Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 May	1 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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Caruso[edit]

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

Non-notable outside of her husband. Notability is not inherited. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~ to Enrico Caruso. Not independently notable. --Lockley (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been convinced by the arguments below -- Keep. --Lockley (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep German language entry for her shows this article could be improved to acceptable standards, premature to delete now. Roseohioresident (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roseohioresident, with the caveat that if and only if someone can translate the German article and beef up the English stub, then it would pass the Heymann standard. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments, also she wrote his biography, which later was adapted to a movie: so she is independently important in her own right. Sadads (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Integrative Intelligence[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this very recent book. Appears to be a promotional flyer. The refs appear to be self referential. Nothing that is independent and reliable to give any notability to the book itself. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Frankly, stridently self-promotional article copy. I don't believe there are any independent reviews of this work, and suspect that even the "academic" reviews quoted in the article are solicited, rather than stemming from an actual review in the conventional sense. Additionally, this is essentially a self-published work. The publisher, Praan Uitgeverij (Praan Group), conveniently comprises the author list. I don't think this is in G11 territory, but its nowhere close to meeting WP:NBOOK. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that some aspects of Wikipedia's culture can be surprising. In order to "count" towards what the project calls notability, reviews and other discussions of a subject need to be independent of the subject, and published in a reliable source. The reviews and quotes given in the article at this time are all published in the book; they are not independent of it. Ideally, for this sort of subject, we'd be looking for literature reviews in peer reviewed journal articles, or discussions of the book in comparable works by recognized publishers. In this case, the book is very recently published. Perhaps there simply has not been time for those sorts of sources to be published. However, if appropriate sources don't exist yet, then it may simply be too soon for the article to exist as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. These reviews are by very prominent people in the Netherlands. Example, Jos de Blok, CEO of the largest home health care company in the Netherlands. The fact that these people have reviewed makes this book significant. Second Example, Professor Mathieu Weggeman is a leading scholar on the topic of organisational innovation (subject of the book). These people do not lend their name just like that. I understand the concerns of self-references, but I am sure many people in the Netherlands would come up with more references in the coming days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenupnaarp (talk • contribs) 21:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC) — Teenupnaarp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Blocked sockpuppets. Striking through. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do Not Delete. The reviews are from notable people. However, the independent references can be further added to support. As mentioned above, may be in few days, some other users may post additional references especially from The Netherlands, where the work seems to be more popular. Markivnivan (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)— Markivnivan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Blocked sockpuppets. Striking through. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Squeamish Ossifrage. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please Do Not Delete. There are some citations available on the internet. The term intelligence is a high frequency keyword which shadows new concepts. We can wait and watch for sometime. 124.124.125.3 (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the publication does not meet the standards of WP:NBOOK. gidonb (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. Integrative Intelligence is an upcoming concept. Springer Nature has published the author(s) in their book on this subject<ref>{{Cite book|url=http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-52231-9_21|title=Managing VUCA Through Integrative Self-Management|last=Bindlish|first=Puneet K.|last2=Nandram|first2=Sharda S.|last3=Joshi|first3=Ankur|date=2017|publisher=Springer International Publishing|isbn=9783319522302|editor-last=Nandram|editor-first=Sharda S.|series=Management for Professionals|pages=321–330|language=en|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-52231-9_21|editor-last2=Bindlish|editor-first2=Puneet K.}}</ref>. This book seems to be the first academic book dedicated on the subject. Examples of similar pages on wikipedia are Daniel Goleman's new book The Varieties of the Meditative Experience, Danah Zohar's concept of Spiritual intelligence. The page is indeed an informative one. 178.84.59.83 (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)— 178.84.59.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Blocked sockpuppets. Striking through. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment gidonb (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I've removed all quotes from 'reviews' that were not published independently but in the book itself. The notability of the book is not established by the content of the article. If it cannot be established, the article should be deleted. — Editør (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Egregious (self)promotion and sockpuppetry here and at the related walled garden Afd. A non-notable book which is really only referenced with affiliated sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we do not publish original research. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable independent sources supporting its notability. Famous _dog (c) 07:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Laurel Springs School. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Mosley Gordanier[edit]

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

The only notability is as founder of the school, and it appears the school is not notable enough to support this. The books are unidentifiable, both on Worldcat and Amazon--perhaps they are publications less than books, but I cannot find them on Google Scholar or even Google. As for the awards: There is no such thing as a Nobel Earth Prize, and I can identify only 2 people named Klaus Nobel: one a Advisor to a firm of "Strategy Consultants" and the other a very minor ufologist. The "Outstanding Leadership by an Individual in the Field of Distance Learning" award is actually one of a group of 10 people that year & apparently not that organizations highest award. [1] (and press agents can submit nominations in behalf of their clients) . There is no reference for the award from N.Amer Environmental Association--there are 5 such awards a year, and again it does not seem to be that organization's highest award. Even worse, I am unable to document it.[2]. Nor has she any award from that society, for the year specified or any other.

That makes one exaggerated claim and four that are apparently false

Even if verifiable, she would not be notable. But a failure of V to this extent should cast doubt on everything in the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Laurel Springs School. The school site at least identifiers her as the founder, so the smergest of smerges could have that fact included there. The Keeping Pace source (which, surprisingly, does appear to be a reliable source for our purposes) actually does confirm that Laurel Springs was "the first online K–12 school in the United States", although it doesn't seem to support the Japan and Korea claims in Gordanier's article's lead. Indeed, it does not mention Gordanier at all; this contributes the notability of the school, but that's not inherited. As for the publications listed, I can't even verify the existence of The Parent’s Guide to Distance Learning. On the other hand, Towards Corporate Environmental Excellence is a Global 500 conference proceeding; I'm not able to access a copy or find the contents list, but identifying as a "co-author" of a conference proceeding strains the meaning of the term. As to the awards, I'm largely in agreement with DGG there, although the "Nobel Earth Prize" does exist, sort of. Needless to say, it does not confer notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Her connection to Laurel Springs is documented. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G5 by Bbb23. Non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GameMine[edit]

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

Not enough to establish inherent notability Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrer USA[edit]

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

Unable to find in-depth sources to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete -- unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and non-notable. Groupo Ferrer does exist, but I can't see much about a US operation.Seaweed (talk) 18:43, 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) 22:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HD kits[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it appears more like a listing for the business than much of anything else, almost promotional in nature. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Wikipedia[edit]

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

Orphaned; notability unclear. No sources found. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think a Jamaican wikipedia exists? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamaican Patois Wikipedia. Yes there is a wikipedia [3] but not under the name Jamaican Wikipedia Ajf773 (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per Ajf773, although I'd question the notability of the Jamaican Creole Wikipedia itself - there are plenty of non-English Wikipedias, and this particular one doesn't seem to have any coverage at all beyond the bald fact of its existence. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Comatmebro, Ajf773, and BigHaz: Also nominated the other article for deletion. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stick with the re-direct (for now) but should Jamaican Patois Wikipedia be deleted as part its own AfD debate, this one should be as well. Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 23 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)}}} 18:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now that any plausible redirect has been deleted (and rightly so, as there were notability issues), there's no clear option other than a deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias, which has come content about Jamaican Wikipedia; a functional redirect per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias, which is already the target of several similar redirects[4]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias per Ajf773 and others. --Lockley (talk) 19:11, 3 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 08:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attack! Pro Wrestling[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion, lack of GNG sources and the article reads like an ad. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Receives pretty regular coverage from Wrestling Observer Newsletter and others listed at WP:PW/RS.[5].LM2000 (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This promotion is covered by reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pete Dunne is the current WWE UK Champion; how is his UK promotion "non-notable"?--CheShA (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid keep argument. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. The promotion is not notable just because its owner is notable. It has to be notable in its own right by having significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 21:52, 28 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)}}} 18:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Games of the Small States of Europe[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:CRYSTAL as it is an article about a future event that cannot be verified using a reliable and independent source. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 13:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source is not reliable, and violates CRYSTAL anyway. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST, to wit, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Games of the Small States of Europe has several sources, including two in Montenegrin (perfectly fine, as English is not required for reliability of sources) and This source which is a perfectly reliable English source. The games are going to take place, and the site has been announced, this is no different from upcoming Olympics, etc. --Jayron 32 13:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL #1: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As Jayron points out, this is the case. A short Google News search finds the source Jayron points out and more, so it seems WP:BEFORE was violated. Regards So Why 15:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article includes citation from Times of Malta, which is an independent source. As such, this does not violate WP:CRYSTAL, contrary to nom's assertions. Smartyllama (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the GSSE main page and keep the links for this article. Maybe WP:TOOSOON? Asturkian (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Host is known already, and participating nations are known. Not a crystall ball. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Montenegro has already presented itself on the current GSSE. Source. It seems that dates are wrong thou. Also, it is first next GSSE, so it should not be treated as Crystal. Edit: Montenegrin Olympic Committee has also announced on its official website this event (in Montenegrin) here. And the official website is up and running and can be seen here. It reinstates that it is not Crystal. Requiem mn. (talk) 17:26, 31 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)}}} 18:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As is argued well by several users above, it seems that there is enough known about the event and enough certainty that it will happen that I do not think this violates WP:CRYSTAL Dunarc (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep upcoming edition that already have host, dates and etc. selected. Bearas (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as argued above; see also WP:HAMMER. It's going to take place in two years. If it were five or six years in the future, I would go against it. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 5 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) 22:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Bastani[edit]

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

Autobiography that was deleted by G11 early in the day, but recreated with enough trimming of the first person promotional language that I would rather take to AfD. Google News returns zero results, and he doesn't appear to meet the criteria of WP:PROF. In short: this is a promotional autobiography that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria are ridiculously low and open to interpretation. In theory, this person might be a notable academic (according to our rules) within Iran, but I'm seeing virtually 0 impact in English language sources. This looks like a delete to me at first glance. NickCT (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, only one of the publications in the article currently claims to be in a language other than English (Farsi), and he got his PhD at a university in New Zealand where the article claims he is currently living. If he met the PROF criteria, it would be expected to be able to find English-sourcing on him to verify this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TonyBallioni: - Good note. Thanks. In my reading of WP:NACADEMIC you wouldn't necessarily need an English source to verify your degree or place of residence to meet one of the notability criteria. NickCT (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you certainly wouldn't. I was just noting that since he only got a masters in Iran and his PhD and post-PhD academic experience are in an Anglophone country, it's likely that if he did pass PROF, there would be English sources to confirm it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @TonyBallioni: - Ah. Ok. That makes sense. Still strikes me that the bar for academics is ridiculously low. If this guy lived/worked in the US/UK, he'd probably pass the criteria. NickCT (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional. Appears to fail GNG, certainly fails SIGCOV. As noted the bar for NACADEMIC is exceptionally low and it is debatable that he even passes that. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i speedied this previously as self promotion and non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly fails my standards for attorneys. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 5 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. per WP:SNOWBALL. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pets of Vladimir Putin[edit]

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

Prod contested, article is unnotable — JJ Be rs 17:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we already have articles on individual and groups of similar animals:

Canadian Parliamentary Cats
Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, United Kingdom
Hermitage cats in Saint Petersburg, Russia
Tibs the Great a dead cat that lived in a post office
Cats of the President of Taiwan
United States Presidential Pets
Pets of the British Royal Family (Category with multiple pages)

Pets in the United Kingdom (Category with multiple pages)

Putin is famous for his manly poses with horses, tigers and other animals. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does a dead cat live anywhere, outside of Kitty Heaven? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

he's got 9 lives to use up Legacypac (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Legacypac. Can be expanded along the lines of United States presidential pets. The bottom line: this is well sourced and something notable based on wide coverage in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ditto. Not only do we have United States presidential pets, a number of them even have their own articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Legacypac. Lepricavark (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment page is pulling avg 207 views a day. That suggests notability and that people are searching for it. [6] Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. I came to it through ANI. AIRcorn (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Views from last week aren't from ANi. follow link Legacypac (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are other links here.[7] It is all irrelevant anyway as this does not prove notability. AIRcorn (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently sourced per WP:GNG, notwithstanding WP:OSE. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But I honestly feel like the majority people who have spoken here didn't actually read the article, and if they did they did absolutely nothing to improve it. It was full of links to YouTube videos and the bulk of the information was about wild animals and charities. Reflexively voting keep an article with copyrighted material and vast amounts of off topic information without improving the article hurts the encyclopedia. AniMate 23:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I analyize the validity of the topic, and general state of the article, without regard to the possibility of editing improvements. Yup it needs cleanup and thanks. Legacypac (talk)<

Keep this should probably be closed now OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't meet WP:N. The main article currently has a very small section on his pets Vladimir_Putin#Pets which is enough. Also, the person who created this article in March [8] has been indefinitely blocked [9] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - properly sourced and well written. WP:OSE is a valid reason as well in this case. Jupitus Smart 14:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danita Johnson Hughes[edit]

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

Non notable executive and author. The books are self-published--see WorldCat [ww.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Danita+Johnson+Hughes]. The awards areboth local and trivial. The references are just local publicity, except 1. which is a mention 2. Kirkus, which is an unreliable source for self-published books--they review them only if the author pays. 3. which tho a major station is still local and a interview clearly for promotional purposes. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV and a sales prospectus. Whenever I see "professional speaker" in the infobox and / or lead, there's a strong suspicion that the article has been created for promotional purposes. Wikipedia is not a free "speaker bureau" to be used to solicit speaking gigs for nn individuals. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person got her doctorate from an online university. The puffery therein asserts she's a "certified trainer and speaker" yet I'm unaware of any such recognized credential. Wikipedia is a charity, not a free web host for speakers seeking fees. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 5 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 regarding the school and delete regarding the series. If someone thinks there is material worth merging, leave me a message and I'll temp-undelete the series's article for that. Regards So Why 07:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Oil School of Racing[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Prodded, but WP:SPA creator removed with no reason given. Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles are tightly linked:Peter Rehse (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree that this page is also non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the notification per the notification language after updating information and adding another external reference. Apart from age of the organization, this article is no more or less subjectively notable than articles for similar organizations, Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving or Skip Barber Racing School. The latter has had outstanding issues noted as of 2011/2012, but no action has been taken on it and it has not be nominated for deletion. The Skip Barber Racing School article is also several years out of date, with dead links and fewer references than the Lucas Oil School of Racing article. Altemus Prime (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Altemus Prime, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument in a deletion discussion. Could you please comment on how you feel it meets WP:NOTABILITY? And do you have a connection to this company, as I see all your edits have been on this topic? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the school, delete the series. The school has attracted articles in NBC Sports, Road & Track and Digital Trends. The race series: [sound of crickets]. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this concerns two articles....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the school Del the series per above. School is notable. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as spam. Just advertorial pages on unremarkable business / promotional activities. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NOTSPAM. The sources provided are human interest pieces that don't have critical commentary on the business. Weighing the totality of WP:ORG, which tells us to consider the type of coverage to determine if it meets GNG. I don't consider the coverage to be substantial enough to overcome the promotionalism concerns here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep school, delete or merge series per Clarityfiend's argument. -ZarosFlok (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Leakgate (India). So Why 09:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infraline Energy[edit]

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

Primary sourced promotional article on a very small Indian company. No secondary indication of notability. Yes, it exists, but is it encyclopedically notable, and does it adequately demonstrate this? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is some Hindustan Times coverage in Feb-Mar 2015, such as "Delhi Police crime branch to quiz Infraline Energy MD" and "Leakgate: GMR, Infraline Energy under lens", but that may be too much about one related event. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

! That might explain why the author of this article hasn't used such sources! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the coverage is about the arrest/scandal. Not entirely sure how Infraline is a dynamic and vibrant organization which believes in innovation and growth, which was pretty representative of the rest of the article in tone, isn't obvious advertising, but otherwise it's a promo piece from an obvious COI account about an unremarkable mid sized company. TimothyJosephWood 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclining towards keep. When I first looked, I went through my sources for energy consultancies (I work around that field) and it failed for any real notability. After AllyD's comment though, I started to look at Indian politics and there's rather more coverage there. If Leakgate (India) was judged notable, I think this might be too - or at least, as a section within a Leakgate article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a strong argument that the scandal itself is notable, and that seems to be the problem with the sources, they are about the scandal and not really about the company. In other words, the coverage of the company seems to largely or entirely be incidental to the coverage of the scandal, and what's really needed to establish notability is coverage of the copmany as a company. TimothyJosephWood 12:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now blue linked. TimothyJosephWood 12:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Filegate Leakgate~~ Leakgate (India) with brief mention there. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Leakgate (India) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 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 17:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, with such copy as:

"It is self-funded company in the world. It addresses the requirements of over 600 plus organization, including public sector undertakings..."

