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anywhere Trump related we can Merge this to? There should be a catch-all article for semi-notable stuff Trump did that's not yet worthy of their own article and may never be, that all this stuff can redirect to. Gatemansgc (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the same reasoning I used at the Covfefe AfD, per "WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARS, maybe this should just be put on Wikinews instead? (I know WP:10YEARS talks about the content of an article, but I think it can also be applied to article subjects)". A similar sort of picture is the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich one, but that is still being talked about - here, for example. But I seriously don't think this orb will be being talked about in three years time. (I know it's a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but still, I think it's a useful comparison). Seagull123 Φ 21:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concern is right there in WP:10YEARS:

Furthermore, detailed stand-alone articles and lists may no longer comply with the general notability guideline, particularly the "Presumed" criterion. Content that seemed notable at the time might in retrospect violate what Wikipedia is not and other guidelines.

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, another quote from WP:10YEARS which I think is relevant is After "recentist" articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum, why not initiate comprehensive rewrites? Many articles can be condensed to keep only the most important information, the wider notable effects of an event, and links to related issues. ... Any detailed subarticle relating to the event may also be either merged back into the main article or deleted (this includes any article about a subject only notable for that one event).

Strong Keep OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons. This is hardly a new or unique concept, just see Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph, for example. Kamalthebest (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Riyadh Summit 2017, or better: Create Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology which may actually have a real-world impact beyond funny pictures. — JFG ^talk 08:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A super doper and extremely vigorous strong delete Why have we become a suppository for every thing this man does. AIRcorn (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seagull123. Doesn't have lasting notability. No one will care in 6 months, let alone 10 years.--v/r - TP 16:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reaffirm my delete after relist. "Trump orb" hasn't received hardly any media coverage this week except for Snopes writing an article about whether The Simpsons predicted it. Non-mainstream media mentions in fringe websites are the top search results. This topic has died.--v/r - T P 13:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FART. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "10 year test" relates to the tone of the writing. It is not a criteria for deletion. This article has 45 references. If the subject is getting attention from the media and from our readers, it's notable. It's not our job to tell readers they shouldn't be interested in a given subject. Any future story recounting the history of U.S.-Saudi relations is likely to mention the orb. Whiff of greatness (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whiff of greatness: do you have a source for "Any future story recounting the history of U.S.-Saudi relations is likely to mention the orb"? To me that sounds like a classic WP:CRYSTALBALL - Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future.. Seagull123 Φ 12:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CRYSTALLBALL is about article content, not talk pages. How many talk page comments have you seen that are sourced? Use a little common sense. Whiff of greatness (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiff of greatness: what I was talking about was that you said this article should be kept because "Any future story recounting the history of U.S.-Saudi relations is likely to mention the orb", which is unverified speculation - if you think that is a reason for this article to be kept, you need sources for that. And your point about "How many talk page comments have you seen that are sourced?", there are many, see all these articles which use {{reflist-talk}}. Furthermore, see WP:TALK#FACTS, The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, discussing conflicts or inconsistencies among sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it. (emphasis added) Seagull123 Φ 15:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, your claim that my comment runs afoul of WP:CRYSTALL or some other guideline is not unverified. It is false. Have you no life? Whiff of greatness (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiff of greatness: please remember to assume good faith and be civil. I don't understand your point (could you please clarify it?) - I asked you for sources for your claim that "Any future story recounting the history of U.S.-Saudi relations is likely to mention the orb", and you have not provided any. You then proceeded to attack me more than my argument (Have you no life?). So, I ask again, do you have any sources? Seagull123 Φ 12:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 12:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 12:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:MAGICORB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B41A:A100:DD84:3986:64DE:BAC0 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1017:B41A:A100:DD84:3986:64DE:BAC0: that isn't a page, could you give a reason why this should be kept, bearing in mind that this is not a vote? Seagull123 Φ 16:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow another WP:NOTNEWS event about Trump! Believe me, this does not have the long-term covfefe yet to make any claims of passing WP:GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments by Crocobauru. The meme has already been reused in popular culture, as the orb had become a symbol of value used in a humorous twitter argument in reaction to Trump's Covfefe tweet,[14] the article about which was kept (just like Binders full of women). -Mardus /talk 10:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even news, and unlikely to ever meet WP:SUSTAINED. If it does somehow meet WP:SUSTAINED, then I think it should be merged into some omnibus "Trump in Social Media" article. GretLomborg (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article demonstrates significant discussion from lots of sources and they feature the topic of the article in the headlines of their articles about the article. Sagecandor (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge or keep with Riyadh Summit 2017, leaning more on the merge side The Verified Cactus 100% 15:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Riyadh Summit 2017. Yes, clearly, this has attracted a great deal of attention, and the orb event should receive coverage in due weight to its relative significance. However, that coverage should be in the context of the event, rather than under this meme-y name that focuses exclusively on the internet's response to the photo. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG and has coverage above the routine levels that would be disqualified by WP:NOTNEWS. Merging would be my second, less prefered option to deletion.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Merge, as per Squeamish Ossifrage. It may have made news worldwide, but as far as I know it has been overshadowed by more notable and impact-making events in Manchester, Marawi, Kabul, Resorts World Manila, London, and more recently, Middle East.JWilz12345 (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since a sizeable number of people argued that this subject's notability would quickly fade, I think another week will allow editors to assess whether this was really the case. I'm aware that relisting a discussion with so many comments is unusual and I was contemplating how to close it but for this reason I think it will be for the benefit of the discussion. Also, since later !votes include a sizeable number of editors advocating merging instead of deleting or keeping, it makes sense to allow previous !voters to reassess their comments based on this potential third option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Al-Jazeera (possibly as state media of Qatar; possibly as independent media) speculates that the Trump orb is directly related to the current Qatar crisis. [15]. I'm striking my earlier delete vote, and now support a merge to the Riyadh Summit article. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete. All the content this is DUE is at Riyadh_Summit_2017#Arab_Islamic_American_Summit. Maybe the picture could go into the Trump article. But all this content here is just blogosphere T&A gossipy garbage... completely unserious and shallow. WP is not in the blogosphere. Jytdog (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant material into a single paragraph elsewhere. We are an encyclopedia, not a depository of memes.^{[citation needed]} It duplicates what should be elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added "[citation needed]" because in fact Category:Internet memes has over 1,000 entries, so the presumption is that, along with being a geographical gazeteer, biographical dictionary, list of fungus species, and much else, it appears that we also document 21st century human culture, including memes. Perhaps what you mean to say "I wish we were not a depository of memes" which is very different. See the difference? I well understand the sentiment "the type of person who would be interested in this article is the type of person I would cross the street to avoid", but for better or worse it's a big project and we have all manner of readers, so... Herostratus (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Riyadh Summit 2017. This is WP:NOTNEWS#2 material that generated only coverage in reliable sources for a very limited period of time. Its notability has not been lasting. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We aren't knowyourmeme.com. We don't need to document every funny meme to get a touch of third party coverage. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 17:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I voted delete above, but I think we should note that the deletion discussion for the very-similar Covfefe article resulted in Merge (which appears to have been challenged by a sockpuppet). - GretLomborg (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It is highly representative of the current situation of Gulf politics and the broader Middle East conflict including the Syrian civil war, the crisis with Qatar, the proxy war with Iran and the role of the Trump administration in it. One of those iconic pictures which will be referenced in the future for a long time. MaeseLeon (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTNEWS does not apply, because this is not "routine" coverage, it is widespread coverage in many , and it is continuing. See [16] as recently as 7 June. Other than notnews I see no policy-based reason to delete this. It clearly passes the WP:GNG a dozen times over, and thus is notable by the only objective standard that Wikipedia uses. I could wish that events like this were not notable, but the fact is that currently, they are. Therefore, Wikipedia should include articles about them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:53, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soniya shetty[edit]

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

Winner of Indian pageants that are not notable. Fails WP:NMODEL Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC at this time. Only finding passing mentions, such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable model, no independent coverage in reliable sources also a recreation of recently deleted article Soniya Shetty. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable in her field Spiderone 13:38, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team Essex Volleyball Club[edit]

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

Non-notable semi-professional sports team. Since volleyball in England is not organized at the same level of professionalism as, say, football or cricket, only the national team would be inherently notable. For other teams, evidence of actual significant coverage is needed, and Team Essex fails that criterion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Volleyball England is a professional National Governing Body which is the NGB for English Volleyball Clubs, many of which have their own Wikipedia pages, IBB London Polona, London Malory, Sheffield VC, to name but a few. It is not organised to the extent that Football agreed, but that is the national Sport, other sports will always be different and in my opinion its not fair to compare football to volleyball. If we looked at Italy, who won the Olympic silver medal in Rio2016, their Italian Volleyball Governing body is not organised like their football equivalent. However Volleyball England is attracting World Championship players, such as Ignazek, from Poland and is certainly a reputable governing body. Team Essex is notably for its Olympic Talent, two former players played in the London2012 Olympics, and form its junior to senior ranks, dozens of players compete for the English National Team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chestersearle (talk • contribs) 13:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not derived from the players on the team, or from the notability of the league in which the team plays, but rather is demonstrated by the presence of significant coverage in independent media, which is lacking. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There are lots of examples of the what I suppose would deem significant coverage of Team Essex Volleyball Club in the media. Essex TV is an online television platform, which boasts both its online TV and an online magazine in the Essex region of England.https://www.essex-tv.co.uk/team-essex-volleyball-club-makes-history/, The Edge is a free online consumer based magazine based in Chelmsford, the city of the team's location,http://issuu.com/topdrawmedia.com/docs/edgemay2017?e=1369656/47971685, Volleyball England does its own season review which cites Team Essex's spot in Super 8s next season.https://www.volleyballengland.org/news/article/5534/the-thursday-review. Live coverage is also a regular event, with all our games being streamed by Essex Television. This link is for example the link to our shield final, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqg-4AVO2kg&t=4600s, streamed by Volleyball England, the Confederation European Volley member. I believe this page should be kept as while it may be argued that players and the league in which a team does not hold enough significance to deem it worthy of a volleyball article, these players of notoriety are Olympic athletes. Volleyball might not be recognised widely by some but IMHO I believe that teams in the top division of a country's sporting league should be deemed worthy enough of a Wikipedia article. Thanks. chestersearle^ChatMe!_{18:36, 24 May 2017 (BST)}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 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 no consensus. Two of the three reasons for nominating the article for deletion can be fixed by editing and thus are not WP:DEL-REASONs. Geoff mentioned a couple of sources that address the "non-notable" !votes but the only later !vote does not really discuss those sources but mainly argues based on WP:UGLY. As such, despite the numerical majority of delete !votes, there is no consensus to delete. So Why 18:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pista House[edit]

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

Notability issues, orphan, and ad like content. All since March-April 2012. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable business, no depth of coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the article needs rewriting to tone down the promotion. But I'm finding credible mentions of locations in both India and the United States: Virgina; Hyderabad; organic haleem; California; Hyderabad again; 200 outlets; Haleem price increases - from 2013. I think these are enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH as well as WP:GNG. And there are more, such as this philately book recalling 2002 when the restaurant teamed with the post office to offer delivery all over Hyderabad. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for analysis of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- if I understand the sources correctly, the restaurant supplies its signature dish to 200 locations, not that they have 200 locations themselves. Otherwise, the article is too promotional to consider worth keeping. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rossmund Desert Golf Course[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews and gbooks merely confirms it exists in 1 line mentions LibStar (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Finding no significant coverage in rs; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As above no RS coverage fails WP:N - Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yep. Searched Lexis, Newsbank, Ebsco and could not find any coverage. No RS coverage of any substance. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:46, 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 no consensus. This discussion has received ample input, and no consensus for a particular action has emerged. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ovolo Hotels[edit]

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

Purely promotional material. A WP:BEFORE indicates a dearth of reliable sources. The sole coverage is from blogs, zines, storefronts, and tabloids; a complete lack of depth or WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material while also manages to be spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at all.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not really sure about the rules here. Am I allowed to participate in the survey if I have recently edited? Anyway, although I agree there isn't strong evidence of notability, I'd like to say that it's not entirely true that Ovolo has only been covered by "blogs, zines, storefronts, and tabloids." It has received significant coverage from News Corp's broadsheet The Australian, trade news org Hospitality Net and Hong Kong thinktank and media org EJ Insight. It was also featured in a CNN trend piece on sharing economy crossover in the hotel industry. I believe there may be some potential for this article. See References for the links. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 18:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several sources were added to the article and some expansion occurred on 19 May 2017‎, which occurred after the nomination for deletion and delete !votes above. Relisting to allow time for source and article analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, this seems solely made for promotional purposes. There's an article on wikipedia about the owner this page links to, Girish Jhunjhnuwala, which seems like it was also created to further the promotion. Seems like it should get a deletion nomination as well. Scriblerian1 (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this article should stand as a relevant entry towards WikiProject Hong Kong. The company is a notable business in the territory as referenced but I agree the content should be made more neutral akin to other hotel articles on the site like Ace Hotel or Aloft Hotels.Gamserman (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Not only is it not notable, the article also appears to be promotional. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 03:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This GNews search shows that the hotel chain has been receiving persistent coverage in various travel news and business news sources which brings it past the threshold for inclusion. Deryck C. 11:55, 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)}}} 05:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rajiwdekar, Reshma (2016-09-12). "The prettiest addresses in Sydney: Ovolo Hotels". Elle. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
2. Kroslakova, Katarina (2016-02-16). "Ovolo Sydney gives city convenience, privacy and spectacular views". The Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
3. Leung, Hannah (2015-12-25). "Ovolo Hotel launches Hong Kong's 'live-in' coworking space". e27. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
4. Otley, Tom (2016-01-02). "Sydney's 1888 Hotel joins Ovolo Hotels". Business Traveller. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
5. Cubbin, Nick (2016-01-07). "Ovolo Hotels open in Woolloomooloo and Darling Harbour". Australian Gourmet Traveller. ACP Magazines. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
6. Springer, Kate (2017-02-13). "Smart business hotels where work meets play". CNN. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
7. Pao, Jeff (2016-01-07). "HK-born Indian entrepreneur builds hotel empire with a bold bet". Hong Kong Economic Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
8. Allen, Lisa (2014-06-05). "Snapping up waterfront hotels". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-06-01.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ovolo Hotels to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the coverage listed above is either routine ("Sydney's 1888 Hotel joins Ovolo Hotels") or advertorially oriented ("Ovolo Sydney gives city convenience, privacy and spectacular views"). Does not help meet WP:CORPDEPTH, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree "Sydney's 1888" doesn't constitute deep coverage of Ovolo, "Ovolo Sydney" (which you described as advertorially oriented) is not an advertorial, just positive coverage (from a noteworthy independent source, no less) which is a legitimate demonstration of significance.—A L T E R C A R I ✍ 22:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original version was somewhat promotional, but even it lacked the usual elements of a promotional hotel article: lists of amenities, boasts about size and restaurants and visitors, praise of the beauty or convenience of the location,. . The current version is not promotional --it's as baldly descriptive as you can get, and Id add back the list of locations. In general, I consider most hotel chains are likely to be notable. The sources in the article are very weak, those found by Cunard are somewhat better. The one which looks like it might be good but is not is CNN--a collection of outrageously promotional blurbs for multiple hotels. If I thought the firm not likely to be notable, I could start challenging a few of the others. Since I think it is, I give them the benefit of the doubt. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough RS to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:40, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WCarPS[edit]

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

pure advertisement. CSD tags removed ,so it had to come here. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has a single reference that is a press release from the university where the two creators are students. A brief search did not reveal any coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G11, and agree with above. Notability has not been credibly demonstrated, and it's heavily promotional. The user who removed the CSD tag has now been blocked for disruption. Murph9000 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sauood07, created in response to the blatant WP:EVASION and attempt to war-delete the AfD tag from the article. Murph9000 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Also, please note Draft:WCarPs, which has sourcing, but still insufficient. There just isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. Waggie (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FWIW, author has been blocked for disruption, sockpuppetry, and meatpuppetry. See the SPI case page. As such, the CSD removal (done by one of the socks) was actually invalid, so this still could be deleted G11 if an admin agrees. I would support a speedy. Waggie (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional content about a non notable organisation. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 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 keep. Only delete !vote is a WP:VAGUEWAVE without further explanation. Narutolovehinata5 mentioned coverage in reliable sources which was not disputed or further discussed. Rest of nominator's rationale is straight out of WP:ATA, mainly mentioning problems that can be fixed by editing. So Why 18:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donnalyn Bartolome[edit]

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

Another BLP with no established notability as per WP:GNG, with little or no coverage around the web. I also notice that the article is in pretty bad shape, bordering either on WP:OR or WP:FANCRUFT, and WP:CITEIMDB, which are not good. Blue sphere 08:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:09, 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]

Weak keep. On YouTube, she has about 240k subscribers and 32m views, which is a fair amount. Is there a policy for YouTubers on Wikipedia? In some respects, their notability exists only on YouTube. For example , I just picked one of her video's at random from a few weeks ago "Donnalyn Dance Cover" and its got about 153k views, 4k likes and 200 comments. She's probably got more support than some musicians listed on YouTube.Seaweed (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Seaweed: As far as I know, we don't have an internet personality notability guideline, and YouTube views and subscriber counts are not necessarily enough to establish notability; we have had articles on very popular YouTube personalities being deleted before due to lacking coverage in reliable sources. But in the case of this one, it appears she has been covered in reliable sources such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer ([17], [18]) and Rappler ([19]). She also appears to have been nominated for the MTV EMA awards as a wildcard; I'm not sure if such a nomination by itself is reliable given that apparently it was by public vote, but that's something, I guess. In any case, she does appear to be notable, not for being a popular YouTuber, but for passing the WP:GNG. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete~~Weak Keep per Seaweed~~fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:37, 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 no consensus. Keep !voters correctly point out that filming to start is not required for the film to be notable but there is no consensus whether it actually is at this point. So Why 18:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Ascension (film)[edit]