No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:59, 5 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. SpinningSpark 11:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS4 Save Wizard[edit]

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

Does not appear to be overly notable and looks more like a listing than anything. It would probably be A7, if that applied to software. TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OblivionOfficial (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have significant coverage in independent sources, fails WP:GNG. No need for a redirect to PlayStation 4. --Bejnar (talk) 02:28, 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. So Why 09:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CanYa[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non-notable app that was declined at AfC and then created in the mainspace. The vast majority of the references here are to the company's own blog, and the only independent source I can find and verify either in the article or on Google is inclusion in a list of new apps by HuffPost Australia, far below what would be required by WP:ORGDEPTH. The article itself makes the claim it has 4000 users, which demonstrates how small this startup is. No reason to include at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did read about this App in the NT News (the State Newspaper for the Northern Territory) - not sure if that makes it compliant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalyrjkelly (talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a fan page / product brochure, not an encyclopedia article. "Has over 4000 users" shows just how WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I heard about CanYa on an ABC radio interview and on the commercial radio stations around Adelaide. They are growing and spreading so fast, I think the article is required to keep wikipedia contemporary and up to date. This is a significant app in Australia. Comment added by User:kyleahornberg —Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This app is all over Darwin. I'm currently using it in conjunction with the NT home improvement scheme (https://homeimprovement.nt.gov.au/) to reno my kitchen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephaniemac (talk • contribs) 11:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G7. So Why 19:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Barth (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Another non-notable hockey player. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ATHLETE. Minor league athlete without a professional start. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A ridiculous page creation for an amateur hockey player of no distinction, who appears to have played in an inline hockey world championship, for whatever that is worth.18abruce (talk) 00:46, 1 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) 22:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party Borough Presidential nominee[edit]

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

Inaccurately titled (Borough not specified), incomplete and unsourced. Only one listed candidate is notable. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this list was at a proper title like "List of Republican Party nominees for Queens borough president", it is completely unsourced. A New York City borough president is mostly an advisory and ceremonial position, so I question how a list of one party's nominees for this office in one borough is notable. These names would probably be appropriate to list in articles on the elections in which they were nominated, such as New York City Borough President elections, 2013, if those articles are created. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simple listing with no proper context. Ajf773 (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can imagine that there might be a place in Wikipedia where this content would be justified and welcome — though I'm not knowledgeable enough about NYC politics to know where that place might be — but a standalone list of almost entirely non-notable people isn't it. Bearcat (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cambridge, Massachusetts. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Friends School[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG; see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this is not a high school and sources are primary. No suitable redirect target. Notability as asserted by creator is that it is the only Quaker school in its state. For me, this does not meet notability criteria. Deleted at AfD in 2007. Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cambridge, Massachusetts, mainly to have a blue link that would avoid recreation and give the students who search for it a place to be directed to. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cambridge, Massachusetts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tony and Kudpung, noting that if this were not at AfD, I would have simply BOLDly redirected it myself. John from Idegon (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. Since the article was first nominated, I've added a couple of secondary sources with the newest one being added in today. I think this adds to the school's notability. Carnegie Comm (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jim Wynorski. So Why 09:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gale Force[edit]

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

Though nominated for four minor DVD awards, I can't find any evidence that the film meets WP:NFILM -- nor does the article provide any. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jim Wynorski (director). Straight-to-DVD movie with no obvious importance. IMDb lists 4 reviews[10]; 2 appeared to be broken links and even if the others[11][12] are reliable sources (which I'm not sure of), that doesn't quite meet WP:NFILM #1. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to improve an article . with this cast I feel it's worthy of inclusion Dutchy85 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a strong cast for a straight-to-DVD film, but it still needs more references. Maybe it is old enough that there is some off-line/print coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the director. The Blogspot source certainly isn't reliable and I found no coverage beyond what IMDb lists. SL93 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jim Wynorski, its director. The film lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NFILM. --Bejnar (talk) 02:32, 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.

keep I apologize for coming so late into the game. I'll vote "keep", because I have some sympathy for B-films, and the cast is very good for a film this type. Keep in mind, that understand why one would differ. Furthermore, in my opinion, it makes no sense to redirect it. The film is still locked it to some pages. I was working on the page of one of the actor. Clicked on it and ended up on the Directors page, I was confused (and can imagine how a Wiki reader who doesn't contribute would feel). I say keep it because the space exist and my other points, however if you differ delete not re-direct it, DELETE it all together.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Bloom[edit]

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

Unnotable: a minor professor at a minor college. All professors publish books and she is simply not notable. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. Are you kidding? Over 100 publications with over 2100 citations. This nomination is absurd. Zero^talk 13:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widely-recognized, very widely-cited expert in her field; she is one of the foremost scholars of women in terrorism. Meets WP:PROF criterion 1 and probably 7, and is probably notable under WP:NAUTHOR if that's insufficient for some reason. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every single one of my law professors has the same or better credentials than her, and yet none of them have a page. Shall I create for all of them or just stop the absurdity? El cid, el campeador (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom has attracted attention from both scholarly colleagues and mainstream media sources. Business Insider calls her a "well-respected counterterrorism and national-security" expert, in an article that highlights her conflicts with Sebastian Gorka. This WGBH article about the growing demand for terrorism-studies professors provides a critique of some of her viewpoints on the field. Two of the contributors to the University of Georgia Press-published Women, Gender, and Terrorism—Farhana Qazi's "The Mujahidaat: Tracing the Early Female Warrior of Islam" and "Blinded by the Explosion? Security and Resistance in Muslim Women's Suicide Terrorism" by Katherine E. Brown—and take different opinions about Bloom's opinions regarding inequality and the motivations of female terrorists. Paige Whaley Eager's From Freedom Fighters to Terrorists: Women and Political Violence (published by Routledge) also provides a critique of Bloom's analysis of the female suicide bomber. Her individual works also receive attention in reliable sources, such as this review of Bombshell: The Many Faces of Women Terrorists, or this journal review of Dying to Kill. Ample other sources exist; the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism article on Bloom is probably not strictly independent, as START sponsored her lectures at the University of Maryland, although that's probably germane for article content in and of itself (and they identify her as a "leading terrorism expert" and a "renowned terrorism scholar"). And so on. I think that you either underestimate Bloom's notability, or you have some very exceptional law professors, because she fairly ably satisfies both the professor and author notability standards. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If your law professors are more notable than Prof. Bloom then they should have articles and I urge you to create them. The argument that someone shouldn't have an article because someone more notable doesn't have one is simply not valid. Zero^talk 01:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:PROF. Lepricavark (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a case for NPROF. For #1, "Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided.", a field of "women in terrorism" is a specialized category of "sociology". For #7. providing quotes as an expert for newspaper articles (or university press) isn't sufficient. As far as NAUTHOR, I don't see how any of her books are notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The case for WP:PROF#C1 is that she has highly cited publications; the fact that the area she works in is more specialized than just generic sociology is irrelevant. She also has many published reviews of her works, including some in major mainstream sources such as Times Higher Education, The Globe and Mail, Publishers Weekly, etc., giving her a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. One very highly cited paper. GS h-index of 17 is just adequate in a very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Ambivalent keep - I apparently rewrote this article at some point almost a year ago. But... all things considered, the keep comments are a heckuva lot more convincing than the deletes, and overall it would probably be fairly borderline if "I can't be bothered to write the apparently deserved articles on my astounding professors" wasn't the best thing passing for a delete rationale. TimothyJosephWood 00:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are 5,700 plus hits on Mia Bloom through Google Books alone. Absolutely meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:43, 4 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) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terror teds[edit]

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

promotional, fails WP:GNG Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dotun Onipede[edit]

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

No sources, resume-like content "over 15 years experience...with senior roles", cant find any secondary sources for WP:GNG Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 11:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S Focuss[edit]

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

Claims to distribute and produce notable films but not supported by the sources in the article and I cannot find any others. The context is not sufficient to identify any suitable redirect target. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 12:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing evident in reliable sources. I suspect that this company is not a "film distributor" in the typical sense. xXx: Return of Xander Cage had an interesting initial release, with its official debut in India. Viacom/Paramount provided Hindi-, Tamil-, and Telugu-dubbed versions as well (and there's occasional mention in Indian press of several of the voice actors who did dubbing for one version or another). What there is not is any mention of "S Focuss" as a distributor; indeed, the article itself claims they were a distributor only in one city. The official distribution of the other Tamil-language films listed in the article are all credited to other companies, as well. The film they are listed as producing appears to be Kuppathu Raja, but what credits I am able to find also does not include S Focuss. I suspect (but can't really confirm) that this company does exist, but that its role in all of these films is minor: a local distributor, subcontractor, or the like. In any case, no notability is inherited from the films, and none seems forthcoming. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabharatha - Randamoozham[edit]

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

The film has not begun filming so fails WP:NFF. So far it is has only been announced, but this project has been on and off for years. A version was announced in 2011 too and fell through. There is nothing unique about the production so far that would justify retaining the article if production stalls again. Relevant content can be added to Randamoozham#Film_adaptation and a film article can be resurrected in due course once filming begins. Betty Logan (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete per Betty Logan's suggestion. The claim that part one will be released om 2020 is unsourced but even if it was that means it is WP:TOOSOON. MarnetteD|Talk 15:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I used the wrong term. I agree that any relevant content can be moved to the other article and I thought that was a merge. My apologies for the misunderstanding. MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No point in merger either. Relevant content can be added to Randamoozham#Film_adaptation and a film article can be resurrected in due course once filming begins. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has changed since the last discussion - (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randamoozham (upcoming film)). Jupitus Smart 03:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. While not actually withdrawing the nominator has now said "this certainly passes GNG easily." So WP:SK would seem to apply. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Íshúsfélag Ísfirðinga[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Originally PRODed by other user. De PRODed by new user who is only deproding articles without any improvement/explanation. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep: Well, notability depends not on sources in the article but what is out there. Being Iceland's oldest freezery, over a century old, could certainly be notable. Apart from the cited source (which is a substantial article on the firm's centenary), there is a period photo here, a history book (Courage, J. 1992) entirely about the company, and notices about the company as you'd expect on the Nordic Exchange. I found details of the firm's football team here. All that's just on the first 2 pages of a search, which would be easier for an Icelandic speaker. This looks to me like a notable company. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: this certainly passes GNG easily. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I guess you'll be withdrawing this from AfD, then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thanks to work by Aymatth2 this is clearly notable, by GNG if nothing else. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More poor editorial judgements in nominating this.., good job Aymatth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 1 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, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Businessmen in India[edit]

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. PROD removed (by possible sock-puppet account) citing no reason Ajf773 (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Wikipedia should not group people on the basis of their religions. India already has its fair share of communal conflicts. No need to increase "separatism". I dont understand why an encyclopaedia needs such a list, and why it remained there for such a long time. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If some wikilawyer votes for "keep", instead of pointing out why it should not be deleted, kindly point out why it deserves a place in an encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this article (up for deletion) is along the exact same lines: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim sportspeople. Ajf773 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Not a notable list, containing only people who are Muslim, male, Indian and prominent in some aspect of business. Also, only one of the articles for the people in the list contains any referenced indication that the person actually is Muslim, the others merely state that one or both their parents are/were. We shouldn't assume that people follow the faith of their parents - if we're highlighting faith in this way surely there should be a reference to back it up? Neiltonks (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no reason why this list of "X Y in Z" is encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Neiltonks. Jupitus Smart 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 07:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus (band)[edit]

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

References consist of links to the band's music and dead links to other sites. No evidence of notability provided, and none found during a cursory search of the Internet (found non-article links to the BBC, a twitter account, facebook, Discogs, lots of chances to listen to tracks, but no discussion in reliable independent secondary sources). Having a track included on a compilation by a notable artist does not make the band notable. KDS4444 (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. nb: I was the creator of this article, back in 2008 (thanks for the ping!). Sure, the article needs some work, but as far as non-trivial coverage in reliable sources goes we have: a short biography and several album reviews from AllMusic as well as an album review from Pitchfork and one from Tiny Mix Tapes. They've also released full length albums on Temporary Residence, Output Recordings and The Leaf Label (among others), so I believe that WP:NMUSIC criteria #1 and #5 are met. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 10:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think there is enough coverage, per the creator above. Passes WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 19:15, 1 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 Donald Trump on social media. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance shows opinions are all over the place. Some of them well grounded, and others not so. While consensus isn't immediately apparent, I will not a merge discussion taking place at the same time. I didn't look to heavily into that discussion but it appeared to be leaning towards a merge close. Likewise some users thought merging the article was the most appropriate action as well. The keep votes made convincing arguments that establish notility, while the delete made good arguments why despite being notable, it shouldn't be an article. It was clear to me that Covfefe requires a place somewhere on Wikipedia so it appeared the best solution to this problem is to merge it into the suggested article.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Covfefe[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)

Wow. Seriously? This is an obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS. f e minist 09:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. f e minist 09:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the UK's Independent, Daily Mail and Guardian, among many others, disagree. All have it on the splash screen/home page. Mashable and most other popular web magazines have also given it prominence. Against deletion. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait (then probably Merge to wherever it is we merge the meme-generating minor Trump incidents). Splash pages on newspaper websites is not an indication that something is not news, but as it's still only about 6 hours (all of them night in the US) since this happened it's far too early to know whether long-term this will merit a sentence or an article. The article creation was premature, but given that it was created this deletion nomination is also premature. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I briefly considered waiting a while before nominating this for AfD, but decided to bring this here anyway seeing how Covfefe is salted due to repeated recreation. Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q2 is a possible merger target if this is to be mentioned in detail. f e minist 10:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important, groundbreaking article. Will be useful to historians that want to trace the emergence of the second dark ages and Trump's reign of terror. Crucial historical document. This is not the place to pay partisan politics and cover up for Daddy, Trumpkins. 2600:1017:B412:5FA5:A58C:E7D4:A132:5E0B (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - I've redirected Covfefe to Covfefe incident (presumably this hadn't happened as those deleting the former were unaware of the latter). That page being repeatedly recreated though still doesn't make this nomination any less premature. It is by definition impossible to tell whether

WP:NOTNEWS applies to something until there is either sufficient information about the subject to make it clear that there is more to it than a flash-in-the-pan news event or that there is no enduring coverage. How long that takes varies, but for something like this it's going to be about 36-48 hours at absolute minimum. Nominations before that time (on NOTNEWS or similar grounds) are just a waste of everybody's time (and sometimes WP:POINT violations, but I don't think that's true here). Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Notable social media event.Dpm12 (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2017 (PDT)
(Agree, KEEP, notable/notorious social media event - and funny! Groogle365 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2017
This is a key moment in the Trump presidency, and the article should be kept for historical reasons. The covfefe incident was also a major international news item appearing on the BBC website front page on 31 May 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve stewart (talk • contribs) 12:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC) — Steve stewart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is a new account with no other contributions Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATED: Delete or Merge: If "Ed balls day" isn't worthy of an article, this doesn't even close. It's not particularly funny. Just because a money smashed his keyboard before falling asleep. Seddon ^talk 11:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed Balls day tweet should be its own article. I think the reason it was not wasn't because of notability but for WP:BLP reasons (ie, Ed Balls looks like an idiot).

—Мандичка^YO 😜 18:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all notable, this page shows exactly what Wikipedia should not be. See deletion discussion of tea lizard for a similar case Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea Lizard. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not eligible for an article in an encyclopedia, it's simply not notable. Mellk (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had also PRODed the article as a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. There is no enduring notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as textbook NOTNEWS. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even news. Non-notable twitter fail. Jonathunder (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media per an excellent analysis below by Mr rnddude. Jonathunder (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOTNEWS. Ceosad (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Ceosad (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOTNEWS - not notable - still developing. This is not what Wiki is for. Can't we do something constructive? Garchy (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTNEWS - not notable - Since when are typo's notable ? even when made by an elected official. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to larger article Twitter activity of Donald Trump. This meets WP:GNG, bigly.[13] —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: The last point of WP:GNG reads: "Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not,..." in this case there seems to be a consensus that it violates WP:NOTNEWS. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand GNG. Many memes and gaffes have notable, lasting affects beyond initial incident, and thus have their own articles that have held up. I agree with the analysis in the link I included from CNN. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait/Keep for now: it's a developing phenomenon which may yet acquire greater notability than it has already. —ajf (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Internet phenomena, when covered by reputable sources such as the NY Times, CNN, and even ~~the BBC~~ the BBC, have established sufficient notability to get a project article. People are too quick to delete around here. At the very least it should be a redirect to something appropriate, as it will be a word people search for. ValarianB (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ValarianB, I believe you meant to link this article? The "BBC" in your comment is linking to this discussion page we're at. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks, too many tabs open! :) ValarianB (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog of typos, no matter how prominent the typist. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Make Wikipedia great again. Hektor (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not notable. The media is just playing partisan politics and painting Trump in a bad light as usual. F2Milk (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even think this is noteworthy enough for a mention in another article, let alone an entire article of its own. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Covfefe. A very obvious case. ETA: I thought the whole thing was just funny at first, but there's a decent "keep" case here; I suspect the best result in the short time is a quick "no consensus" close and we can revisit in a few weeks or months.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits, but merits aside, a couple points:

Article easily meets the WP:GNG -- easily, no question. I've seen the GNG as cited as a policy more or less along the lines of "Does not meet GNG and so must deleted regardless of vote or other considerations". The GNG is not a policy, but you do see that. Well but what's sauce for the goose sauce for the gander. If the GNG is to be treated that strongly, then an article like that clearly meets it must be kept (if it doesn't violate other policy like WP:V or WP:BLP etc.) whether we want to or not. It's not a vote -- policy trumps. I don't treat the GNG as policy, but some people do. And if the closer does, he doesn't really have a choice here.

As a general good practice, I wish people would wait a couple months at least before nominating current events articles. Make a not and come back to it. For a couple reasons:

It's a lot harder to judge long term importance when you're right on top of the event; we have to guess. Give it a little time to see how it shakes out so we can make educated votes/comments.
To the extent the article is useful at all, it is most useful near to the event. That's not to say it won't be useful a year from now or ten years from now or thirty -- maybe it will, maybe not -- but even if it is, it is most useful now, to the general public. But (I think that) sending an article to AfD puts a __NOINDEX__ tag on, so it won't come up high in Google results, so the general public can't easily access the article. Could we have a little patience maybe? I wish people would not do this.

Because of all this, even if I didn't think the article was OK on the merits, I would be inclined to vote "Keep, don't do this now, renominate in a few months". Herostratus (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you just listed is all the reasons that this should have never existed, not reasons why it should exist. — Smuckola (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Easily meets WP:GNG" is a good reason for an article not existing? Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying over some stuff I wrote elsewhere... to to some degree this is an "other stuff exists" argument, so how you take it depends on whether you think these other articles should exist, or not. But here goes. Here's some more similar-type articles with pageviews (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

These are reasonably good numbers. Whether this article will settle at numbers like this we can't know, but why not? None of our rules or practices mention pageviews, but IMO 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. Whether it matters or not is matter of opinion.

But that's one article for George W. Bush, one for Clinton. etc. There may be a couple more, but not many. And unlike ever before, the current president generates something like this about every two weeks (see Trump orb etc.); it's quite a different situation (no judgement, just fact. Whether it's the media being silly or its something else doesn't matter. Cause of notability is not our concern.)

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. This is notable by our own standards as laid out at WP:GNG. Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How you can compare the notability of the VP shooting someone else in a hunting accident vs a typo on a twitter post? The media has an obsession with reporting every single thing that Trump does - we should be better than that (see WP:FART). Mr Ernie (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the shooter warning the media Trump's Twitter account will one day rise up and destroy them all. They thought he was half-kidding, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The media has an obsession with reporting every single thing that Trump does" -- that is true. My personal opinion is that's it's silly, destructive, and I wish they wouldn't. So? We do not delete articles on the basis of "Highly notable, good article, but I think the subject is silly"... "Highly notable, good article, but the fact that this is notable is destructive to the American and world political system, so delete"... "Highly notable, good article, but I wish it wasn't notable, so delete". We're supposed to report what is notable, not what we wish was notable. See the difference?

President Trump's tweets are notable because they are widely reported. Why they are widely reported is not our concern. But FWIW there's certainly good reason -- they are widely reported (Unlike Obama's; he tweeted too, did you even know that?) because they contain new material. Obama's tweets were carefully considered and part of an overall communication strategy, so they were boring and unimportant (they didn't say anything that wasn't also said through normal channels). Trump's tweets are just objectively different, and so they are treated differently. Ignoring this fact doesn't help anyone. Herostratus (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ever heard of the other examples, but the Miliband bacon sandwich is still being talked about - here, for example. But I seriously don't think covfefe will be being talked about in three years time. Seagull123 Φ 21:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic, not noteworthy, WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENT WP:UNDUE — Smuckola (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is about as consequential as this presidency has been thus far. -VJ (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a developing phenomenon and I think time is needed to see at what level of notability it ultimately settles at. Shan246 (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and revisit in 1.5-2 months or so to see if there is still significant coverage then. This may well become a notable neologism, or the story may die down and disappear. Right now it is hard to tell, although there are signs pointing that the former is more likely than the latter. There is an article in The Guardian today titled Covfefe is a word now. Deal with it. on this point. Nsk92 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Covfefe per WP:GNG. Compy book (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was shocked to see this being shared on my Facebook timeline. We are not some sort of blog or gossip site posting every trivial nonsense that happens in the world. Mentioning this in Trump's article is one thing, but having a separate article just for this is a definite no-no. Again, please delete for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation. Reh man 15:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant covfefe in reliable sources. —anemone projectors— 15:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG and clears the NOTNEWS hurdle as demonstrated by sources both in the article, at this AFD, and through a Google News Search. It's hardly routine or mundane, and this tweet got far more coverage than typical Trump tweets. Really there should be an article about Donald Trump's use of social media that can collect all incidents of this type. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Since my redlink got created, I'll have to say with my keep vote, but would prefer merging content to the social media article over deletion for now, to wait and see how converage unfolds. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covfefe is a perfectly cromulent and well-sourced article. --Golbez (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments by ValarianB, Milowent, and Patar_knight. I also support the creation of Donald Trump's use of social media article (per suggestion of Patar_knight). This tweet belongs to :Wikiquote, and the word should have its separate entry in Wiktionary, too. :-) -Mardus /talk 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mardus and Patar knight: This is what I suggested too, above, but Twitter account of Donald Trump. I'm not sure if he does other social media, but the point is, it warrants its own article regardless of the title. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is Wikipedia for Pete's sake, not Know Your Meme. Can we have the slightest element of class and not focus on every single little tabloid thing? Someone tweeted something dumb/misspelled. It's not worthy of a wiki article. 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC) MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet memes has about 1,000 articles. Herostratus (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this was a one-time, admittedly funny mistake that gained some fun momentum. However, it's hardly worthy of its own article. I would support creating a Social media use of Donald Trump article, though, since this topic (mainly his use of Twitter) has been a matter of discussion in many reliable sources. κατάστασ η 15:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia:Recentism effect of a relatively minor twitter typo/mistake. Wikipedia isn't a NPOV news outlet —72 _talk 15:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth for 1000 years, what a load of crap. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 16:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. ed g2s • talk 16:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and everything else said above. Seriously a made up word in a tweet? This is an "incident" that needs to be covered? Just let the Internet mock it and forget it in 24-48 hours. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus. I explicitly think that a NC close is the best outcome here. Especially regarding this sort of high-profile event, the project does not have (and perhaps cannot have) a good distinction between material that should be excluded under NOTNEWS and material that arises from current events but that does warrant inclusion. In any case, I strongly encourage the eventual outcome to be the one proposed by several editors above: an article at social media use of Donald Trump, use of Twitter by Donald Trump, or some comparably-titled form. Individually, these are de minimis news stories; in the aggregate, they are a legitimate topic. And, more importantly, the umbrella topic is one that is recognized and discussed in reliable sources, so bundling the content in this manner will not constitute original research. I consider it bad form to advocate a merge to a nonexistent target article at AFD, however (should that change before the timer on this discussion expires, consider this instead to be a !vote for the merger outcome). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) This has only been open for a few hours, (2) the strength of arguments matters more than a tally, so the fact that this clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia should outweigh the "it's funny" or "being reported in the news" arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Striking my initial response. Against my better judgment, I've been working to improve sourcing and overall quality at Donald Trump on social media, the broader-view page created after this AFD began. I see no reason why this is sufficiently notable as to deserve a stand-alone article, although it's assuredly a likely redirect. I do not advocate a further merger at this point on the grounds that additional content from this article would serve as undue weight in the larger topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. We can't have articles on every sensational news headline about Donald Trump. If we keep this, we're on the track to having half the articles on Wikipedia relating to Trump. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have changed my opinion above to merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Thank you very much for starting the article. I think most people who wanted to delete would reconsider that "covfefe" has a place on that article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it. WP is not a newspaper, and should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. And this isn't even a story -- he fell asleep while trying to type "coverage". Merge it into the Trump article if it's not forgotten by the weekend. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's not use an encyclopedia to document what all the fucking morons cared about in 2017. Deli nk (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: just give it a couple of days to see if more references and cultural impact can be added. It's not that hard... Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fafleh Keep it for a few days, to see what sort of arguments we get, then ~~delete~~ don't delete it. By then, it'll be a tired joke, even to those who liked it today. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Don't delete this article, I mean. Nothing against the word living somewhere else on Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Merge with Donald Trump's use of social media. While it may not be WP:NOTNEWS, judging from the headlines this morning, it's certainly not justified as a single article. Nerdwiththehat^Talk 17:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media or Donald Trump tweets. Even cromulent doesn't have its own article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we do not do running news reporting and commentary, and frankly there's not much to say here except the tweet and the reactions to it. Sandstein 17:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cited to nearly two dozen reliable sources, a testament to notability. Comparable to Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph and Binders full of women. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's always a rush to make articles. This is just a silly news story for one day. The life cycle will be about 24 hours tops. This will have no lasting impact. WP is not the news. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Despite the large flurry of coverage right now, it is way too early to determine whether this will last or not. Deletion is bad because people will be looking up this word on Wikipedia and see a redlink and simply try to create it again, leading to headaches for everyone. If merged, and coverage continues in the future, the article can be branched back out. Gatemansgc (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I know about this article, I say merge into Donald Trump's use of social media. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please God Delete - This can't be real. Are we making an entire page because of one typo on twitter? I understand that social media picked up on it but in that case will we have a page for every meme that comes along? Help us all El cid, el campeador (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For Now - It will probably need to be merged or removed later, but no need to remove it now. Let's wait to see if this remains a notable event or not. --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Funny things Trump says on Twitter are reported as routine coverage WP:NOTNEWS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. A separate article could be spun out later if it meets WP:GNG, but it's too early to tell yet.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pls. Are we going to document every time he farts as well? Mention it in Donald Trump's use of social media can work for me but this is utter bullcrap. TBloemink _talk 19:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media --Jtle515 (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge this crap. Holy Goo (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. The fact that a German embassy explodes at roughly the same time, and yet a typo on Twitter is on the front page of every newspaper, accurately sums up what I think of the argument that it has coverage. Blatantly unencyclopedic excuse for somebody to get yet another negative Trump article on Wikipedia (and, by extension, Google). See WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:FART. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Donald Trump's use of social media. The content is pertinent to illustrate how the Donald Trump uses social media, so it's a good fit for merging. --Dereckson (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, if you're looking at what matters for AFD. Per User:Herostratus's comment above, this easily meets wp:GNG. Like Battle of Mosul (2016–present), this is a current topic and Wikipedia's article can possibly become one of the leading news stories in Google News or other collections of current news articles. Urgent demands that this be merged or deleted don't make sense. After some months or years it may or may not be appropriate to merge, quietly, but this is obviously not something to be forced now. --do ncr am 20:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the very outermost, this warrants a single brief line in an existing page. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, then merge. While this is still popular, lots of people are gonna be Googling "covfefe", so it's more practical for it to have its own WP article. After it's died down, (in probably a week or two), merge and redirect to Donald Trump's use of social media. It won't need its own article after Donald Trump does his next thing, whatever it may be. 1.618033 golden^{sqᴉɹʇuoɔ} 20:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing back to KEEP. Sean Spicer's explanation was so bizarre it's going to double the life of this. I agree with media pointing out this incident is symbolic of Trump's presidency. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. It pays for Wikipedia to keep up with current events. Andrewrutherford (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that it is much later in the day, the media coverage has only increased. A lot of the people who voted "Delete" earlier did so after much less media coverage. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody expected it to not last the day. The first day is when everything gets hotter. Third day's when it fizzles. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It got much bigger because Sean Spicer, instead of just saying it was a typo, said with a straight face that "certain people" knew what it meant. So it blew up again now that he's actually indicating the president is sending out cryptic messages via Twitter, and that insanity (that they are not even allowed to admit Trump made a typo) represents massive dysfunction in the White House. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say anyone knew what it meant, he said he thinks Trump and some other small group knew what he meant. Sometimes people know what they mean to say and mean to say it, but something stops them midthought. Sometimes people tell other people what they intend to tweet about later. It in no way indicates secret codes, midnight madness, Russian conspiracies, trolljobs or anything of the sort. The press are simply rabid today and grasping at everything from every angle for sweet, sweet clicks. All ends Friday. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. I suspect that hardly anyone will remember this in a week. Lepricavark (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Donald Trump's use of social media. Per WP:NOTNEWS, this is an event that is part of an encyclopedic topic, but is not in and of itself encyclopedic. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 22:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is still part of History regardless of it being on social media. Everything our president does is worthy of being documented for historical record keeping.
Covfefe. (keep) This article records a seemingly major event in our nation's history (?) DmitryKsWikis (Dmitry K.) (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keepfefe, for now. I think it'd be better to have this discussion in a couple weeks' time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. The information does not need to be sanitized from Wikipedia, but there's not enough non-redundant content to support a stand-alone article. --Jayron 32 23:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Donald Trump sneezed, somebody would create an article. This is a sneeze. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a practical matter, this is either a Snow Keep, or we need a new Speedy Delete reason for new articles on topics on current events in American politics (which fall under the post-1932 rules). Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong covfefe. Has reliable covfefe in secondary sources, and also tertiary sources that describe the covfefe of covfefe. Rigley (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's far WP:TOOSOON to determine whether this incident will have any lasting significance, and if so what. In the meantime we don't need to cover it: that's what newspapers are for. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is useful if people can look this up. It does not need to be in a separate article, though. Carol (Talk) 00:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. WP:GNG requires enduring coverage which is not going to be something that can be determined after one day, and this otherwise fails WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NEO, and WP:NEVENT. However, it is factual, and is clearly trending as a meme so we can document it among other gaffs that Trump has done over social media. Otherwise, this reads as an attack article and also fails WP:BLP. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Notable social media event. Ryan Albrey (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stop making WP:Crystal assertions about "lack of lasting notability" or the like. We already had this discussion concerning United Express Flight 3411 incident. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an entirely different sort of incident, isn't it? Follow-up is foreseeable when a company violently mistreats a customer. The customer is always right. Someone's bound to get suspended, various suits pop up, ads change, rules change, spokespeople speak clearly and effectively. There'll be none of that here, only chatter. You simply can't impeach a President for tweeting covfefe. Can't make him grovel, can't boot him out of the Hall of Fame, can't even really take your business elsewhere. It's just covfefe, period. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Merge might make sense for those reasons, but a full Delete doesn't. Separate Article or not, the information is notable. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In wiki-speak, information cannot be WP:N-notable. Information has only two important properties at Wikipedia, it has a source and it has relevance. As a wiki-concept, notability only means "is suitable as the subject of a stand-alone article". This is not so suitable, but as a likely search term, and as a sentence or two in another article, it is fine. --Jayron 32 03:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks meaning and significance. Geogene (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until appropriate for Keep - This incident just recently happened, I would cite WP:TOOSOON as a reason to keep it for now. There is already dozens of articles about this, in the next few days alone there could be more developments. It should only be merged with the Trumps's use of social media page if there are no developments say a week from now. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 01:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON advises against keeping articles until after time has shown them to be necessary. You've used that essay exactly backwards. --Jayron 32 01:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. Nechemia Iron (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Valid search terms that are highly topical, but not notable enough to warrant their own articles. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Srnec (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need a separate article for every single Trump gaffe. Ajf773 (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media and strip down to a sentence or two. A standalone for this? We are not the moronic mainstream media who will write "Trump drops nail clippers...then glances down at them!" Would Encyclopedia Britannica have covered this sort of thing in 1973 when that publication mattered? This is pure WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FART. It will not endure. It is pure facepalm for us and Earth. Covering this makes us appear more like a tabloid than a proper encyclopedia. It sets a precedent too that we will host/publish anything. GNG? The media will cover anything he does, making everything GNG. We have to respond to GNG with "however..." and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FART does that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See Pump concerning whether Trump coined the phrase "prime the pump". TomS TDotO (talk)