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

Non notable future film. Contrary to claimed in the last afd principal photography had not commenced then and still has not now. Last update at imdb said "Securing filming locations". Film lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a few reproductions of routine casting announcements, reproduction of PR is not independent. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The movie seems to have a number of notable cast members and a decent-sized budget. There are many Wikipedia articles on movies of this size. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Last bit of development news was in 2015. No indication at this point that filming will actually start. It can be recreated if filming does start and if there is sufficient coverage from reliable sources about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They posted some update announcements back in February on Facebook. There's not much info but it sounds like it's still in progress. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 01:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they spent time on another film. I do not find it to satisfy WP:NFF, though, since there is no indication that filming has started and since no secondary source has reported on this news. If they really do make the film and get covered by secondary sources, then an article can be had for the ages. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it unwise to ignore instructions of WP:GNG. Even if never made into a film, a topic's notability is determined through coverage, not existence. Under WP:ATD through coverage we can always temporarily redirect a "worrisome" topic to writer/director or major actors whose involvement gets press related to the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate this movie is actually being made, last news was years ago. Page can be re-created if the movie happens Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a "word" was given just last February, not "years ago". And even if never made as a film, a topic's notability is determined through coverage, not existence. How about a redirect or a draftify? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting notability criteria for unreleased films and through WP:GNG meeting WP:NF. And while we do not require coverage to be eternal, it appears in may release this coming December. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:59, 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. Renames can be actioned elsewhere Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9b-Phosphaphenalene[edit]

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

Lack of notability. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as I couldn't find any sources that indicate notability. --Imminent77 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the contrary, I would argue this is an example of an interesting and unusual chemical structure, which is just the kind of thing an encyclopedia should have in it. A chemical compound doesn't have to do anything or be useful for a particular application to be notable, chemists often make compounds because they have unusual structural features. When I made this page I was looking into aromatic ring systems containing unusual heteroatoms, and I thought this was a nice example of an aromatic phosphorus heterocycle that was slightly more complex than plain Phosphole or Phosphorine. Still, I will concede there is not much here, and if the consensus is that the page doesn't have enough notability to stand on its own, it could always be merged to a subsection on the Phosphorine page. Meodipt (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like Imminent77 looked very hard to find sources, I found two within 5 minutes that relate to phosphaphenalenes, apparently they are useful for optoelectronic applications as the aromatic bonded phosphorus changes how it accepts electrons depending what light shines on it, so you can get temperature-dependent luminescence, electrochroism (changes colour when electricity is applied), etc. Lots of very relevant applications. See for instance, "Hindenberg P, Romero-Nieto C. Phosphaphenalenes: An Evolution of the Phosphorus Heterocycles." Synlett 27.16 (2016): 2293-2300." and "Romero‐Nieto C, et al. Paving the Way to Novel Phosphorus‐Based Architectures: A Noncatalyzed Protocol to Access Six‐Membered Heterocycles." Angewandte Chemie International Edition 54.52 (2015): 15872-15875." Looks like the compounds with the phosphorus at the edge of the ring system are more notable than the ones with the phosphorus at the center of the fused rings as here, so this page should probably be turned into an overview of phosphaphenalenes in general, rather than this compound in particular. However phosphaphenalenes in general are certainly notable! Meodipt (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was looking for sourcing specifically for 9b-Phosphaphenalene derivative that this article is about and was not able to find any. Neither of the papers that you have listed mention 9b-Phosphaphenalene in them, while I do not disagree with you that an article about phosphaphenalenes in general could be warranted, I stand by my assessment that 9b-Phosphaphenalene itself does not pass WP:GNG and is not notable. If a page for phosphaphenalenes existed then I could agree that this page could be redirected to it, however as it stands I believe that deletion is the best option. --Imminent77 (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So help make this page into an article about phosphaphenalenes in general then, this example was just the one I happened to come across in 2011. If I had realised at the time that other isomers were more notable I would have made a page about those instead. If the page gets deleted it is very unlikely anyone will make a new page about phosphaphenalenes any time soon, whereas if the page is left then it is easy to improve. WP:PRESERVE! Meodipt (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The particular chemical compound in the title of this article, 9b-phosphaphenalene, is not in any way notable as outlined in the general notability guideline. There is only one scientific paper (the Structural Chemistry paper cited in the article) that specifically mentions this compound. This paper is only a month old, and 9b-Phosphaphenalene is not the subject of the article. Also, the paper describes only computational work related to this hypothetical compound: 9b-phosphaphenalene has never actually existed as far as I can tell. However, there is plenty of literature and scientific research regarding phosphaphenalenes as a class of chemical compounds (some of which have actually been made and have potential applications) as described in the article. So I think if the article can be generalized, it would be well worth keeping; but if it remains focused on 9b-phosphaphenalene, it should be deleted. ChemNerd (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Agreed 9b-Phosphaphenalene is not notable then, everyone happy to move the page to Phosphaphenalene then and make it about the notable isomer(s) instead? Meodipt (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out my delete vote and can support a move to phosphaphenalene and redirect 9b-phosphaphenalene to phosphaphenalene. --Imminent77 (talk) 18:24, 31 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 07:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename article to Phosphaphenalene, with a redirect from 9b-Phosphaphenalene. i.e. the oppositie of what it appears currently. I note the article has improved considerably since it was first nominated for deletion. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Phosphaphenalene. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cook Hotel[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. there is coverage for the same named hotel in Sydney, Auckland, Alaska, and Bendigo, but nothing to warrant this one. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 31 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) 06:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete random hotel - not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete sources not found to support notability. mere PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a small and partially abandoned hotel complex, with zero evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 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 Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Linguist ^talk|contribs 06:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Govinda Raj Bhattarai[edit]

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

The article claims Bhattarai is well-regarded for his accomplishments but a search on him brings up absolutely nothing worthwhile as far as sources are concerned. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 31 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) 06:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be self promo advert spam. Sagecandor (talk) 18:08, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gayle[edit]

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

Article describes student about to pursue PhD. Seems wholly not-notable except for his sole research paper which won a "JMR Paper of the Year" award from Cambridge Core/Cambridge University Press, but I'm not sure how prestigious that is. Other sources included are trivial (general articles that mention him in passing or not at all, or about his parents) and I couldn't find anything on Google News. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, unsure if meets WP:ACADEMIC (depends on award quality?) Blue Edits (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd originally PROD'ed this one for largely the same reason it's been AfD'd now (I don't disagree with the change of "venue", either). My read on ACADEMIC is that it's designed around people who already have the doctorate and are working in or around the ivory tower instructing students - as in, Gayle's supervisor/s, rather than Gayle himself. A high-performing student moving into a PhD will almost certainly have something pretty decent on their CV, but the award listed here isn't the kind of thing to build a Wikipedia article around. There's also the fact that the award - regardless of quality - doesn't get him past GNG in and of itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - good luck, but doctoral students are dime a dozen. Unless he does something really unique, I can't see a brand new grad student passing the Prof test, and only very rarely does a college student get a Wikipedia article, e.g., Adam Mamawala, because it's far too soon. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Budworth family[edit]

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

Apart from an 'account' written by a Budworth in the 1800s, there appears to be no books, writings or authoritative studies of this family line. The Wikipedia article appears to be a piece of WP:OR written by a family genealogist. They really need to set up a website of their own rather than use Wikipedia. Topic fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have Budworth as a disambiguation page, and it seems like original research to join members of the family into an article in this way - failse WP:NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is barely disguised genealogy web paging. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 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 Keep-ish but rename. Alright, there is clearly no support for deletion and the sources mentioned here for the topic are only weakly contested. A number of editors are advocating a merger but I don't see a consensus for that, also because of the conflicting proposed targets. Finally, it seems like the preponderant opinions want to keep the article but under a different name, for which I will start a move request Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism[edit]