Actually, don't. It's pure nonsense in that article as well, which I've deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media., per WP:NOTNEWS and User:Anna Frodesiak. JDDJS (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or else Merge. It's an excellent example of Trump's use of social media and how the rest of the world is reacting to it. I'd say comparable to the George H. W. Bush vomiting incident. PvOberstein (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Covfefe – This is crazy. It's less than a day in and already attracted an enormous amount of people. A misspelled tweet becoming a global news item just sounds ridiculous. If I did !vote then I'd be Keep/Merge/Draftify/RfCify/Covfefe. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This story has legs now that Spicer has acknowledged "the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant." Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media per WP:10 year test. Alsee (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. As much as I want to keep this its own article, it's inherently just a meme which will die down within a month (at the most) so a merge to Donald Trump's use of social media will be appropriate, however unnecessary it may be. It's a big thing now and it would be appropriate to merge if it stays this way for a little while longer, but if this does die down tomorrow or the day after, I would actually prefer to just delete it from Wikipedia.
KEEP - covered by every major news outlet; suggestions it is not notable are politically motivated. —WinTakeAll 💬 06:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC) 06:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even Donald Trump made fun of the typo instead of just simply deleting the tweet like his others. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 06:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is that an argument for "keep"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Yes it's in the news now but it'll be forgotten within a week. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. There will probably continue to be lots of similar things during Trump's presidency, this will easily be forgotten. Axisixa (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep “Covfefe” made the front page of The New York Times on June 1 2017, which is the gold standard for notability. This can be verified; go to [14] then click on June 1; look in the lower left for the word “Covfefe” in the headline. Furthermore, there is a good deal more secondary coverage from reliable sources, with 31 references in the article. Samboy (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a gold standard as a source, that's all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N makes it clear that the primary guideline for notability is whether it’s discussed in reliable sources (To quote that: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.”) “Covfefe” clearly has been: It made the front page of the New York Times. Please explain, by linking to relevant Wikipedia policy, how “Covfefe” is not notable, even though it was on the front page of the New York Times (ideally, please link to deletion discussion where something that made the front page of the NYT got deleted). Samboy (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, NYT is a great source to establish help GNG, and there are probably hundreds of sources around the world now that do that. This article passes GNG, very, very easily. That's not the issue. It is that it does not pass a number of other guidelines, and that is the reason for all those delete !votes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote Herostratus from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trump_orb:

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 germane 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.

WP:FART has also been brought up, but that covers routine coverage in, say People magazine — not the front page of The New York Times. Samboy (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Covfefe Keep as the very surprising attention this has got with the top story of the day in most news organizations, and probably continue as a top story for at least another day. It is becoming a cultural artifact. It is historic.--Covfefe user (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC) — Covfefe user (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notable. Keep. One of the highest-numbered posts. Misty MH (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite constant negative complaints about notability covfefe. In seriousness, this single tweet has gotten enough independent media coverage that it probably warrants its own article. If it later fades away into obscurity, a merge can be considered at a later date. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. The present version of Donald Trump's use of social media is quite short. Wikipedians' energy would better be spent in making Donald Trump's use of social media into a solid article rather than keeping this symbolically important typo as a single article. Several mainstream media commentators have argued that the typo is symbolically important (refs in present version of covfefe) - e.g. could nuclear war result from an accidental cofveve type tweet by the US President? But the importance is within the context of Trump's casual approach to tweeting. Covfefely yours, Boud (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Obviously this is only interesting in the coverage of Trump's somewhat unorthodox style of social media use. Rather than balkanising all articles on the topic into articles on "incidents" that will be forgotten by this time next week, it would better serve our readers to keep everything in one place. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment This has almost completely vanished from the media. The media has forgotten it and moved on. WP:10 year test? It doesn't even pass the WP:2 day test. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. It has already been pointed out to you that the story is on the front page of today's New York Times.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. WP:NOTNEWS suggests covering stories that have lasting impact, and the converse. Something like Binders full of women (cited above), while its notability is questionable, at least relates to important policy issues about the representation of women, sexism, feminism, etc, and attracted a policy-based response. This topic is highly unlikely to have any policy implications, any lasting effect on the Trump administration, or any wider consequences. Sheer trivia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Not immediately notable enough to deserve an entire article. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 11:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trump's use of social media, then turn this into a Redirect - The idea that this oddity, which has been covered everywhere is not notable, is ludicrous. Also, it's a bit of comic relief from the angst surrounding the current administration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. IMO the level of coverage of this has been such that it's hard to argue we shouldn't at least mention it briefly in one article, and that seems to be the best article. And since basically all use of the term covfefe relates to this incident, it makes sense that it should redirect to that coverage. (N.B. I just accidentally, I think unrelated typed coverafe, although I am using a proper keyboard.) And IMO the BLP issues of the content in article aren't sufficient to warrant deletion, it's fine if the edit history is preserved even if the article becomes a redirect. And anyway possibly it will be used in expanding the other article in which case it needs to be preserved. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This incident is very notable on itself, seeing as there is a plethora of reliable sources available who go into length and detail about Covfefe. We may find it silly, hysterical or even downright dumb. However, none of those reasons should prohibit an article from appearing on Wikipedia - notability is something which can be verified objectively, and should not receive a subjective treatment because many Wikipedians probably think Donald Trump to be a bit of a rambling fool.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very obviously WP:NOTNEWS --Varavour (talk)
Keep at this point the coverage and degree of virality, makes it a notable news incident. Sadads (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a newspaper, WP:NOTNEWS. Rwood128 (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went to Wikipedia to find the meaning of this new word, and many others will keep doing so for a long time to come. Comfr (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. It's gotten enough coverage that it should be noted there, but I hardly think it's necessary to have its own article. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per argument above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with an eye to an eventual merger into Donald Trump's use of social media. As Thryduulf mentioned, it easily meets the GNG, especially with all the thoughtful (if somewhat satirical) analyses. Sure it's a weird thing to have an encyclopaedia article about, but it's the kind of thing people write newspaper articles about these days. Guettarda (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump on social media since I don't believe it needs its own article, but it should absolutely be mentioned as a fact on Donald Trump's social media page. A simple typo leads to so many news stories, and that's important to mention. Tutelary (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or smerge? do people still use that term?) to Donald Trump on social media. Users should get some result if they look for it, but a typo does not warrant an article. If people are still talking about it in several months then maybe revisit. -R. fiend (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - clearly meets WP:GNG, with the amount of secondary independent coverage it's receiving. Could consider a merge down the line, but it has enough material for its own article right now. — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Covered by numerous news sites. Blackbird256 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Very useless and unneeded article in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. --Snowstormer ^{(T | C)} 16:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worth nothing by a footnote in Donald Trump's excessive use of social media. We don't need an article for every of his tweets, in particular if it doesn't mean anything. Per WP:10 year test this fad will be forgotten in a week already. Chire (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This covfefe business might just be worthy of a sentence or two in an article about Donald Trump's social media (mis)use, but to have a whole article about one man's keyboard blunder is absurd. What are the longterm ramifications of this remark? Zilch! It's not important. Kelisi (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. Should not exist as a separate article.--v/r - T P 16:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Covfefe Sumbuddi (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, no indication of enduring notability. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Covfefe, per Herostratus and Samboy. There seems to be very little dispute that Covfefe meets WP:GNG, and the delete votes are based on the argument that it runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. But as I understand it, the purpose of WP:NOTNEWS is to determine whether a topic is notable of not (since most routine news stories aren't notable). So if there's broad agreement that Covfefe satisfies WP:GNG, then pretty much by definition WP:NOTNEWS isn't a valid reason to delete.

By the way, if this ends up being the first AFD in en-WP's history where the closing admin summarizes the consensus as "covfefe", I'm going to laugh my butt off. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it the wrong way around: meeting WP:GNG means that notability is "presumed". GNG goes on to say:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not

In other words, WP:NOTNEWS trumps GNG, and no amount of coverage in reliable sources can make a WP:NOT topic notable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the niche item called the "santorum" is considered notable, then this widely known item certainly is too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:WHATABOUTX. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a rule, or merely a suggestion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly no rule against following good advice. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the best advice is, "Try not to make Wikipedia look stupid." If I come to Wikipedia to find out about it, and it's not there, my immediate assumption is that Wikipedia is out of touch with the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better as "Don't make Wikipedia look stupid." Telling humans to try just lets them feel good about themselves when they fail the first time, knowing they tried. I don't know about you, but if I can fail and feel good about it, I'm only going to pretend to try, especially if the alternative is suffering for the sake of Wikipedia seeming hip. Besides, by the time people need to come to Wikipedia to wonder the truth of covfefe, wondering that won't even be cool anymore. We'll be that old fuddy-duddy doing the macarena at weddings, alone, forever. Collectively, I mean. Individually, we can go either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then it's "DON'T make Wikipedia look stupid" - and the rest of my statement still applies. We serve the readers, not ourselves. Rabid deletionists often forget tht. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're talking! Changed my vote. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This sums up American politics and how social media has played a part it in.Sgerbic (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important, groundbreaking article. Will be useful to historians that want to trace the emergence of the second dark ages and Trump's reign of terror. Crucial historical document. This is not the place to pay partisan politics and cover up for Daddy, Trumpkins. 2600:1017:B412:5FA5:A58C:E7D4:A132:5E0B (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 2600:1017:B412:5FA5:A58C:E7D4:A132:5E0B (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
- This is not a vote. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 22:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Donald Trump's use of social media. Although I believe the word has achieved ample notability in non-trivia (and Wikipedia-approved) media to justify its own article, at the same time it is simply more appropriate for it to be discussed in the greater context with Trump's social media use. We can't create new articles every time he does a typo, even if the typo ends up being a bit of a cultural phenomenon as has happened with covfefe. That said it could be revisited at a future date to see if "covfefe" has the same longevity in the public eye as Fuddle duddle did. 136.159.160.4 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After spending some time in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not archives, there is a pretty sizable WP:NOTNEWS misapplication going on here. None of the 4 points under notnews have been met here, particularly the "routine news" of #2. This is not "routine news", this is a flurry of national an international discussion of the event. Yes it is an event, this isn't just about a famous person making a tweet typo but rather the President of the US, a persona with a propensity for bombastic social media presence who made a bizarre, mangled, half-sentence tweet in the early morning hours. WP:NEVENT should be the one to judge by, and IMO we're certainly in or nearing the "very likely to be notable" standard of WP:EVENTCRIT. "WP:Notnews" is a misnomer and should be retitled "NotRoutineNews" ValarianB (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Major cultural impact, covered by news sites world over. It's only day 2 and it's being used by thousands (at least) of people on Social Media.

If not keep, then at least merge. Walloper1980 (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seriously? Wikinews is over there. It violates WP:TOOSOON to say that this incident will have any sort of a so-called "cultural imapct," major or no. Once again people should not gaze into their WP:CRYSTALBALL. To have such a large article about what is likely a typo also runs afoul of WP:SENSATION. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Donald Trump on social media. You people are fricking ridiculous when it comes to hastily making articles for the latest news distraction and meme. Absolutely absurd. None of this will be mentioned a week from now. Reywas92^Talk 19:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to Donald Trump on social media; I can't believe an article as large as this one was written about a 70 year old making a typo on Twitter. MeanMotherJr (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete,~~ merge some of it, and redirect to Donald Trump's use of social media per WP:NOTSTUPID.- Mr X 21:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, if by "merge some of it" you mean to actually copy and rewrite the content from here into the other article, then deletion is not acceptable as we will violate our contributor's copyright and the licence we require them to licence it under. If content from here is copied or moved, even if later rewritten, to another article then the article needs to be kept for the edit history somewhere. (Technically under the CC we probably only require the list of names but the norm is to keep the edit history whenever possible, especially since we are only supposed to be CC only when getting the content from elsewhere.) It would make most sense to keep it at the current location and simply turn it into a redirect, although this isn't required provided the edit history is kept and people are able to find it from whereever the content is copied/moved to. The only way this could be deleted is if any content elsewhere is written from scratch without reference to this article. Even just copying the references would IMO be a bad idea, especially since there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason why we should lose the edit history. Nil Einne (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. !Vote adjusted accordingly.- Mr X 23:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump on social media. Sure, it meets GNG. We can still have information on it. But an entire article on one trivial tweet and the news cycle it took over? WP:NOTSTUPID. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete/~~merge to Donald Trump on social media (per Enterprisey above). 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) Seagull123 Φ 21:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As of 6/1/2017 12:47 PM EST, a Google Search of Covfefe showed "About 5,450,000 results". Minutes later, at 12:56 PM EST the same search on Google showed "About 6,030,000 results". As of 6:17 PM google shows " About 10,400,000 results". More than notable for a word that didn't exist 2 days ago. Any word with over 10 Million results on Google definitely deserves its own page in Wikipedia. AAAAA 6:20 PM EST, 1 June 2017

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NOTURBANDICT. Ceosad (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it is not a dictionary. But with over 10 million Google Results it's a notable media event. Just checked and right now Google shows "About 14,400,000 results". AAAAA 6:59 PM EST, 2 June 2017

Delete Long-term significance has not been shown, and in fact is extremely unlikely. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No lasting significance that would warrant a stand alone article. The two paragraphs it presently has in Donald Trump's use of social media is more appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mind sorting out the 'Keep's, the 'Delete's and the 'Merge's? Can remove this comment once it is done 183.157.162.54 (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here. (Not pretty and missing responses. Will delete it in 24hrs) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This story has been covered in every major media outlet. The article got nearly 29,000 page views on its first day.[15] Whiff of greatness (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whiff of greatness: that doesn't prove its notability and I'd rather avoid arguments based on pageviews (WP:POPULARPAGE). But, if there is going to be an argument about pageviews, there were only 375 views on 2 June, down from 11,546 on 31 May - which to me suggests it is definitely a case of WP:10YEARS. Seagull123 Φ 14:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a story "has been covered in every major media outlet," as I wrote in the post you are responding to and as no one is challenging, that does indeed show notability. The page views are down because the article is being noindexed pending the outcome of this deletion discussion. The Ten Year Rule has to do with writing style. To interpret as a rationale to delete an article goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL. Now that this material appears on the German, Japanese, Dutch, and Czech Wikis, I find it even more difficult to understand why anyone would want to delete it. Whiff of greatness (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiff of greatness: I'm not going to talk about the pageviews per my point above and WP:POPULARPAGE. And to your point about 10YEARS, essays are not policy, linking to one is just a quick way of showing your reasoning, and I've already said that while 10YEARS doesn't talk about notability/article subject, I used the same reasoning used in the essay for the purpose of notability/subject. So if you want a policy, look at the first bullet point on WP:NOPAGE (section of WP:N - so addressing your concern about notability) - Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page, which I think is important (to me, more important than the other bits of that section) - more complete context could be given on Donald Trump on social media. Also, it has not yet demonstrated lasting notability. And just because other language wikis have a page about this, why should we too? They have different policies/guidelines from us, so have different standards for inclusion in their language WP. (Also striking my comment for delete, while keeping the merge comment). Seagull123 Φ 15:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Better, Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a 24-hour sensation, of no long-term or encyclopedic significance. We really don't need a new article every time Trump makes a tweet. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This typo is unlikely to have any lasting significance. Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covfefe covfefe covfefe. Bigly. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content into Donald Trump's use of social media- I'm genuinely not certain how this was considered notable enough for an article in the first place. While it has gone memetic, this isn't enough for an article, since we might stop talking about it by next week. If we're still making covfefe jokes in a year (god forbid), an article would be justified, but right now it's too early to say that a separate article would be justified. Hppavilion1 (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Donald Trump's use of social media. What a world. Neutrality^talk 04:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media, per WP:NOTNEWS. We need articles about important things that people will still be looking for ten years from now, not about every single bit of cultural flotsam that ever generated a 24-hour blip of news coverage and spawned some memes. Enduring significance or bust. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The presidential use and misuse of language is highly notable as entire books are written about the topic such as Talking with the President: The Pragmatics of Presidential Language — "...what the president says is not necessarily what the president means." We have plenty of articles about other historical examples including Normalcy; Ich bin ein Berliner; Michigander; Lunatic fringe; &c. These demonstrate that such coinages do tend to have enduring notability as they are remembered and written about centuries later. See also WP:NOTPAPER – "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". Andrew D. (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: the book you mentioned was published in March 2015, so cannot prove the notability of "covfefe" or Trump's actions as President. The book doesn't even mention "Donald Trump" (according to the Google Books search function). This book can prove the notability of "The presidential use and misuse of language", but not "covfefe", or anything about Trump. Seagull123 Φ 13:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. We need not create articles on Trump's every belch and fart. It's WP:TOOSOON to gauge long term notability, WP:NOTNEWS applies.LM2000 (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media, and trim the fluff. — JFG ^talk 08:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but merge as a second option. This is getting ridiculous now. AIRcorn (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Donald Trump on social media (and trim). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DICTIONARY, though "Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia" would apply if it existed. Moving to trump.wikipedia.org would work too, but a simple mention on Donald Trump's use of social media would be enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This has snowballed into something bigger than "President farts on plane" NOTNEWS-type fare. A merge to Donald Trump's use of social media would also be an acceptable outcome; deletion, not. Carrite (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mention it in Donald Trump's use of social media. If every stupid thing a president say deserve an article, we gonna need a bigger ~~boat~~ server. Darwinian Ape^talk 15:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Kill it. Kill it with fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fart --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge (Selective or slight merge) to Donald Trump on social media. This should redirect readers to a general article abut the notable subject of a president's tweeting excesses. That will preserve the rights of contributors to this article. Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything which gets a splash of news media coverage, per WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think we have an article about the boil on George Washington's butt which made him lie on his side while performing his duties in the first months of his presidency, nor on the hole in candidate Stevenson's shoe which was on the front page of every newspaper during a 1950's campaign, on Wilson growing a beard when he was palsied and couldn't shave, on every time Ford tripped over his own feet, on Johnson lifting his dog by the ears, on every single individual malapropism of GW Bush ,nor on literally hundreds of other news items about presidential politics which got widespread news coverage. It is a typo for pity's sake. It doesn't even rise to the importance of the elder Bush puking at a diplomatic dinner. Mention little incidents in the context of an article about the person or in this case an article about one aspect of the person's career. Edison (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media. The latter is notable, the item under consideration is just a passing example. No need to wait, a redirect will handle the people looking for the specific word. ubiquity (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's too early to tell whether this meme will die out soon. We've got articles on memes like Bad Luck Brian and Nyan Cat so I don't see why covfefe can't have its own page. If it's forgotten within a week we can merge. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 18:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge No where near notable enough on its own. If not delete, merge with Donald Trump on social media. PackMecEng (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think this could be merged with User:Janweh64/sandbox/Lexicology of Donald Trump to prepare for Lexicology of Donald Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event with significant press covfefe. Peapod21 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the criteria for notability. P william Q99 19:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Interesting and humorous accident, covered by many media outlets. Posted by one of the most important people in the world, despite all the checks and proofreading that would normally take place. Qu1lt (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please provide a source that verifies that anyone normally proofreads or exercise a check on anything Trump tweets. Edison (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, just being interesting and humorous is not reason enough to keep an article. I also share Edison's concerns about sourcing for proofreading etc. Seagull123 Φ 21:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eventually at least. This is classic WP:NOTNEWS, but because it is currently in the news we're seeing a lot of keeps from people currently aware or invested in the story. AniMate 20:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. Eventually we can consider merging it into Trump on Twitter, if and when the buzz dies down and it proves non-notable in the long term. It's not hurting anything, and there's no deadline to replace it with a #redirect. —Guan aco 20:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is unencyclopaedic. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This can be reconsidered in a month's time or so, once we can see how much long-term notability there is. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. This has plenty of staying power. Many new words are coined every day by lesser known people. But this one came from the President of the United States, thereby leading to it the likelihood this will be a permanent fixture in the culture. Not a candidate for merging either, because the size of this article has the potential to be so large. There is the expectation this article will be extremely large due to the theories regarding the word's meaning, which will be interpreted differently by different sources.Sebwite (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - there is no way a typo in a tweet, what? three days ago? can be said to have had WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and all of the assurances that it will remain a phenomenon are just WP:CRYSTAL. Likewise, exactly how much needs to be said about it? The two paragraphs on the Donald Trump on social media page adequately summarize the incident, so no merge is needed. This is no more article-worthy than Spicer hiding in the bushes or Marco Rubio's hands both of which also received significant coverage for the proverbial 15 minutes. We can expect there to be some story coming out of the White House daily, and we don't need an article on every one of them. Agricolae (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This is of historical interest. Groogle (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This "incident" is not notable enough to warrant an article. There are a number of other such actions by world leaders on a scale larger than this and with more consequence that do not have articles, and of which there is no desire or reason to have articles on. The existing section on Trump on Twitter is more than sufficient. Joshua Garner (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WAIT then MERGE if it dies out. This article is starting to get linked in various social media. While I agree that this is hardly notable, many people will click through to the article out of curiosity, and it would be frankly unprofessional to delete it at this point. Better to merge it with another article once the uproar dies down. It was a dark and stormy night. (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It can always be merged with a redirect to the appropriate article. Nothing unprofessional there. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 02:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. A merge and redirect after the dust settles would be most appropriate, IMO. It was a dark and stormy night. (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously? Not news. Not a dictionary, even of nonexistent words. And most important, this can only be a WP:COATRACK article which will either heap disdain or praise on Trump rather than anything encyclopedic. -DHeyward (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP / wait - This Tweet was notable, many people are searching for this and curious, and we don't know how this will ultimately unfold in the coming months.

(1) This Tweet was notable. Hillary Clinton replied twice. It was addressed in an official White House press briefing. It was the sole topic of rather large articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and CNN.com. It looks like UK papers also covered it.

(2) Thousands of people have already searched this on Wikipedia. I was one of them an hour ago. Wikipedia is a very good unbiased and no-nonsense source for the basics that people are curious about: What was the full context of the tweet? What time did it go out? Was it deleted? The New York Times wrote at least one long article on it, but they didn't include that information and it was behind a paywall. Wikipedia should answer questions like these, and these questions are very common.

(3) We don't know whether this will get bigger in the coming days and weeks. I'll say it now: I don't think the tweet was funny or interesting in and of itself. I would have ignored it, it's just a typo. But I would have been wrong, people are making a big deal out of this. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes more notable as more people react, not less notable.