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

Is this a notable topic? Appears to be a WP:POINTy riff on Animal attacks and its subpages (which are absolute disasters). Article creator went from editing Animal attacks to creating Squirrel attacks and then Squirrel induced power outages in Pennsylvania, culminating in creating this page and nominating it for DYK. Animal attacks is a disaster, Template:Animal bites and stings is a collection of disasters, and DYK sometimes lets inane or incorrect stuff through. Is there some kind of worthy article about the dangers of squirrels behind what appears to be a bunch of WP:POINTS?Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good sources: Washington Post and BBC, to name a few.--Biografer (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete a blatant hoax. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to animal attacks. I don't think there is enough here for stand-alone notability. That animals are a threat to infrastructure certainly deserves a section in that article, at least, and that squirrels have been known to damage electrical/Internet infrastructure, may deserve a few sentences, but WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need a dedicated article saying that few people compared squirrels to terrorist. Also, the name is very hoax-ish. Does remind me of WP:BJAODN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge with Squirrel. Despite the cheeky title, it's well documented that squirrels do cause numerous power outages. In addition to the cited articles see this[20] piece from Foreign Policy that compares squirrel damage to the electrical grid against deliberate espionage. The information is encylopedic; it needs a more encyclopedic presentation. Since this is infrastructure damage it seems the main article about squirrels would be more suitable than animal attacks, although either could be feasible. Skrydstrup (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete or the squirrels will attack Wikipedia! Jokes aside, merge to animal attacks sounds good. TheDragonFire (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge with Squirrel and Infrastructure asset management. Animal attacks is completely off-topic: it's an article about violence against persons, not accidental damage to property. Squirrel attacks is similarly focused on violence against persons. — $Llywelyn II$ 06:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. This is a legitimate comparison scenario in political science. [21], [22], [23], [24] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tone is a bit unencyclopedic, but it's a topic that is covered in reliable sources, even if you think the title should be changed to something a bit more dull. And it's clearly not a hoax: it's something covered in print and therefore encyclopedic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the article in good faith. I had never heard of WP:POINTfy until this morning. I am not even aware of being frustrated about any wikipedia policy and I have not any point to make. I also created the article Animal attacks and so I can't be motivated to produce a parody of that article or its editors. This article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding the specific topic of Squirrel related cyberterroism. The sources cast it in this light, not me. They have made the topic a parody. This stand alone article has been created with WP:GNG in mind. My intent is to adhere, in good faith, to these guidelines.
- This article a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- The secondary sources WP:SECONDARY are reliable, verifiable, and from well-established news outlets that are considered to be reliable WP:NEWSORG
- It contains no original research
- The independent sources excludes works produced by the article's subject (squirrels) or someone affiliated with them.
- WP is not (WP:NOT) a repository of everything and this article is not a dictionary entry, definition, a usage, slang, and/or idiom guide, personal essay, discussion forum, advocacy forum, personal attack on squirrels, scandal-mongering, self promotion, marketing, advertising, internet directory, blog, personal web page, memorial or dating service.
- The topic is not new and can be found in sources from previous years and even decades.
- The article was just created yesterday and has not had time to be fully expanded with reliable sources.
- The category Animal attacks contains other similar articles, some which aren't as adequately sourced as this one. That is to say, articles on attacks by different animals are quite common. Even more common are the articles that are categorized by the deaths of people by animal attacks.
- Though arguably a humorous topic, the humor comes from the sources, not the editor (me). I am sure that creating a non-humorous article about a humorous topic can be done, but it doesn't need to be done in that way.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has good sources and the topic was very interesting. User:Barbara (WVS) assumed good faith in writing the article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (and rewrite, in part). Damage done to electric and electronic infrastructure by squirrel action is a real topic, and should be covered by the project in some capacity. That said, despite some sources taking a tongue-in-cheek approach to calling squirrels terrorists, the naming convention used here (and the overall tone) really just isn't compatible with WP:NPOV. Perhaps squirrel damage to infrastructure (which would also then include roof damage and the like)? I'm uncertain, and a broader review of literature might be needed to indicate the preferred title. A merger to animal attacks is demonstrably incorrect (those are attacks on persons, not property), and a merger to squirrel is substantially undue weight. The sources that make comparisons to the effect of actual terrorism have a place there (in a section, but not in a standalone article), although, again, keeping the tone appropriate will be important; this project does very much indeed expect a "non-humorous article about a humorous topic". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree with you except there is precious little information in the sources regarding the threats to infrastructure. The sources are about squirrels. Not much of a comparison exists between squirrels and other forms of threats of infrastructure. Probably, the whole point of all the sources is that the damage that squirrels cause has been more significant than actual terrorist attacks on power grids. Unfortunately, the last sentence does not appear in the sources since so many of them parody the incidents rather than discuss the issue with a serious tone. The sources set the tone and call the squirrels pelzigen Selbstmordattentäter abgeschaltet worden. I don't have a point of view and the sources are not forming a battle against squirrels (surprisingly). This is not an article with a point of view. If it is, what is the point of view except to reflect what the sources have stated? Shall they be scolded and told to take the topic seriously? and describe other threats to infrastructure? I don't know anything about threats to infrastructures - but ask me about squirrels and I can write a whole series of articles...

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, perhaps squirrel damage to property is the ideal titling? In any case, reliable sources documenting damage to wood-shingle roofs, vehicle wiring, and cabling in several contexts are not challenging to locate. That aside, while project policy allows reliable sources to establish notability, it does not dictate that those same sources establish tone. This is neither titled nor written in "a formal tone" and a "businesslike manner". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Squirrels as a threat to infrastructure? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't get to have tantrums because the news media we identify as reliable sources to establish notability confer it on something that sounds silly to us. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Lots of WP:RS, so keeping it is not in doubt. No compliance with WP:Before. The current title is catchy, but too cute by half. It is a legitimate issue, but we need to be WP:NPOV, and the current title (which befits the front page of The National Enquirer) is just 'click bait' and over the top. Probably needs to be restructured, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*UPDATE* - Just to mess up renaming the article even more, content and a reference to the squirrel's ability to infiltrate nuclear missile sites now has been added to the article. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of this discussion that isn't an inherent problem. It certainly is encyclopedic to host information about a species that causes major infrastructure damage. Property damage caused by squirrels, perhaps? It still also seems feasible to incorporate this as a section into the main Squirrel article. Skrydstrup (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skrydstrup: No, the Squirrel article is already too big to be incorporated in. I will suggest quite the opposite; Link this article to squirrel as {{Main}}.--Biografer (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too large? Squirrel is a start-class article with only four paragraphs under the Behavior section. The article is list-heavy and it arguably has an oversized gallery, but lists and galleries aren't a barrier to expanding text sections with sourced information. Skrydstrup (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment squirrels are not sentient and do not use talk or use computers, therefore they cannot engage in cyber-terrorism. This article under this title should be speedy-deleted as a hoax. Discussion of squirrels causing power events should be on a page with a different title. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sense that no one has actually read the sources because in them, there is no mention of squirrels causing power events (the opposite is true), there is no mention of damage to wood-shingle roofs, vehicle wiring, and cabling or other property damage (except for chewed wires), and only power disruption and tunneling into nuclear sites are has been discussed by the sources. There is a solid, neutral point of view-no one is out to get the squirrels or make them look bad (they sacrifice their lives as they do their deeds). How about:

Squirrels as terrorists (parody)

Terrorist squirrels (parody)