(4) It doesn't matter if it is not funny. It doesn't matter if you don't think this is news. The New York Times thinks this is news. NPR agrees. The Guardian agrees. This is news. Fluoborate (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-This Article is important to KEEP It has become it's own phrase and commonly used in the english vernacular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.106.125 (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC) — 68.61.106.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP / Wait / Merge - --Janke | Talk 10:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Janke: do you have a reason for this? - WP:VOTE. Seagull123 Φ 12:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT PLEASE - There has been so much reaction and discussion about it world-wide (much of it quite funny), that as an "incident" it is now part of history like it or not. Someday people may wonder why a typo became such a big deal, and Wikipedia might as well be a good place to find out what it was about. So the word itself in my view doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but the incident I believe certainly does. In politics, like marketing publicity always seems better than no publicity ... so this might have been a really clever stunt by President Trump .... Rmobidow (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)— Rmobidow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep one of the finest pieces of investigative journalism I have ever seen on this site. Compares favorably with Boston Tea Party and Civil War as a part of American History. We must unite and rise up against our tyrannical, treasonous reality-show host overlord. To the barricades! 2600:1017:B41A:A100:DD84:3986:64DE:BAC0 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand your point, 2600:1017:B41A:A100:DD84:3986:64DE:BAC0, could you clarify your reason, "We must unite and rise up against our tyrannical, treasonous reality-show host overlord", for keeping this? There is a list of relevant policies and guidelines for deletion discussions here. Seagull123 Φ 16:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Covfefe is the point. :) Boud (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump on social media (or just Redirect since it's covered there to the extent it probably needs to be already). WP:NOPAGE. The merge seems pretty straightforward to me. This is a clear subtopic, with a good number of sources, but little indication it will have lasting significance/coverage to such an extent that a stand-alone article is needed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump's use of social media: The term is synonymous with Trump, but it's a meme that has not shown a longstanding impact and it's not an event or incident- it's a gaffe. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 20:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please, this one kinda lingers. 82.21.88.44 (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Notability is not temporary, if this has a significant impact later on, it can be deleted. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is an important article to have ArniDagur (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and obvious delete: I legitimately don't understand how anyone could possibly argue in good faith that this meets GNG. Wikipedia is NOT:URBANDICTIONARY and NOT:KNOWYOURMEME. 69.159.83.14 (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC) — 69.159.83.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG. To those who say that this is only temporary, you cannot know this, and in any event are likely incorrect in your assumption. We don't have to wait several months before documenting clearly notable current events, and this is no exception. Orthogonal1 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the sources suggest this will be permanently notable. There is even a news article on CNN about COVFEFE vanity plates; these will remain for a long time, some of them permanently [16]. This article is longer than the suggested merge target Donald Trump on social media. 96.83.111.133 (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)— 96.83.111.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep for now, will perhaps mature into a merge into Donald Trump on social media at some point, post-presidency or earlier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald Trump on social media. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, an event is likely to be notable if it has widespread impact or historical significance. An event is unlikely to be notable if it consists of viral phenomena. I have failed to see any evidence of historical significance, widespread impact or of the incident being a passing; it seems like a pretty cut and dry case of viral phenomena that got a short burst of media coverage. The incident is still getting some media coverage (although it has declined pretty quickly), and some editors argue that the article should be kept per WP:RAPID. I do not believe this is an appropriate use of the guideline. It is reasonable to keep articles on events such as military invasions, major disasters, deaths of uber notable individuals, or any other event where there is a high likelihood of meeting notability requirements in the near future. This is not the case for the covfefe article, which shows little evidence of lasting impact. I believe that it is however appropriate to cover the incident in the Donald Trump on social media article. As the article already gives reasonably comprehensive coverage of covfefe, I am voting redirect rather than merge. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - How can anyone claim this presidential typo has long-term covfefe when it has recently happened? Come back to this in a few months and show me a consistent stream of reliable sources then I'll agree this is not just WP:NOTNEWS. Then anyone can recreate the page and make it great. Believe me, we can make it one of the best pages on Wikipedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump on social media (or just Redirect) LordHarris 22:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump on social media.--2601:C4:C001:289E:11D2:9FE1:C4A9:2D54 (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump on social media. A ludicrous incident, but the topic was covered by many news organisations as an indicator of Trump's thought process and temperament. But this topic is an ongoing catalogue of incidents and this article should be merged into a more general article on Trump's behaviour on social media. (This isn't a criticism of this article - it's well-written and extensively sourced - it just doesn't quite stand as an article by itself, I think.Blythwood (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The option to merge with Donald Trump on social media would have been valid had the artice been a stub. Given that it's not a stub, the merge option should not be invoked. The WP:NOTNEWS reason given in the nomination is flawed. WP:NOTNEWS is for routine news coverage. This is obviously not routine, and it is also not news. It is now an internet meme which passes the WP:GNG threshold. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has there been an Internet meme clause in WP:GNG?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Internet meme clause in WP:GNG" because not every internet meme is notable. This one, is certainly notable. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or that WP:MERGE can only be performed to stubs, for that matter? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MERGE: "Merging should be avoided if the resulting article is too long or 'clunky' ". This article is long enough to make a merge with Donald Trump on social media "too long". 96.41.32.39 (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's only about 2 sentences that would need to be merged. The rest of this is WP:HTRIVIA-level stuff, to wit "If an item is too unimportant, be bold and remove it." Most of this is unimportant, per WP:IINFO, to wit " merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." --Jayron 32 02:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into a debate as to which content in the article you would consider WP:HTRIVIA. The shear volume means that the article passes WP:GNG, and should be kept. Discussion on what part of the article should be removed on the grounds of WP:HTRIVIA should be done on the article's talk page, not on a discussion for deletion. WP:HTRIVIA should be applied on a fact by fact basis, not the article as a whole. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Way, way below WP:SIZERULE (10 kB + 7 kB). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you got your numbers, but the article Donald Trump on social media is currently 32 KByte, and the article Covfefe is currently 22 KByte. Merging 22 KBytes into a 32 KByte article would make the general topic of Donald Trump on social media too heavily tilted towards a single word. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Readable prose size, not total article size, as the guideline notes, using the User:Dr pda/prosesize gadget. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP a merge does not entail literally taking everything from this article and putting it in Donald Trump on social media. This article only needs a two-sentence blurb about what it was and the brief influence it had. And your perception of GNG is a little hazy at best. "Shear volume" of an article is almost entirely irrelevant.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the "shear volume" of the coverage. And no, WP:109PAPERS does not apply in this case. WP:109PAPERS is for the case that all 109 newspapers say the same thing. In this article, the 38 references do not all say the same thing. Sure, while some facts in the article could be removed as fluff (WP:HTRIVIA in Wikipedia lingo), the article as a whole is fairly solid. I don't think it should be cut down to "a two-sentence blurb" given the amount of coverage that it has generated. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article possesses world-historical importance. Symbolic of the astonishingly rapid decline in moral and intellectual standards and the decay of human civilization itself since Trump's violent seizure of power. 63.143.193.120 (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This outlandish comment might be considered a WP:BLPVIO. Considering the IP's other edits,[17] a block might be necessary. — JFG ^talk 06:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. The precipitous decline of intellectual standards in Western civilization is hardly demonstrated by a simple typo committed by a person who was never exactly a shining exemplar of Western intellectual standards in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neologisms have their place. kencf0618 (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not even news, it's literally just distracting noise, and is unlikely to ever meet WP:SUSTAINED — Preceding unsigned comment added by GretLomborg (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - This is a neologism without a meaning, and thus we should not have a separate article on it. It might fit in a section in the article Donald Trump on social media, but not more than that. We are not in the business of providing speculation unless it is something with a scientific basis. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 17:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge to Donald Trump on social media#Covfefe, where it is already covered. This WP:BURP was a three-day wonder with RS coverage fading with the news cycle. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hate myself for saying this, because the whole thing is hilarious and it may be the sole ray of sunshine to counterbalance the misery that Trump has brought into the world, but it has to be a delete. Sure, it deserves a mention in connection with Trump's "unconventional" use of social media and maybe (only if there are references to support it!) his mental health, but it isn't a subject in itself. It does not need a whole article. It should redirect to whatever article it is mentioned in instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Has had hardy any recent coverage since it happened and no profound effect on the world other than giving everyone a good laugh. The fad has come and gone. Lizard (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is hardly the case that it has hard hardly any recent coverage. Here is the GoogleNews results for `covfefe' for the last 24 hours, including: US labour market covfefe, Drivers across nation race for 'COVFEFE' license plate, still up for grabs in Pennsylvania, Petition seeks to change city’s name to Covfefe, Ky., With 'covfefe', US anchor mocks Indian-American spelling bee champ, Auto-correct blunder is an opportunity to establish a covfefe zone, Trevor Noah turned 'covfefe' into an African film plot, Lalajava in Northborough brewing up a little fun with 'Covfefe Coffee' after President Donald J. Trump's tweet, Editorial: You say tomato, we say covfefe, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump on social media. Has no significance at all, just something silly Trump came up with to keep the whole media busy for a day. Mymis (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The latest in the endless barrage of Trump hysteria around here. Article and subject fail WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:DUE and the Ten Year Test. That's four strikes. If someone wants to insert a line into the Trump social media article I won't oppose it. But more than that is giving this waaay more attention than it deserves. Seriously? We are creating articles about a Twitter fail? Every day this place is looking more and more like an anti-Trump tabloid news site. (And FTR I can't stand the man.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darn right, Ad Orientem. That is what I said. This is not a "tabloid". Imagine Encyclopedia Britannica covering this? No self-respecting encyclopedia should. Plus, this is maybe a record-long AfD. We've been sucked into Trump-style attention-drawing, time-wasting, resource-draining nonsense. Humans (and Wikipedian, a higher form of human) should focus on more worthy matters. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica? Britannica Online has 120,000 articles. Wikipedia has 5.4 million. Whiff of greatness (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get distracted from the point. We are talking about an article whose subject has roughly the same long term significance as what I had for lunch today. That this is even being seriously debated is embarrassing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at least. More notable than the orb. MB298 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The orb is cooler (encyclopedicial usage of the word 'cooler', of course).Randy Kryn (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Worldwide coverage of social phenomenon, with an official response from the White House. Sagecandor (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment – Here's my second (far more detailed) comment:

Analysing the arguments

There are two main arguments here:

The topic by far meets GNG.

True, but does it overall meet notability standards?

The topic fails WP:NOTNEWS.

True, but does it overall meet notability standards?

As you can see, both main arguments are too narrow in their focus. But what about other arguments?:

Fails the 10 year test.

Just a tiny part of an explanatory supplement. No mentions in policies or guidelines.

C'mon, it's just a cryptic tweet by an idiot.

Perfectly correct, apart from the fact that it is not policy-based. :)

Still more rebuttals.

Analysing what people think

If this was an article on practically anything else in approximately the same circumstances, the closure would be 'No consensus' or 'Keep'. But this is about one of dozens of billions of tweets on Twitter, and one of thousands of cryptic tweets by Trump. It just so happens to be in the most concentrated area of Wikipedia, making it one of the longest AfDs ever in half a day.

My opinion

I think that 'covfefe' is a worldwide phenomenon, from being a Minecraft splash to featuring on the front page of the New York Times, and getting number plates + a joke petition to rename a town to 'Covfefegate'. I have thought well and this is my opinion:

Weak Keep for now, wait a year, and reconsider the validity of having an article about the topic with the coverage in books.

Whether or not there is significant coverage in books will help us truly decide whether NOTNEWS applies in this case.

Closure

I personally think merge is the best possible decision, but that should be decided on the talk page. Closing options:

Redirect – Not much support for this case, so no.
Delete – Will entirely ignore the 'keep' case, so no.
No consensus – Will trigger a huge riot, so no
Merge – Best possible solution, so yes
Keep – Not really... no!
Relist – Oh, not more, please... no!
Wait – Maybe?
Start a new AfD entirely – Maybe?
My option – Let's wait and see...

So this is my comment, and please read it thoroughly. THIS COVERAGE IS NOT ROUTINE COVERAGE, which is what notnews applies to. I tried to set my opinion at an agreeable level, but still... J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 01:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Numerous sources compared this to: We begin bombing in five minutes, by Ronald Reagan. See: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Sagecandor (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump on social media#Covfefe. Should be sufficient to cover the term for now. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump on social media#Covfefe. Looking at it from outside the US, I don't think every strange thing Trump says or does merits its own article. Sjö (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'll quickly dispense with the presumed notability of WP:GNG. Significant coverage - there are 41 citations in the article at this moment, spanning WashPo, Politico, New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, and BBC's Newsbeat as a few examples. This is just a handful of the many sources dedicated to covering this one tweet and that's just what's in the article now. Reliable - refer to the previous list, the answer is self-evident. Sources - again look at the previous list, all of these are secondary sources. Independent of the Subject - Yes. So, it meets presumed notability. I see a lot of NOTNEWS arguments above, I'd turn to WP:EVENTS rather than WP:NOTNEWS for this, but, I'll cover both anyway. In terms of NOTNEWS I think 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 is most relevant. It's a fair point, but, the main feature is "enduring notability". The question is, is this a five minute talking point that will disappear from the collective memory of mankind by the end of the week, year, or will it remain for ten. Crystal balling aside, I can't really say one way or another, but, it'll live on as a minor thing that a few people will look at every now and then. By the end of the month 99% of the initial traffic will be gone, but, that's true of almost every single event based article on the encyclopaedia. Pick any major event we have an article for and look at the traffic received on the day of the event, one day after, one month after, and one year after. I picked the 2016 Nice attack as an example. On the day of the event it received 250,000+ views. By the next day it had dropped to 75,000. By the end of the week that was down to 25,000. By the same day the next month at 2,500. What do you know, exactly 1% of the traffic that existed on day 1. Now it's receiving a total of about 1,000 views a day. Compare it to Covfefe which is now at one week old news. Day 1; 28,000 views, Day 2: 50,000 views, Day 6: 7075 views. By the end of the month, I project it'll be receiving about 50 views a day. I'd personally look at this from the notability events guideline. Unless Covfefe enters the common parlance, and it probably won't, it won't have much of a lasting effect beyond the occassional person getting a laugh out of it. So no, it probably won't meet WP:LASTING. As for WP:GEOSCOPE; Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article, while the Covfefe event went global, it shouldn't be the only reason for this article existing. Next comes WP:DEPTH - In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines. The tweet left everyone puzzled. What came next is news sources, internet discussion boards, and regular old pundits trying to work out the meaning of the word covfefe and meaning of the tweet as whole. One word; Analysis. Just read the interpretation section of this article to see it for yourself. Then we get to WP:PERSISTENCE, like I've said above, it'll persist, but, only in a very minor sense. Last, but not least, WP:DIVERSE; Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source. Refer to my list a while ago, it's a diverse array of sources. Where does this leave us? honestly, I'd like to keep the article. It's fairly well written, uses an array of good sources and goes into some detail. It's also just a hilarious article. Failing that, however, this should be merged into Donald Trump's use of social media where it already has a small dedicated section that links to the main article currently under discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and if it is still relevant in a week, then Keep. Calicodragon (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not WP:NOTE. It's a tweet, nothing more than a tweet! This is a WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA and not a tabloid. Got a lot of media attention and was° soon gone again. Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS or WP:SOC. It's nothing we need in a week.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump on social media. This is just one of many social media gaffs by Trump, and taken as a whole, they are a notable facet of his presidency, but this single tweet, while garnering lots of immediate press attention, is not significant enough for its own article. It's an uncorrected typo. Funny, but hardly earth-shattering. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Donald Trump on social media. If in time it becomes an accepted part of the English language, e.g. Granfalloon, grok, vorpal, the article can be resurrected.--KTo288 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:EVENT says Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. This has already been covered in a variety of sources, each of that are very different from the next. This is being analyzed overwhelmingly as the very meaning of this word is being guessed. It was received a tremendous depth of coverage, another criteria that renders it notable. We are also not supposed to rush to delete articles, especially if it's not a WP:BLP. We should at least let this remain another week or two before such consideration so we can see what happens. Given that this is an event, and this meets so many criteria for a notable event and is notable as an event, it might be worth calling it "Covfefe incident" in order to better comply. 96.95.28.1 (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)— 96.95.28.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But a "Covfefe" is an incident, so that would be like calling it the "incident incident". Actually I am pretty sure that "covfefe" means, like, a kerfluffle (a kind of messed up incident), but with a political twist. Anyhow Covfefe incident is now a redirect to Covfefe. --do ncr am 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hats off to IP 96.95.28.1. This is a model of how AfD comments should be written. Whiff of greatness (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have to pile on the 'keep' side here. People decades from now will need to have an article on this subject. It is a cultural reference point. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether in the future people will "need" this article or not, this shouldn't be a reason for keeping the article. Seagull123 Φ 23:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's silly but socially significant commentary on an acting president's indiscriminate use of Twitter. It is symbolic of a broader cultural shift from formal "presidential" tones to a casual, perhaps careless, use of the bully pulpit, the latest in a long series of poorly researched, barely thought out executive communications. Keep, but merge if need be. Arcataroger (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the content - this is plainly, undeniably, notable by our standards - but merge it into the broader article Donald Trump on social media. We should have this content, but it doesn't need a separate article. Robofish (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable meme widely covered in the news media. 2602:306:CE95:57B0:689A:78BD:2711:7567 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Should be merged with Donald Trump on social media. WP:PERSISTENCE says "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Even now, a week later, no news outlet will be reporting on it since it has already been reported on and there is nothing to update on. hillelfrei^{• talk •} 05:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of examples of continuing in-depth coverage of the topic in the news. Here are a few examples from the last 24 hours: The 'covfefe' trend is sticking around, just ask these Texas drivers, Donald Trump’s “Covfefe” Will Probably Be Seen On Merchandise Soon, 'COVFEFE' UNDIES, BEER, COFFEE OR MERCH ... The Choice Is Yours!, $5 Russian Vodka Shots: D.C. Bar Will Start Pouring Early Thursday for ‘Comey Hearing Covfefe’, Businesses scramble For The ‘Covfefe’ copyright, D.C. bar Shaw's Tavern to host a covfefe for the Comey hearing, Can you trademark ‘covfefe’? These people and companies are trying, Optional definitions for the new word 'covfefe', Colbert Returns to Mock "Covfefe" and Trump's Climate Change Decision, Trump’s covfefe takes hold in the land of the spelling bee, Work of Art: Grab a cup of covfefe; we’ve got ‘alot’ to cover, And finally… covfefe™, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact of the president's typo is not notable in itself. The administration's subsequent damage control is of historical significance and therefore the entry must remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuvia0511 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In a rational world this wouldn't be notable -- but neither would Khloe Kardashian, most Youtube "celebrities", or that giraffe giving birth on camera, and the guy who first said "covfefe" wouldn't even have been elected dog catcher. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:43, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Fencing Federation[edit]

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

This page links to non-authoritative sources, this page was created for PR, moreover, by clicking on the links we can not verify the authenticity of the information.I do not see the notability of this organization Jonncornerr (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

? this is a simple article of a national sport federedation like more and more others, really I don't undertsand the problem :) --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wording of the article is entirely neutral. This is a national level federation of an Olympic sport – and that nation none other than the most successful in fencing history! SFB 21:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep entirely quote SFB --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep me too.--Pampuco (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note This AfD was not transcluded in May 23's log. I transcluded it to today's log and added the header as required. Regards So Why 09:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National-level federation for an Olympic sport, which was easily verifiable from the sources given in the article. No reason for doubting notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:49, 3 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayk Sedrakyan[edit]

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

Not notable. Previously deleted after Prod, then recreated, then prodded again, and latter prod removed. Unclear what his claim to fame is. Only recently became a PhD, no indication that was especially important or that he has done anything since. Participated in some mathematics contests, got some scholarships, was in his student union, so was busy as a student but that does not make him notable. All refs are to primary sources, no reliable secondary ones. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John the first time I have considered your Personal opinion and made the modifications according to your comments. But what you write now I would like to comment from my point of view. Unclear what his claim to fame is. There is no claim of fame at all, please understand that notability is not only about fame John, but achievements also or simply being worthy of notice. Only recently became a PhD, no indication that was especially important or that he has done anything since. Anything done since, what about several books and scientific articles published in the most prominent scientific institutions in different countries? or you and everyone else on this planet has got hundreds of them? Participated in some mathematics contests, got some scholarships, was in his student union, so was busy as a student but that does not make him notable. Did not only participate but was a Medal winner John, do you at least understand the difference? even if there are several medal winners, it is a VERY honorable achivement. If the Award is shared between several contestants the Award does not loose it's value because of it. Some mathematics contests is the math contest of your school or another school, International Mathematical Olympiad is definitely not SOME mathematics contest. Got some scholarships, not some scholarships John, but scientific scholarships funded by European Commission. Was in his student union, so was busy as a student but that does not make him notable. John, was not in his student union, was elected by 162 nationalities as the President of the students general assembly of Cite universitaire de Paris to represent 10,000 students. If it is not a notable and honorable work, can you please explain me why were they nominated to the Nobel peace prize? All refs are to primary sources, no reliable secondary ones. There are a lot of primary and secondary sources, if needed can be added.

So, once again, I ask you to reconsider the article for the publication and do not express yourself in such arrogant way. Thank you very much for your understanding, time and comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriLegrand (talk • (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He got a bronze medal at a Maths Olympiad, but that does not mean he came third, which is what a bronze medal usually means. They give out medals to half of the attendees, and bronze is the lowest ranking medal, with more given out than gold or silver (which also go to many people). It’s a meaningless award, given for turning up to an event that most of the world is unaware of. Being president of a student general assembly is nothing special (and he was elected by 19 votes, not 162 nationalities, according to the source). Being nominated for the nobel peace prize certainly isn’t; every year hundreds of people/groups/bodies are nominated, as the nomination process is very open. And he was not nominated, his university was while he was there, reportedly.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comment John. I simply cannot believe that you are able to write, International Mathematical Olympiad Bronze Medal is a meaningless award, and be a Wikipedia reviewer at the same time. What about the scientific articles and books in top scientific publishing houses? or they are also meaningless for you? what is meaningful for you John? A good song with nice girls in the video? Honestly, with such life values and judgements you should be banned to be a reviewer in such a website as Wikipedia. P.S. about the voting process, there were 80 representatives who votes, they were elected too to be representatives, that's why in the final it was only 19 votes, but as it was the best result that was enough to win the elections. You see it was not some meaningless award like IMO medal to be shared among many people, it was given to one single person. By your logic, it is very honorable and notable award, because it was not shared. HenriLegrand (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)HenrlLegrand[reply]

Delete : Agree with the nomination, does not meet the notability criteria. The content seems like paid work, the creator account seems WP:SPA as well. The article was previously created with similar content by HaykHS, which seems the account of the subject himself. Could be the case of WP:COI and/or WP:Sockpuppet. Coderzombie (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a paid work? I cannot understand which comment is more nonsense, the comment of John that International Mathematical Olympiad Bronze Medal is a meaningless award or your comment that is Seems like a paid work. Please, I want to ask to Wikipedia to help to review this article by some other reviewers. Because your opinions is based on some ASSUMPTIONS, that has nothing to do with professional approach. HenriLegrand (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)HenriLegrand[reply]

My point about the award was simply that normally in competitive events there is one gold medal, one silver medal, one bronze medal, given out to the best (fastest/furthest/strongest/whatever) participants. Occasionally with ties or certain structures of contests more than one medal of a colour is given out, but overwhelmingly the medals are for unique achievements. But the IMO does not do that. It gives out dozens of gold medals, more silver medals, and even more bronze medals. Getting a medal is nothing special: they are given to hundreds of participants every year. The article does not make this clear, and readers might think he was the third best mathematician at that years contest, getting a bronze medal.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JohnBlackburne, thank you very much for re-formulating and re-explaining your point of view. In this way your comment sounds very polite and professional. Moreover, indeed I totally agree with you and your point of view. I have proposed to create a Wikipedia article, not because the notability is based on fame or a single achievement, but because the whole ensemble of results includes a tremendous amount of work done in his field of activity (Mathematics), 3 years of IMO's, 3 Master degree's, PhD's, 3 scientific articles in world's top Scientific Journals, Math books in top publishing houses and all these before the age 26-27, that's definitely a huge amount of work done and Notability is also the property of being worthy of notice. The funniest thing is that he was a Champion of Karate of Republic of Armenia (Bronze Medal Winner, 3rd place), but it was not even indicated in the article, because to achieve all these in Mathematics one needs decades and enormous amount of work, to become a Karate Champion one can achieve that in a year or even less. But I guess if in the article we delete all the information about Mathematics and keep only that he was a Karate Champion the article will get published because he came 3rd as the most strongest. I do not insist anymore, I fully accept your point of you, moreover I would like to thank you for all the time you have dedicated to this article, to read it and comment, hope you will understand my point of view too. Now, it's up to you and the other reviewers to decide shall this article be modified to be written more professionally or simply be deleted. I would be very thankful to you if you could give couple of advices how can the article be made better (what to delete and what to add) and I will work on it. HenriLegrand (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)HenriLegrand[reply]

The key is to find evidence of notability, in reliable secondary sources. These might be books, newspapers, websites, but they must be reliable (so no blogs, gossip sites, personal sites) and independent of the topic. Any such sources can be used, but more weight is attached to national (or international) reports than local ones, general rather than specialist publications, for establishing notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Subject doesn't seem especially notable, and the article appears to be WP:SPIP. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't find in depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, @HenriLegrand: you suggest such sources exist, can you add them to the article or at least clearly list them here? Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comment, as I do not have very big experience in creating Wikipedia articles, but I would like to improve my skills, please could you tell me what is the main difference between the reliable secondary sources and reliable primary sources? for example an official website of some well known institution (like a publishing house) is it considered as a reliable secondary source? HenriLegrand (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)HenriLegrand[reply]

I would like to thank all the reviewers, sorry if some of my responses were too direct or a bit with counter-attacking manners, indeed I appreciate very much the time you have dedicated to read the article and express your opinion, if you want to delete the article you can delete it, but I am ready to take into consideration all your comments and modify it (delete or add any information needed). Best regards HenriLegrand (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)HenriLegrand[reply]

Delete. As per nom. I do not wish to belittle his achievements, but they do not rise to the level to warrant an article.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject appears neither to pass WP:PROF for his scholarly accomplishments, nor WP:GNG for his contest results and coaching. And I didn't find published reviews of his books (not even on MathSciNet) that could be used to make a case for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation impact on GS too small, even for mathematicians. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG; WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 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. Consensus is that changes and newly provided sources are not enough to meet WP:GNG or any other relevant notability guideline. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Payrexx[edit]

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

Promotional piece for non-notable company per WP:CORP, created by WP:SPA who re-adds the blatant product marketing every time other editors remove it. No significant coverage online in WP: Reliable sources, just press releases and passing mentions failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Proposed deletion contested by single-edit sockpuppet/meatpuppet, with edit summary "deleting tags, working on it to improve references". Uncle Roy (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Uncle Roy (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing on Highbeam about this company and just the usual listings on Google. The given references are typical start-up coverage providing only basic verification, nor does being one of 3 winners of a non-notable award indicate notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "deleting tags, working on it to improve references" - This was my edit summary and I am not a sock puppet or a meat puppet. There is quite significant coverage available online: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] - These sources need to be incorporated into the article. Need for improvement should not be equivalent to deletion. Actonpiks (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC) — Actonpiks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete -- the article exists to promote the business. Wikipedia is not a repository of this company's sales materials. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to trim the article and remove the promotional looking text. Please help and reconsider your vote. Actonpiks (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of this version, the article is basically A7 material (i.e. too insignificant). That's what happens with promo articles on nn topics -- when promotional material is removed, there's nothing left. It's still a "Delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not paper, so is more expansive that most. However, someone needs to have written a great deal about a subject for it to meet inclusion requirements for an encyclopedia. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:19, 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) 22:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Fogarty[edit]

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

Nothing significant could be found about the subject thereby failing Wikipedia's notability guideline. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable and almost all included references aren't reliable sources -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete full of primary sources that do not establish WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:54, 3 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, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hottest Summer Night[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G11 - author blatantly (and poorly) plugging his non-notable book. Cabayi (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable book: I couldn't find any reviews suitable for establishing notability (just blogs, sites that let anyone post a review, and social media). Even if a book is non-notable, the author might be notable - but again I can't find any evidence of this to meet WP:GNG. I'm not an expert on speedy deletion, but I don't think WP:G11 applies because while context indicates it was created for promotion, the page is itself factual and not unambiguously promotional and if notability was supported it could stand. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both the book and the author's pages are vanity pages made by the author himself. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 14:38, 1 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) 22:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay Pratap Singh (actor)[edit]

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

non-notable WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question CAPTAIN RAJU, this page is a bad duplicate of Abhay Singh. Do you want to nominate both pages, or just withdraw this and convert the page into a redirect? Primefac (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I have also coverted the page Abhay Singh into a redirect and warn the user for using multiple accounts. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- From a technical perspective Abhay Singh was a better article, so I've copied its contents to the (actor) page. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per nom. --Lockley (talk) 17:12, 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) 22:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rony Dasgupta[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7/G11 - non-notable author plugging himself and his non-notable work. Cabayi (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. As mentioned in the AFD for Hottest Summer Night, I tried and failed to find any sources about him. Nothing but Goodreads-type sites. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7, non notable person. Jupitus Smart 14:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable author. This is promotional cruft. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pet post secret[edit]

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

Notability. Google search shows it. Alexf505 (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notability. reddogsix (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the book is actually called The PetPost Secret by Radhika R. Dhariwal. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you search under those details it has some press.[28][29][30] So an article could be written. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 'some press' does not mean it meets WP:BOOK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Alexf505 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the book lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NBOOK. As mentioned above the existing article title does not match the book. It was first published in 2014, and reissued under the title The tale of a no-name squirrel in 2016. --Bejnar (talk) 02:59, 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. with no barrier to recreation of an article with encyclopaedic content that goes beyond a recipe and information already in the escalope article. SpinningSpark 12:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Paillard[edit]

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

WP:NOTACOOKBOOK, This is little more then a recipe and a repeat of information from the main article Paillard Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. Article's only references are recipes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and improve. While I wholeheartedly agree with both the above editors that the article currently is little more than a recipe, this is a pretty famous dish and warrants an article. I didn't really have time to do a more in-depth search, but even a cursory one reveals hundreds of hits on news and books. On the first page of the news search you have this article from the NY Times, although most articles are simply different ways of preparing the dish. I'd like to see more of a development of the history of the dish. While there doesn't seem to be in-depth sourcing that can be a quick fix for that, there are articles like this in Gastronomer's Guide which could be used as a means for building that history, even though it's a brief mention, as well as this article from the Chicago Tribune. Appears to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if there is worthy material it can be merged with the paillard article. If anything it is "Chicken paillard" with a small-letter p. But I digress. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom, without prejudice to recreation, considering how short the paillard article is, I don't think it needs to be spun out into multiple articles yet. Yes, that could be justified later, but we usually work from broad to narrow, only creating more specific articles as they become necessary. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is classic WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. If this were in fact a pretty famous dish it would have more non-cookbook sources. Compare the article at Melba toast. "Chicken palliard" might be entitled to a mention in a sentence in the section Escalope#Paillard or scallop. --Bejnar (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. Unfortunately this isn't a dish with a history comparable to veal Oscar or steak Tartare. --Lockley (talk) 04:38, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2022 European Championships[edit]

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

We already have a page European Championships (multi-sport event) - this page appears to be more of a promotion for an event that hasn't happened yet, then an encyclopedia article. It also fails WP:GNG for the 2022 event (which hasn't happened yet). Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. The first European Championship will only be held in 2018 and really there is not enough information about either to justify anything but the mention in the main article. This is really non-encylopedic promotional overkill. The content is primarily the organizers expectations what could be.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/Peter. Wait until after the 2018 edition to see if this is taking place. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edwards (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player! I don't the author of the article is understanding Wikipedia policy and its borderline disruptive. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing for South Africa is well below WP:NHOCKEY standards, and a search for WP:GNG yielded no results.18abruce (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above, and an unsourced BLP into the bargain. The editor responsible has something of a history of both questionable hockey-related article creations and pointy actions; there's no little irony in that the same day he created this article, he filed an AfD on a similar article about a NN national team player. Ravenswing 11:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hafsa Sultan (daughter of Selim I)[edit]

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

Like other princesses the subject has the potential for being notable enough in order to have a separate article on Wikipedia, but unfortunately unlike many other Ottoman princesses nothing is known about her life. The information that are currently included in this article seem to be incorrect and unrealistic such as the dates of birth and death which are totally unsourced. A huge amount of information has been removed during the past month due to the lack of reliable sources. The article, in my opinion, should be deleted because as I had mentioned in a previous discussion it is a duplicate of a previously deleted article titled Şehzade Sultan, which by the way was a fabricated article, and this brings on the possibility of this article being a hoax as well. Although I highly doubt that it's a hoax, yet as the article says nothing about her except that she was a daughter of Selim I, I think it either should be deleted or redirected to the article about her father. I couldn't find anything about her or anything related to her life but if anyone can expand this article and prove that she's notable, I will appreciate it. Keivan.f^Talk 03:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN -- The Ottomans kept their women in the harem, where most have little opportunity to do much of note. We have one general source on women at the Ottoman court. The fact that the article quotes nothing but her genealogy implies to me that she was NN> Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I, too, could not find additional reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and mention in a single footnote does not establish independent notability. Agricolae (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 4 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 clear that this is not a valid topic for a stand-alone article, so the question remained whether to delete it outright or to merge/redirect as Jclemens suggested. However, there was no consensus to do so at this time. As usual, this result does not prevent any editor from adding a mention to a suitable article and then recreating this page as a redirect to said article. Regards So Why 07:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grilled Charlie[edit]

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

I can not find any reliable sources that discuss this sandwich. There is no indication it is notable. It is not mentioned in the main article not at List of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia episodes. I can not find a place to redirect this to either. ~ GB fan 23:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering. [31] puts it in with several obviously notable food related, comedy-originated fictional elements e.g. the Soup Nazi. [32] mentions it in passing. Notability is equivocal, although there are certainly plenty of trivial references to it. It would be reasonable to merge somewhere, maybe to the main "It's Always Sunny..." article, as there seem to be other foods that might make a section, or even a spinout article. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/soft delete. Fails GNG. At best soft delete through redirect to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia per Jclemens above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Merge to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia as that appears to be an appropriate target for this. I am not certain about the value of a merge, but I would not be opposed to that either if the consensus points in that direction. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If we redirect this without merging any content then people will end up at an article that does not discuss Grilled Charlie or even mention it. It would be better to be a red link than to go somewhere without any information. ~ GB fan 14:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point, and I partially agree with you. Grilled Charlie probably should be mentioned in a short sentence in the article for the reasons you mention. However, I do not believe it should be shown as a red link as that would encourage someone to remake the article, since if this AfD reaches a consensus to merge, then the article would not have passed the notability standards and should not be recreated (unless for some reason, this subject receives more attention in the future). While reading WP:RED, red links are defined as "useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable" and I am not certain if the red link would be appropriate in this context. Otherwise, I agree with you, and I have struck out my redirect vote to just have merge. Thank you again for your response, and I apologize for my super lengthy response lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 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) 03:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is in-universe nonsense. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Power~enwiki that this is in-universe nonsense, but more important is that it has no coverage, failing WP:GNG. No redirect is indicated, for one because it is an orphan article, and two because its role in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is miniscule, not even worth mentioning. --Bejnar (talk) 02:52, 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links between Trump associates and Russian officials[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources that publish similar lists, which is required to establish "Notability". While there are investigations into possible collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials, as explained in the sources used, the topic is too broad and hence "Original research." Its effect is to attempt to prove that collusion exists by listing every contact Trump associates have had with Russian officials. When Trump organized the Miss Universe contest in Russia, all the organizers and contestants who traveled to Russia would have had their passports stamped by Russian officials upon entry, meeting the criteria of a link between a Trump associate and a Russian official. So the article violates "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion".