Accusations of terrorism aimed at squirrels

Gnawing into the grid

Oh the lights just went out-I hope its just the squirrels again

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Completely lacks notability. Marvellous. Hoax Spider-Man 07:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so true. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article clearly needs a serious name Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Squirrel infrastructural damage. Passes WP:N. Then copy edit from there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Keep and~~ rename Squirrel infrastructural damage, a far more accurate moniker.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing iVote to Delete unless renamed or redirected. This WP:POINTy joke has waseed too much editorial time. WP:TROUT article creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly accept being trouted. It is, truly, an honor. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 04:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brutally cut down and merge to squirrel or perhaps to tree squirrel as this is a classic case of newspaper-space-filling WP:UNDUE. Really, this is, when all the puffery is taken out, basically a short paragraph in an article on squirrel behavior (which is what the "tree squirrel" article looks like now). One slack news day, someone figured out that it was cute to compare the risk to the power grid of squirrels as compared to terrorist attacks. Well, lots of other things are comparable: auto accidents which knock down poles, lightning strikes, fallen trees, clumsy construction workers.... But squirrels are cute, so squirrels got to be the framing device in articles on how low the terrorism threat (as measured in real incidents) actually is, coupled together with the usual hand-wringing about how vulnerable we supposedly are that is driven by reps for the security industrial complex. A few more years down the road, and this will have been a rash of copycat stories that didn't pan out. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mangoe: Yes, squirrels are cute but so are the Taliban men with thick mushy beards :). Joke aside, the article is good as it is. I don't see it being pointy or undue.--Biografer (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Squirrel infrastructural damage or similar per WP:5P1. A catchy news hook ("the most dangerous cyberterrorists are squirrels!") for a well-documented topic (squirrel damage to exterior power/data lines and cables) has been wrongly used as a WP article title. Easy fix. Rename to a more encyclopedic title and brutally trim the obvious satirical content contained in sources (comparing squirrels to terrorists) that has been misrepresented as serious and inappropriately emphasized. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, clearly. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
rename per above quickly. before they cut our commo.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename cut the slightly tongue-in cheek tone, and could do with additional sources. I would argue it is as worthy of inclusion as The wrong type of snow, except that this is squirrels and not snow, if you get my drift. Irondome (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless renamed or redirected as E.M.Gregory said above. Jokey but also internally inconsistent between title to content: electrical outages are not the same as cyber attacks, not all cyber attacks are terrorism, the squirrels don't "sponsor" the activity (they would be lone wolves wouldn't they), ad nauseum. Title is just a joke to attract attention (well done) and the sourced content might go somewhere else. But not with this twee frame. --Lockley (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, well written. Get over yourselves. Tvoz/talk 04:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoz, there are excellent reasons for keeping an encyclopedia sober. I agree that this would make a pretty great headline for an article. But, you know, there are countries where the press, even the government-backed press makes accusations of this sort. I'm talking about Egyptian TV jounalists who accuse the Mossad of sending sharks to attack Egyptians in the Red Sea, and the Fars News Agency report on the Israeli use of spy dolphins Israel-related animal conspiracy theories. Given the "7 times the Onion was lost in translation",[25] we really don't want to risk tricking, say, the Globe and Mail into reporting on the threat from Vermont-based cyberterrorist squirrels, and citing Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wasn't responding to an RFC on an article name change, I was responding to an AFD which I think is unwarranted. I would not necessarily object to a name change. (But sobriety does not necessarily have to be the goal 100% of the time.) Tvoz/talk 16:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: And since when did Wikipedia became a news source in competition against Globe and Mail? Or am I missing something?--Biografer (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is probably not articles like this that fuel the ire of government-backed press, it might be articles like this, this and possibly this (though probably ok with Japan and the third graders). Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 04:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated one of those for PROD. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(totally irrelevant) Comment, and lets not get started on Bunny muggings - "Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny, isn't it? Well, it's always the same. I always tell them." Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Salt - I still think this is too silly to keep even a redirect; if a new page name is agreed upon I don't object to keeping the content. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment The point of the news pieces from which this article takes its name is not that squirrels are a threat to infrastructure, but that hackers aren't. They start from the position that squirrels are a routine problem, just like falling trees and storms, and use it to ridicule yet another bit of security paranoia. Well, OK: that's a couple of sentences in squirrel or tree squirrel, neither of which says anything on squirrels and power lines, and maybe another couple in whatever article on power distribution and the security thereof. And once those articles actually say what they need to say, this article become completely redundant, not to say padded. This isn't even vaguely encyclopedic as it tries to justify sitting off by itself. Mangoe (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and fix accordingly — It seems that damage by squirells may be notable enough for clickbait titles to abound. I don't think we should fall into that though (we don't care if our title is sensationalist enough to attract as many clicks as possible)... —Paleo Neonate - 03:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the great editing by other editors, the article is in great shape and I am OKAY with the title Squirrel infrastructure damage which I think is an even more humourous title. Shall I just move it? Or do I wait until an administrator closes the discussion. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements are welcome during AfD, but moves can make the process more complicated. The close is likely to be a keep, merge or rename consensus one, at which point it can be moved more easily (see the end of WP:AFDEQ for more details). Thanks, —Paleo Neonate - 21:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something like Squirrel electrical grid damage or something specific to the grid. Squirrel infrastructure damage is too broad and would have to include the major damage they do to homes and such as well. Capeo (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as better title. already used at Squirrel induced power outages in Pennsylvania, which will probably be merged here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with proposed title. Renaming is inevitable; just a question of which name. Since Squirrel Nut Zippers doesn't seem to fit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:55, 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 merge to Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism. So Why 18:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel induced power outages in Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Is this a notable topic? Appears to be a WP:POINTy riff on Animal attacks and its subpages (which are absolute disasters). Article creator went from editing Animal attacks to creating Squirrel attacks and then creating this page. Plantdrew (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to mention Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism. Meters (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change it to Wikipedia:Humor--Biografer (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to animal attacks. Animal threat to infrastructure deserves at least a section, and this could be merged to such a section (article?). But this topic (squirrels treat in a single US province, or even a country itself - the article is confused about its scope...) is very unlikely to be notable in itself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Animal attacks article is about the topic of attacks on human beings. The scope of the article does not include animals attacking inanimate objects like wires, electrical grids, doggy chew toys, catnip toys or my shoes.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism; definitely a similar subject matter, and very short article; uncertain what title it should be merged under. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created yesterday and is still undergoing expansion. It will end up being larger.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there's certainly cause to discuss squirrel damage to infrastructure, there's absolutely no reason to attempt to list specific incidents, especially by state. There's nothing special about the squirrels or the power lines in Pennsylvania. And, indeed, the article doesn't try to convince us otherwise; it's almost exclusively a big list of links to news reports of squirrel damage. That doesn't cut it for notability, either. Call this a "trivial intersection" or just silly, but this isn't suitable for inclusion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is WP:UNDUE. Some of the sources (e.g. [26]) merely speculate about the involvement of squirrels, they don't confirm it. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The speculation is sourced. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the article Animal attacks and often return to it to edit and add more content. I noted that the attacks of squirrels were missing from Animal attacks, and did my Google search to find that not only do squirrels attack humans, they do it frequently, they do it frequently in Pennsylvania, and they damage power grids while being characterized as terrorists. Watching my editing history only demonstrates that I tend to add content to a number of similar topics at the same time. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as trivia. Heck, on my street alone we get a squirrel-frying outage every year or so. Plenty of other things take down the power all the time: what's next, falling trees? Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but did your squirrels make it into the newspaper? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Making it into the newspaper" is precisely why we have WP:NOTNEWS. One doesn't even have to read the articles, but only run the mouse pointer over the reference numbers to see that this is routine coverage, mostly in small-town papers, of events that are forgotten after a week or two. Mangoe (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think Mangoe sums it up for me. Lots of things can cause power outages, including falling branches. So why would we have a list for outages caused by squirrels? I also note that we have a little spate of squirrel-related articles from this editor at Afd, and this needs to stop, I believe. I note that the article creator is a Wikipedian Visiting Scholar, and Wikipedian in Residence with the University of Pittsburgh. Yet she states on her user talk page that her goal in creating one of the other squirrel articles was not guided by policy, but "to create an article that a third-grader would love." That's really not what we're here for. I don't know what obligations or responsibilities come with being a Wikipedian Visiting Scholar, and Wikipedian in Residence, but surely it's not to create articles like Squirrel induced power outages in Pennsylvania. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Touché, Montreal. I probably should have used my other account, Bfpage for the squirrel-article-creation frenzy, but Pitt is used to my shenanigans by now. I consider having three articles up for AfD something as a badge. I disagree about what we are here for. I write for my grandchildren. That is what we are here for. The future. You think something is wrong with the squirrels, check out my other masterpiece Empathy in chickens. That got deleted once and then was re-hatched after I successfully provided even more astounding references. I'll change it to a list article, if you would like. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really, this is going a bit far. Are we going to have one for every state? for every animal? How is this notable? Please don't let the squirrel in your bonnet lead you up the garden path that much, Barbara :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes actually, there could be a page for every state. The best sources are about squirrels though the UK has more problems with birds and power outages. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a section of Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism. Tvoz/talk 17:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selective merge to Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism. TROUT article creator for WP:POINTy article creation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism. One article will suffice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 15 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 Animal attacks. So Why 18:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel attacks[edit]

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

Is this a notable topic? Appears to be a WP:POINTy riff on Animal attacks and its subpages (which are disastrous). Plantdrew (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to animal attacks. Does not seem notable in itself, no need for a short stub like this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As the man said. Not worth an article. Now a gopher, there's a fiend... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{“Pocket gophers are pugnacious and fight man or dog as quickly as they would an animal of their own size. To the gopher, everything that moves is an enemy and is attacked with vicious wheezing and savage bites. The toe of a boot or a stick is seized, and the heavy incisors make deep cuts into wood or quickly through leather…The gopher’s vision is extremely limited, and it seems not to see an object until very close, when its instinct of self-preservation suggests a prompt attack."^[1] Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

^{Hence the little known preference for sabatons among adventurous hoosiers :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

^{Well then, perhaps the sabaton article needs a gallery to include these rodents. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Redirect Clearly a joke, and content is unencyclopedic trivia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the article in good faith. I had never heard of WP:POINTfy until this morning. I am not even aware of being frustrated about any wikipedia policy and I have not any point to make. I also created the article Animal attacks and so I can't be motivated to produce a parody of that article or its editors. This article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding the specific topic of Squirrel attacks. This stand alone article has been created with WP:GNG in mind. My intent is to adhere, in good faith, to these guidelines.
- This article a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- The secondary sources WP:SECONDARY are reliable, verifiable, and from well-established news outlets that are considered to be reliable WP:NEWSORG
- It contains no original research
- The independent sources excludes works produced by the article's subject (squirrels) or someone affiliated with them.
- WP is not (WP:NOT) a repository of everything and this article is not a dictionary entry, definition, a usage, slang, and/or idiom guide, personal essay, discussion forum, advocacy forum, personal attack on squirrels, scandal-mongering, self promotion, marketing, advertising, internet directory, blog, personal web page, memorial or dating service.
- The topic is not new and can be found in sources from previous years and even decades.
- The article was just created yesterday and has not had time to be fully expanded with reliable sources.
- The category Animal attacks contains other similar articles, some which aren't as adequately sourced as this one. That is to say, articles on attacks by different animals are quite common. Even more common are the articles that are categorized by the deaths of people by animal attacks.
- Though arguably a humorous topic, the humor comes from the sources, not the editor (me). I am sure that creating a non-humorous article about a humorous topic can be done, but it doesn't need to be done in that way.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it's a good faith effort. But do you think there is sufficient material to build it into a more substantial article? Otherwise it really would be better off as a section in the main article. There's rarely any benefit (neither to the reader nor to us) in scattering small sub-topics among separate articles.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It should really begin to shape up by the weekend. My other articles, along the same lines, have always been improved to the point of satisfaction to those who have originally suggested their deletions. It is rare that an article that I create gets deleted. In almost every instance, the nomination is done the same day that I've begun working on the article, even with the {{underconstruction}} in place. You won't be disappointed.

I am sorry to inform you that I am unable to locate enough secondary sources to create an article: Pocket gopher attacks. The reference above is the only one I could locate. I haven't consulted the holdings of the University of Pittsburgh's Libraries, but I don't think it would pass a deletion discussion. I will include the above information in the Animal attacks article, as consolation.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOWBALL Merge' a brief mention of "attack" squirrels back to animal attacks. You had your little WP:POINTy joke. Wish it has been funny enough to justify wasting other editors time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a little AGF here? There's no indication this is meant to be POINTy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Animal attacks We can't have separate pages for attacks from all animals unless they are exceptionally different from the lot. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We actually DO have dozens of articles on animal attacks (by species, breed or genus). See the Category: Animal attacks. I did not write all of them or even most of them. There are enough moose attacks for a separate article but I haven't gotten to that yet. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to animal attacks. I'm loathe to dump more content back into that mess of a parent article, but there's very little to suggest this should stand on its own. Isolated squirrel bite incidents get attention because they are unexpected, not because they are a significant cause of injury. Indeed, both ICD-9 and ICD-10 single out rat bites (for which we lack an article) and dog bites (which we have) as being of special significant. Squirrels are just another part of ICD-10's "other mammals". And for good reason. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough material for a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel bites have their own ICD code, remarkably.^[2]^[3] Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Bailey, Vernon. Revision of the Pocket Gophers of the Genus Thomomys. (January 1, 1915). University of Michigan Library (January 1, 1915), page 13.
^ "2015/16 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code W53.29 : Other contact with squirrel". Retrieved 2015-10-16.
^ "When squirrels attack! There's a medical code for that".

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But it seems there's also consensus to merge these all into one article. Sandstein 10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)[edit]

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

Non-notable series of anthologies. The editor is notable and it seems like most of the authors are, but I can't seem to scare up any notable stories. The collection of stories is not notable by inference, so these titles don't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Also nominating these articles for the same rationale:[reply]

-- Mikeblas (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DominicCapuano (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And while I am at it another user suggested that use the longer and more descriptive article name. They renamed the article moved it to the longer name which I really liked.--DominicCapuano (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what "notable" means but the term sounds a little subjective. The authors are all long time contributors to science fiction. Because a story has not been made and subsequently remade into a movie where they blow everything up or kill everybody does not mean there is no value to the stories.--DominicCapuano (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that an editor removed the AFD notice from, and then renamed Alpha 4 (Robert Silverberg anthology). -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Robert Silverberg; the anthology does not appear to be independently notable and no sources have been presented at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ISFDB shows reviews in notable genre magazines for most volumes in the series. There are quite a few notable stories in the volumes, not all properly linked, as well as award-winning and -nominated stories that don't yet have articles. The real issue here is whether to merge these entries into a single series article or maintain individual articles, and that's not an AFD issue. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- change to keep per arguments present, but if kept, then merge all sub-articles into one article on the anthology.K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Berlin terrorist plot[edit]

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

Another prime example of why Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. A day after this article was created, sources have reported that no evidence of a terror plot have been found. [27][28] Basically, this is an article about a non-existent plot. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. How very post-modern to essentially have an article about nothing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTE and WP:EVENT. Calling a planned suicide bombing in one of Europe's largest metropolis "nothing" is just sad. It got a very high news coverage in national and international media for a long period. There are a lot of similar articles on Wikipedia: Russian Embassy in Berlin attack plot, 2016 Balkans terrorism plot, 2015 New Year's attack plots, 2016 Düsseldorf terrorism plot, 2016 Chemnitz terrorism plot, 2016 Ludwigshafen bombing plot, 2016 Sweden terrorism plot. So the dude who wants to delete the article should have some arguments, why this bomb plot is less notable than the rest.--Rævhuld (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rævhuld I am almost absolutely certain you ignored my rationale completely. Please read the sources I provided. They report that the suspect was released and the texts were misunderstood. There is no plot.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since 'Police officials claimed that "[e]vidence of the planning of a concrete act has not yet been identified during the police investigation"', can I paraphrase: evidence of anything actually happpening to warrant an article in Wikipedia has not yet been identified by me. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#Terrorist plots. Sources clearly state that security authorities had multiple reasons to suspect intention to commit a suicide attack. And these are WP:RS like DW adnd Die Zeit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory the only "reason" reported for his arrest was a mistranslated message to his mother. Also, please explain this to me, why would we redirect an incident confirmed to not be a terrorist plot to a list of terrorist plots? For an arrest where the authorizies even admitted they had no concrete evidence, it seems we would be implying there is some truth to this debunked claim.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DW: "Authorities were put on the trail of the suspect by information from other German states, Schröter revealed." E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Information" is such a broad, ambiguous statement; whose to say it was not the message, literally the only "evidence" available from sources? E.M.Gregory are you going to respond to the remainder of my statement? About why a debunked claim needs to be redirected to a list of terrorist plots? This 17 year-old did absolutely nothing terrorist-related yet you want this incident redirected to a list of verified plots and threats.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read and cited DW, can you point me to the source that supports your assertion?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the search I ran [29].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly E.M.Gregory. I would be happy to link my sources again (see my deletion rationale at the top for the first time).

BBC: "'No concrete evidence was found that he was planning a crime that endangered the state,' Reuters quoted prosecutors as saying".

"There was also no evidence that he was linked to any foreign militant organisation, the news agency said".

The Locale: "Public prosecutors said on Wednesday that they did not find enough evidence to substantiate suspicions that the teen had been plotting the alleged attack in Berlin. He was therefore released" TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically, an unaffiliated person did nothing to no-one. These sort of police investigations happen all the time and are not encyclopedia, because they are not notable. This matter should perhaps never have been made public, other than the police claiming how vigilant they are. WWGB (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no actual plot. Might actually be reason for WP:SPEEDY delete if you feel like it fits WP:A3. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't quite say the article has no content, so much as the subject does, but I can see where you're going with that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BigHaz: Ok, my bad, I misinterpreted that. Thanks for correcting me. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BigHaz. Unless this is a particularly famous non-event (I think it isn't), we don't seem to need a news report about it. —Kusma (t·c) 20:00, 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 keep. Consensus is clearly to keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Winner[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E. All content should go in other others about the event.Casprings (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widespread reporting on this subject for a basis of notability on par with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. bd2412 T 02:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)d[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS are the overwhelmingly authoritative community rules on this. Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did much more to become lastingly notable than Winner, and have had and this notability continue due to their world image of being whistleblowers (Snowden even frequently does interviews about his views on different privacy issues till this day). I must therefore agree with the opener of this discussion. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 76.66.12.7 is applying the wrong standard. Yes, Assange, Snowden and Manning, have received more coverage than Winner. That is hardly surprising, since their whistleblowing has been covered, for years. The appropriate standard to apply is whether coverage of winner remains focussed solely, or largely, on her leak. When extensive reporting focusses, in detail, on her life, her academic career, her military career, her hobbies, her pets, her social media activity, her family, and her apparent loneliness, then she is clearly not an example of BLP1E.
  No offense, but I suspect 77.66.12.7 is falling into a common trap. I suspect he or she holds the personal opinion that Winner shouldn't be notable. But notability is based on the opinions of reliable sources, not on the personal opinions of wikipedia contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Geo Swan: One question: was she notable before this event happened? 77.66.12.7 (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, what? Were Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning notable before leaking? Was Daisy Ridley notable before starring in Star Wars: The Force Awakens? Is it in any way surprising that most BLPs needed a notable event in order to become notable? What you're basically saying is "was she notable before becoming notable?" κατάστασ η 07:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is really simple 77.66.12.7. Winner became notable when reliable sources chose to write about her, her hobbies, her family, her academic career, her USAF service. Geo Swan (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major new sites including nytimes, washingtonpost, independent, bbc, guardian, cnn have carried news on this, it doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS per-se cause it has developed into something bigger including her being charged by the NSA..This will develop further.--Ste moc 02:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I ask myself if in five or ten years when I am talking to someone unfamiliar with the early months of the Trump presidency, will I be want to be able to explain who this person is, my answer is that yes I probably will. KConWiki (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There is potential for this individual to gain the notoriety of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Reality Winner has been everywhere recently and aside from the valid argument of NOTNEWS, we have to consider that this subject could be poignant to the course of the Trump presidency. If this is a drop in the ocean, then yes, I will then support deleting this. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 03:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.66.12.7 (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She falls weakly on the side of notability at this point. As of writing this, it's a fringe case. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 06:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. Like shooting knishes in a barrel. →StaniStani 03:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources and there are only going to be more. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the event was notable. At present she is a person notable for one event, so we might consider renaming. TFD (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence WP:BLP1E. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WP:BLP#Subjects notable only for one event specifically says that BLP1E only applies "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Ms Winner is not just a whistleblower, she is the first whistleblower to be captured during the Trump Presidency. So she will be covered in that context, over and above her (central) role in her particular leak.
The next paragraph of WP:BLP#Subjects notable only for one event offers John Hinckley, Jr. as an example of an individual many people would say is an example of a BLP1E, who nevertheless merits a standalone article... "John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significanI would urge t and his role was both substantial and well documented." I suggest Winner has much more in common with Hinkley than with genuine non-notable individuals who found themselves at the centre of a controversy, by accident, and who are only covered as a footnote to that event. Atlantic magazine, for instance, published an article entitled Who Is Reality Winner? This article is clearly an attempt to cover Winner's life outside the context of her leak. The Atlantic article isclearly far from the only publication attempting to look into Winner herself, and cover her life, outside of the context of her leak.

I would urge nominator to interpret BLP1E in a less extreme manner. Please understand how the wikipedia really works.

Topics are linked. Some topics are strongly linked to multiple topics. I suggest the more useful way of interpreting BLP1E is to only apply it to individuals who are really only linked to one topic, the incident where they played a subordinate role. I suggest BLP1E should never be applied to individuals, like Winner, who are strongly linked to multiple other topics. Geo Swan (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- One event is one event. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you were trying to make a substantive point here, could you please try harder? Geo Swan (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not the type of person BLP1E is meant to apply to. Those are mostly people involved in an event with a single, simple focused nexus: an accident, a shooting, a witness, a bystander at an occurrence, and the like. Winner, on the other hand, is at the center of what is unfolding as a fairly serious intelligence, foreign policy, media (vis-a-vis The Intercept), and U.S. political story with multiple facets, plus her involvement in criminal and/or other investigative proceedings about the case. You don't have to be an Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning to be a notable person in a context like this. --MCB (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan. This is a clearly developing story that could reach the notability level of Snowden and Manning. It's much too early to nominate this for deletion. Alternatively, if the consensus is that this is a case of WP:BLP1E, then rename the article to "Arrest of Reality Winner" or "2017 NSA leak" and make it about the event, not a BLP. κατάστασ η 06:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WRT the suggestion the article be redirected... currently the article is linked from The Intercept, List of whistleblowers, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Pluribus International Corporation, TrumpiLeaks, Henrietta M. King High School.
First, in each of these articles, the most natural, most supportable link, will be Reality Winner, not 2017 NSA Leak.

If a reader clicks on a link to Reality Winner why hould we confuse them by taking them to an article entitled 2017 NSA Leak?

FWIW, 2017 NSA Leak is a bad article name, because we are only four months into the Trump Presidency, and the prospect of additional NSA leaks is high. Further, fast forward a couple of years, and most readers are unlikely to remember which year the leak took place. They are more likely to remember this by her name.

Additionally, while we sometimes take a BLP, and give it a new name, out of respect for the privacy of an individual who became notable without ever running for office, or committing a crime, or seeking to become a public figure by seeking to be a rock star, porn star, sports star, movie star, who became notable by accident. But winner actively chose to be a whistleblower. So she did not become a public figure by accident. So why should she be eligible for the obfuscating courtesy renaming we should reserve for people who became notable through no fault of their own? Geo Swan (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Necessary and relevant content can be used in other related articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep temporarily without prejudice to later merging. Experience has shown that major US leakers tend to become persons of lasting public interest (cf. Manning, Snowden), and it seems clear that this case will generate a lot of coverage in the weeks and months to come. If and when we get a decent article about the leak or the leaked material itself, it is conceivable that this bio could be merged into it should Winner herself not quite reach the level of notoriety or prominence of other leakers. Sandstein 09:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restructure to be about the event and rename accordingly, e.g. June 5, 2017 NSA leak. Contrary to Geo Swan's comment above, she did become a public figure by accident. She chose to leak but she didn't want to be known for it. Her identity was only revealed because of a sloppy reporter failing to remove the tracking information from the documents. The whole point of WP:BLP1E however is to prevent articles about people who are in the public spotlight against their will and who are - like Winner - unlikely to be ever known outside a single event. So the correct way is to restructure this article to be about the event and rename it accordingly per WP:BIO1E. Regards So Why 09:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You write "she didn't want to be known for it"... If you, or I, were to knock back a six-pack of beer, then get into our car, drive away, and promptly drive over a toddler, our friends would believe we "didn't want" to commit toddlercide. Nevertheless, even our best friends would not dispute that the toddlercide was a direct consequence of our decision to drive drunk. This is entirely different than the sober driver who drives over a toddler who unpredictably runs into the middle of traffic. So, in my opinion, to call her notability an "accident" is a huge distortion of the word "accident".
  You write "BLP1E ... prevents articles about people who are in the public spotlight against their will." Pick any of the high profile murderers we cover, say Phil Spector ... they didn't want to be in the public spotlight, either. They hoped to get away with their crime, without detection.
  
  You write: "the correct way is to restructure this article to be about the event and rename it accordingly". Well, is their relevant, policy compliant material, specifically about Ms. Winner, covered by sober, responsible newspapers, that would be off-topic in an article that was solely about the leak? Yes, of course there is. I think this means following your suggestion would be a lapse from WP:NOTCENSORED.
  
  Further, I think you are ignoring what BIO1E actually says. Doesn't it say "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." That Winner's leak is "highly significant" is quite clear by the amount of coverage it has triggered. Geo Swan (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan:

If I do something publicly, I have to expect publicity. But if I do something privately and anonymously, like Winner did, I don't have to expect publicity. Ask yourself this: If the reporter at The Intercept had been smart enough to cover the tracking markers, would we know about Winner? Most certainly not.. We only know about her role in this leak because of sloppiness she couldn't control and most likely didn't expect.

Your example shows the problem with your argument. Phil Spector is not notable because of a murder, he was notable before. On the other hand, to take a truly random example I just picked out of the search box, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale are not articles but redirects to Murder of Lee Rigby despite the huge amount of coverage. Why? Because neither is notable outside this single event.

We can use the murder-example for that next point as well: Murder of ... articles oftentimes include biographical information of the murderers (see example above) without it being off-topic. Why would it be different in case of another (alleged) crime?

At this time, the article is a WP:PSEUDO biography, something WP:BIO1E explicitly warns against creating. As to whether the leak is "highly significant", one should remember that in this day and age many things receive a lot of coverage but it's not really clear whether the leak will be remembered in a few months or even weeks. The guideline mentions assassins of major political leaders as an example (so the "highly significant" event would be the assassination); I don't think Winner is in the same category, is she? Regards So Why 10:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy, you offer the examples of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale asserting it is appropriate for these to be redirects, to the event. I think your assertion is based on Adebolajo and Adebowale's role not triggering significant press coverage that is not about the event. Is that correct?
So, is this true for Winner?

Absolutely not. Did you see The Daily Show lead off Tuesday's episode with a segment on Winner's leak? Much of The Daily Show coverage was on how distracting her name was. He terminated by claiming white people could no longer mock black people for having weird names.

That Winner's unusual name triggered coverage is clearly off-topic for an article solely about the leak.
As for whether Winner expected to get away with her leak, without detection. Irrelevant, since she actively chose to perform the action, she is not a passive victim of circumstance.

You write "At this time, the article is a WP:PSEUDO biography". When interpretation of a policy is in conflict with interpretation of a guideline, policy trumps the guideline. As per WP:DELETE deletion is not based on the current state of the article. Deletion is based on the notability of the topic. We keep weak articles when the topic, itself, is notable. I am not going to ask you to explain why you characterize the article as a pseudo-biography, since it is completely irrelevant. This is irrelevant here. And it would have been irrelevant in any other AFD you used this argument, in the past, when the individual was notable based on coverage in reliable sources, not used in the article. Please don't use this bad argument in future.

I just re-read PSEUDO, and found it is not even a guideline, just an essay. Lol. I have an essay, as well, that takes the opposite position. Essays can never trump genuine policies Geo Swan (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is where we disagree. I don't see how making fun of her name equals coverage of her independent of the leak. Colbert yesterday said her arrest proves that "Trump is at war with Reality". Is that a sign that she is notable independently from the leak? I think not.

Again, saying it is "irrelevant" does not make it irrelevant. She wouldn't be known unless for the actions of a third-party. Which is different from people acting in ways they know will generate publicity.

As for WP:PSEUDO, it might be an essay but it's one linked to from WP:BIO1E, which changes its "value". Imho, it fits perfectly, since all coverage of her is in connection with the event.

But let's keep it at a strictly policy-level, shall we? WP:BLP1E states we should avoid having an article about a person, if the person is only notable because of a single event, is and will likely be otherwise WP:LOWPROFILE (which again is an essay that is linked to from a policy) and the event if not significant (which here means no persistent coverage in RS).

I think we can agree that #1 is the case here?

As for #2, the linked essay defines a low-profile individual as a person, usually notable for only one event, who has not sought or desired the attention. This is where we disagree (see above) but I think based on that supplement's definition it's safe to argue that her media attention was that for a low-profile individual.

Criterion #3 is the one we need a WP:CRYSTALBALL for since the significance of the event can only be judged in hindsight. I would argue to err on the side of caution here and assume that this leak will likely be forgotten in a few weeks (incidentally, today there is basically no more such coverage, with all media outlets focusing on Comey's testimony. Since #3 requires the event to be significant and her role in it to be substantial, her central role does not change that.

PS: There is no need to remind me of what does or does not constitute valid reasons for deletion. I'm well aware. As always, reasonable people can disagree in such matters and this is the case here. We both read the applicable policies and guidelines and came to different conclusions. Time will tell whose was correct

Regards So Why 13:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy, for the record, the three numbered points you refer to here are from WP:BLP#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event, correct?
No, I do not agree (1) applies. Coverage of Winner has already expanded beyond the event. Coverage of her family background, USAF background, coverage of her several hobbies, social media activities, her loneliness, as in the article in Atlantic magazine -- are you really going to claim this is coverage of the leak?

WRT (2) are you saying we should only cover proud criminals, who are happy to have their crimes known, while we should suppress coverage of criminals who thought they would get away with their crimes without detection? If your non-policy supplementary wikidocument implies this, you and I should go to that wikidocument's talk page, and start a discussion to have that passage trimmed, clarified or rewritten.

WRT to your assertion around (3)... Crystal ball? How much time did you spend performing web searches of Winner? Did you actually start to read any of those articles? I am frankly puzzled that you don't recognize that she has ALREADY triggered significant coverage, significant coverage of her, personally, over and beyond her role in the leak.

You wrote you "assume that this leak will likely be forgotten in a few weeks..." Please bear in mind that we are not Donald Trump's spin doctors. Trump, and his spin doctors, would be happy if every topic related to his campaign's controverial ties to Russia was forgotten. They'd be happy if public interest in the embarrassing links faded, and the wikipedia quietly deleted every article that touched on them, almost as if they never occurred.

What I don't understand is what policy you think offers any support for this kind of rewriting of history... They wikipedia is full of articles on notable topics where interest has faded from the period when they were extensively covered in the press. O.J. Simpson was the focus of extensive coverage, when he was charged with, and stood trial for, murdering his ex-wife and her boyfriend. He seemed to fade from sight, after he was acquitted. Isn't the logical extension of your argument here, that we then should have deleted the article about him?

You do realize that one of the most important uses of an encyclopedia is to allow the interested reader to look up topics that have faded from the popular press? Geo Swan (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As for #1, it is probably a difference of opinion based on how one understands "in the context of". I understand it to mean "because of", i.e. is she only being covered because of the event? That is the case.

As for #2, I'm not saying we should not cover her, I am saying we should cover her role in the event in an article about the event.

And as for #3, I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying she has not received a lot of coverage, I'm saying the leak will probably not be considered significant in a few weeks / months time. #3 requires both though.

Trust me, I'm certainly no friend of Trump and I am still not sure how so many people can support him. Yet, saying we should cover the leak, not the leaker, is not "spin doctoring" nor is it "forgetting". In fact, an article about the leak is far more "damaging" in this context than an article about the leaker. And again, the article being about the leak and covering Winner's role in it there is perfectly acceptable based on the aforementioned policies and guidelines and does not make the content any less useful. It just directs the focus to the real subject, the leak.

Basically, when it comes to BLPs such as this, the question is this: Would the event be notable without knowing about Winner? Certainly. Would Winner be notable without the event? Certainly not (unlike OJ Simpson who was a notable athlete and actor before the murders). So it makes sense to have an article about the event that is notable whether the leaker is known or not but not about the leaker who is only notable because of it. And again - I cannot stress this enough - I am not arguing to remove the information, just to restructure it. Regards So Why 13:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is likely to be covered by press more than this. Mhhossein ^talk 09:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restructure to be about the event per User:SoWhy. The leak is notable, and is the only basis of Winner's notability. Winner's personal exercise habits, etc, are not, despite prurient coverage in tabloids and all too many broadsheets. If, in the future, Winner becomes notable beyond the leak, then a separate article for Winner can be created accordingly. zazpot (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's received substantial coverage over the past few days and that's going to continue, per Sandstein's comments.LM2000 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restructure to be about the event, as per User:SoWhy. See WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual: "A low-profile individual is a person, usually notable for only one event, who has not sought or desired the attention". No strong opinion, though... maybes it will soon become adequate to have a specific article on the person. --a3nm (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:BD2412 and User:Sandstein's rationales.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as it says in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event:

"We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: ... If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented."

And in this case the event _is_ significant and the role of the person substantial and well documented. So the very reasons given for opening this deletion discussion speak in favour of keeping the article. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other arguments above in favor of keeping the article. Also, for crime perpetrators, WP:PERPETRATOR's criterion #2 says: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." WP:BLP does advise caution wrt articles about alleged perpetrators not convicted of a crime, but George Zimmerman has an article even though he was acquitted, and his crime was much more "mainstream" compared to Winner's - who I think meets the "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" criterion of WP:PERPETRATOR. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412 and FireflySixtySeven. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, her case is widely reported in mainstream news. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's notable, and her eventual trial will likely generate even more news coverage. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, BLP1E doesn't apply to central figures of events, and we cannot crystal ball if she'll return to being low profile. Consensus can change later / recentism so no prejudice for BLP1E applying later. Fine here for now. Widefox; talk 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable -- Firefishy (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She is notable and will most likely become even more so in the coming months.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because I came here expecting to find the page. Cutelyaware (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winner is at least as notable as John Kiriakou and others who have been prosecuted for leaking, who typically get their own pages.Amyzex (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO, specifically point two of WP:PERP. The notability of this case is on par with historical cases such as Robert Lee Johnson and Christopher John Boyce as well as more contemporary cases such as Snowden. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan. That's put very well. Gatemansgc (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject does not meet points 2 or 3 of BLP1E to qualify for deletion. Specifically point 3 says; If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The "individual's role" in the event is central, she was the event. No Reality Winner, no event. For that matter, there are numerous sources now covering this, there are only going to be more later. This will be well documented if it already isn't. I also agree with Geo Swan's point above about her not being "just a whistleblower". Mr rnddude (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable. Rob van vee 07:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—She's not incidental to the event, and I would argue that her notability derives from two separate events. There have been numerous leaks of data from the NSA and about the Russia-Trump probe, few of which yet confer notability on a leaker. In Winner's case, however, there has been a prosecutorial decision to charge Winner under the Espionage Act. Given their historical rarity (just 13, ever) and prolonged media attention to this rarity, I would argue that every person who is prosecuted for espionage for leaking to the press is notable.--Carwil (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is clearly notable, and it makes more sense to write an article on her rather than something like 2017 NSA leak or whatever. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am glad to see that many of you want to keep this, in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I don't contribute because your rules are too rigid in many ways, and if you delete this article you are proving that Wikipedia is based on false values. Many of your pages about large organizations and book authors were put up as advertisements, hiding behind your anonymity. If Wikipedia cannot accept pages related to heroic people and controversial issues, you have outlived your usefulness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Lann (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. I agree that it is very different from the case of Chelsea Manning. Chelsea harmed many good people and the interests of US. In contrast, Reality revealed an important report about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that supposed to be made public at the first place, but for strange reasons was covered up. If that disclosure harms anyone's interests, that were interests of "bad guys", whoever they are. And she is going to be prosecuted? That is what makes this case highly notable, with the subject looking pretty much like good heroes of this movie persecuted by the bad agency. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has admitted to FBI agents that she disclosed information knowing "the contents of the reporting could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation". Also, she is notable as the first person charged under the Espionage Act for revealing information classified as Top Secret during the Trump administration. (My very best wishes, it doesn't matter whether she is different or similar to Chelsea Manning. I don't know if she good or bad. I'd rather that we not get into that here, or perhaps at all, given WP:NPOV.)--FeralOink (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Seriously, why is this discussion still open? ^Falling_Gravity 05:03, 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 merge to Taraxacum officinale. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 17:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taraxalisin[edit]

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

Not really a notable topic. RES2773 (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may help put the subject into perspective. As conveyed by its name, Taraxalisin relates to the properties of Taraxacum officinale. IMO a legitimate phytochemical topic. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taraxacum officinale. This seems to be about 2 sentences worth in the "Herbal medicine" section. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Scholar search linked above by 84.73.134.206 demonstrates that this is indeed a notable topic because of the amount of research published on this enzyme. It can be mentioned at Taraxacum officinale, but I think there is sufficient material available in reliable sources from which to expand this stub into a stand-alone article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 31 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) 01:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Taraxacum officinale. I agree with the above comments supporting a merge. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taraxacum officinale per above. That's a happy result and it's nice to know the fancy name. --Lockley (talk) 06:02, 15 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard Maestro[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've never really understood the desire to delete information from Wikipedia unless it is inaccurate, but anyway, here are sources I (as its author) quickly found for Keyboard Maestro that are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject":

Take Control of Automating Your Mac (ebook) (available from Take Control, Amazon, etc)
Automating deeper with Keyboard Maestro article from SixColors (influential Mac web site by Jason Snell and Dan Moren)
Many articles from leancrew "And now it’s all this" web site by influential author drdrang.
A Beginner's Guide To Automating Your Mac With Keyboard Maestro at LifeHacker AU
Keyboard Maestro tutorial series from Evanto Tutorials
Keyboard Maestro screencast tutorials from Mac OS X Screencasts
Keyboard Maestro and Mac Automation tutorials from ScreenCastsOnline

Those were the ones that I found quickly, there are many more references and tutorials, lots on YouTube for example, even ignoring the very active Keyboard Maestro forum (which may or may not be considered independent). All have significant coverage, and all are clearly independent. What is considered "reliable sources" I wont try to speak to.

Hopefully this helps making an informed decision. Sorry if the formatting is not appropriate, feel free to reformat it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterNLewis (talk • contribs) 03:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterNLewis:. Are you claiming any or all of these meet WP:RS? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if he knows about our intricate web of policies and standards, but yes, he's plainly asserting that these are good and reliable sources, including some by acknowledged experts in the field, and all independent of the article's topic. I think he has identified more than enough sources of high enough quality to demonstrate notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PeterNLewis's sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG. Source examples from my WP:BEFORE searches: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kantu (software)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and no sources exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no references for this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. MIT Thesis ref does not mention Kantu. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist ^talk|contribs 11:33, 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.

[1] Bailey, Vernon. Revision of the Pocket Gophers of the Genus Thomomys. (January 1, 1915). University of Michigan Library (January 1, 1915), page 13.

[2] "2015/16 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code W53.29 : Other contact with squirrel". Retrieved 2015-10-16.

[3] "When squirrels attack! There's a medical code for that".

[1]

[2]

[3]