I anticipate that some editors will reply, "We are not advocating anything. We are putting out the facts and letting the readers decide for themselves." In that case it violates "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."

TFD (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is a fork from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. None of the material is new, and the organization and presentation of the material are not new. It is simply a couple of sections spun off from another article that had gotten too big. TFD seems to be objecting to a motivation he attributes to its creators, an "attempt to prove that collusion exists", which displays his political feelings but does not provide any policy-based reason to delete the article. Anyhow, if the article is determined to be an inappropriate subject, the material should simply be restored to the article it was spun off from, where it has been without objection for a long time. --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is synthesis and/or original research. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stories about the Trump team's contacts with Russia have been ongoing, probably starting when Carter Page was fired last September. These contacts have had other real-life consequences, including the dismissal of Michael Flynn, and the recusal of Jeff Sessions from the investigation. It's unknown if these contacts were related to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or something else, so I agree with the recent forking. ^Falling_Gravity 04:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding "there are no reliable sources that publish similar lists": Actually there are many reliable sources publishing exactly such lists. USA Today, February; Wall Street Journal, March; The Guardian, March; US News, April; CNN, May. This is not original research or synthesis; rather, this exact subject has been covered by multiple reliable sources over a period of many months. The very definition of the General Notability Guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not the same. The U.S. News (actually an AP article) lists 5 "top and former aides have received unwanted attention." It does not mention any Russian connections for the first two. CNN lists Trump associates who are part of the "Trump-Russia saga," but that includes people who have not met officials or even Russians per se. None of these lists have the same criteria for inclusion or the same names. You are leaving it to the editorial judgment of editors which turns it into advocacy rather than neutral editing. That of course is allowed for sources, but not for editors, per "No original research." As it stands, your criteria allow for the inclusion of Miss Universe organizers and contestants. TFD (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - - So, yes, there are many reliable sources using the exact same phrase as the title of this article. Sagecandor (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you really don't think the subject is WP:NOTABLE, you should google "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials". Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable (do we really need to provide links?) and whilst it is fork it is needed to keep other articles to a manageable length.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the way this happened was unwise and uncollegial, it's a very notable subject and reliably sourced. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a valid spinoff from the very long main article. It's clearly a notable topic and has reliable sourcing. Any concerns about neutrality and sourcing should be taken up on the talk page, not AFD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:SPINOFF. Notable topic in its own right. Per coverage in thousands of sources. Sagecandor (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sagecandor. Ceosad (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think most attempted spin-off articles about Trump have been unjustified. But not this one: There is specific coverage in the mainstream press not just about individual links, but actually constructing a list of links. The best of them , not yet mentioned above, which exactly covers the material here is:

"The Trump-Russia Nexus" May 11, 2017 in The New York Times [33] DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There certainly exist lists in WP that are culled from multiple sources, e.g. List of Presidents of the United States. I don’t see how this is SYNTH as the article isn’t drawing conclusions based on multiple sources. IMO, this is certainly NOTABLE and RS. If it is deleted, warn me first so I can save it as I’ve been wondering about this very subject. Objective3000 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This looks like original research as well as an attack page to me. Moreover, since there is an ongoing investigation, nothing has been proven, so it looks like fake news derived from guilt by association. We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloidy blog.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what fake news is. Sagecandor (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources verbatim for "Trump-Russia links" at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Sagecandor (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MelanieN and DGG and Sagecandor above have shown that reliable sources have indeed published similar lists, which undermines the reasoning for the nomination to begin with. --Lockley (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the abundance of sources covering the subject. There is simply too much noteworthy information to cover in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.- Mr X 11:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Despite my political views being right of center, I believe this is far more than notable enough to not be merged with Donald Trump-Russia dossier. Furthermore, if it gets proven false, it will still be notable due to all of the controversy. Jdcomix (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's sourced excellently. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can say this is a keeper, can we have a close now?Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's not a WP:SNOW situation since there are multiple "delete" votes. The discussion has only been open 24 hours. It won't hurt to wait, there's no hurry. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MelanieN, no hurry. The longer it stays open, hopefully, the stronger the end outcome consensus would be. Sagecandor (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The detailed list of contacts between Trump associates and Russians was drowning out the main article on Russian interference. Replacing them by a WP:SUMMARY was the right thing to do. (Full disclosure: I did it, with help from Sagecandor, and I proudly ate my trout.) — JFG ^talk 17:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is the lead story on the news almost every day. Easily passes WP:GNG, no questions asked. Can we close this already and stop wasting everybody's time? Smartyllama (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- as with every major scandal invloving the US President, it should be in Wiki. Deleting it by nonobjective Trump supporters would be the equivalent of HRC supporters wanting to delete the email scandal entry or the Lewinsky scandal. Archway (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Archwayh is currently topic-banned from American politics.[34] Politrukki (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep this focused on the article, not the motive of other editors.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, not sure why there is a different article for this. It seems to me that they both cover the same topics, and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is a broader topic, so can cover more information there. Seagull123 Φ 19:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because that article is not about issues unrelated to Russia's interference in the election. This is not just about the Russian interference, but a wider issue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a valid split at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because the topic has received extensive coverage and relevance within the context of the Russia investigations, but I'm still not sure this deserves its own article. It seems like it could easily be covered at both Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (since most of these Trump associates were involved only or mostly at campaign level). Nevertheless, the article seems in a decent enough shape with room for improvement, but I'd suggest revisiting this nomination in some months. Maybe later this will be a good Merging candidate. κατάστασ η 03:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A source that I haven't seen brought up here is The Washington Post's analysis of this subject. Though the WaPo uses "ties to" instead of "links between," it seems pretty clear that there are numerous reliable sources documenting the connections discussed in this article. Deletion based on WP:OR therefore does not make sense. Rocio Nadat 19:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate sub-page of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I am not sure how the nominator could describe this subject as non-notable and poorly sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel the need to pile on here. This subject is excellently sourced, widely internationally reported, and of public interest. Our job is to deliver the facts, and any doubt about the truthfulness of the allegations is not solved by us. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Floate[edit]

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

I’m not convinced of the notability of this article, created about six weeks ago. The subject was convicted of violating the Computer Misuse Act when he was fifteen. He got a suspended sentence (no jail time) and was required to perform community service. Seems small potatoes; more newsworthy than notability.

The edit history shows more than a little schadenfreude, with even legitimate edits having taunting edit summaries (e.g., “hey Charlie ;)”). Editors have been synthing in “child pornography” when the actual charge seems the somewhat lighter “prohibited images” (and according to the subject, relates to a picture of his former girlfriend). I’m all for articles on notable individuals, but this seems more like a piling-on of a kid who made some mistakes than actual encyclopedic content. TJRC (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E Power~enwiki (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. I also reported the image as a copyright violation. Possibly collusion with single purpose DavidS321 uploader account ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of lasting notability. --Lockley (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insignificant page with little to no relevant information. Even if protected, the sole reliable source is a link to a crime committed when this individual was a minor. Seems more like schadenfreude as mentioned above. AlexBayliss (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that we can call this one event. He pleaded guilty to hacking multiple major government agencies like the FBI and Home Office. That's some pretty serious hacking. 18 month suspended was likely due to plea deal. May be worth looking through the versions. Vandalism is not a reason to delete. We can protect the page instead. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Information from reliable sources should be included, in some form or another. Benjamin (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically WP:BLP1E for his arrest as a hacker, even though he performed multiple hacks, the coverage is based on his arrest/conviction. --Bejnar (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merge? Benjamin (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Mi-na[edit]

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

Article on not-notable person has been previously CSD'ed and immediately recreated. Recommend delete and salt. Chetsford (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 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 03:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources seem almost entirely in Korean, but the two linked in the article seem like reputable papers, and may have in-depth coverage. I think we could use an opinion from a Korean speaker. I do think there may be a celebrity-person with a similar name that may be generating extra hits, so approach this carefully. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:G5 by Explicit (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DZZG[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON Meatsgains (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bertrand101. GAB^gab 01:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5 and tagged as such. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mega64. I'm leaving the history in place if anyone things there is something worth merging (pinging Premeditated Chaos for that). So Why 07:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Acosta[edit]

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

Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this individual. Some trivial mentions. The group is barely notable. Barely. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been updated with more sources that verify notability. Working with influencers of the game industry and being considered by variety as a noteworthy comedy troupe should fulfill parts of the notability requirements. JXZO (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references shown in the article demonstrate a substantial notability of the subject in and amongst the video game industry. The proposed deletion based on a lack of physical news sources (books, journals, newspapers) is an archaic criticism given that the subject's line of work and area of notability would pertain mostly to more modern sources of news such as internet tech and media websites. Those who consider this subject as barely notable would have failed to realize the importance of modern forms of news consumption especially in specialized/technologically-involved subjects of interest such as the area in which this person works.JohnA-editor (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing (or finding) enough to pass WP:ARTIST WP:ENT or WP:BASIC. Much of the article is about the group he is in. We already have an article about it. Many of the references are unacceptable for showing his notability (IMDB, blogs, his own company's web pages, etc). Some sources don't mention him at all, and other just mention him in passing. https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2016/04/20/the-main-limitation-on-gaming-is-no-longer-technological-its-budgetary/#7da15f99444f for example, is both a blog and something that only mentions him in passing. It's not even about Mega64. It just happens to mention one of their videos because it ties in with the topic of the blog. Where are the independent, reliable sources about him? Meters (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep. Not only do the sources indicate accomplishments beyond Acosta's primary comedy group, but I'm sure that him heading multiple accomplished video production companies and being featured in multiple tv and journal shows/interviews is enough to establish that the article contains a notable subject with importance in his field. Some work could be done on providing more in-depth discussion specifically about the subject of this article since some of the sources contain him only in passing as said above, but I don't think that warrants deletion as much as it warrants more time for editing/maintenance to provide more useful information, after all that's the purpose of Wikipedia. This article hasn't been up long enough to claim it should be deleted when there is enough information in it already to establish enough notability beyond the average actor/comedian. JohnA-editor (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC) – Editor is a SPA whose only contributions have been to create this article, and participate in this AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we selectively (very selectively) merge and redirect to Mega64? We do that with band members to their bands, so I don't think it's unreasonable to do here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect is certainly appropriate. In fact, this article was a redirect until recently. Any deletion that has a viable redirect target should be redirected. I don't usually differentiate between the two unless there is material in an article that needs to be removed from the history, even if we will have a redirect later. In this case, though, I would say redirect, not merge. There is too much material in this article that is not pertinent to the target article. Acosta's activities outside of the group don't belong in the article about the group. Meters (talk) 21:29, 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:BLPCRIME. We have to be very careful about BLPs associated with criminal acts. Bearcat and TonyBallioni's arguments illuminate exactly why. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh Shenoy[edit]

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

dePRODed but the issues were not addressed. Concern was: No clear claims of outstanding significance or importance. Sources are not about the subject and would not support any claims to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the one who had de-prodded the page. My concern was:

Reason: This very subject might be notable for a murder case he was involved in: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43], I think you get the point. Those are some reputable sources. Maybe the article needs to be subjected to some good ol' fashioned fire and brimstone, but uncontroversial deletion I disagree with.

Maybe the article needs to be rewritten, or the subject needs to be changed to an article about the overall murder, but flat-out deletion feels like a bad idea. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete ~~keep,So far looks like it passes the GNG.~~ Per further looking and bearcat's explanation. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: although I am dubious of the might be notable, I think it is fair enough to allow the user who wishes to "fire and brimstone from scratch" to be given the opportunity to show willingness and "earn their stripes". After all the article may have potential, just not in its current state. (I shiver at mights, possibles, and potentials due to WP:CRYSTAL) Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the relevant policies and guidelines are WP:CRIME, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. First, there is no evidence of a conviction: BLPCRIME says that we should not include it in an article for a relatively unknown figure, which this man is. Next, it is very possible that this case has just been dropped since there is no evidence of anything else taking place, which would fit more in lines with the first section of WP:CRIME, which tells us to consider BLP1E. The alleged crime seems to be the only reason he would be notable, so BLP1E would normally have us not consider him notable. If he has been convicted, which I might add we don't have proof of, the second part of CRIME would apply. This man is not renowned or well known, so we can get rid of that prong. The second prong tells us to consider if this had a major impact: it was covered for six months in 2016, and there is no evidence of any coverage since. To me, it fails all the relevant policies and should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing claimed in the article as written constitutes a valid pass of either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG — and per WP:BLPCRIME an otherwise non-notable person does not clear the GNG bar for being alleged to have committed a crime. Wikipedia is one of the most widely read websites in the world, so an article can cause the subject harm if we're not hypervigilant about it — so one of the established rules flowing from that is that if a person wasn't already notable enough for an article independently of the crime allegation, and you thus have to rely on the crime coverage itself as the proof of notability per se, then we require a conviction and not a mere allegation for an article to become appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 3D modeling. have added a note at the top there about 3d artists to justify the redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3D Artist[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. I also could not find any reliable sources for this. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The grounds for deletion seem bizarre: there's lots of material about 3D computer art and its creators. The question is whether this duplicates existing articles and could be a redirect. There's obvious overlap with 3D modeling (which describes the process of constructing 3D models), and Digital art (which describes the fine art aspects of 3D digital imaging). There are sources on 3D artist as a job[44][45][46][47] but I'm not convinced we need a separate article. Wikipedia's coverage of digital art and computer graphics jobs could be improved, but making this a redirect to an existing article, and improving that article, would be better than creating another stub. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is confusing. For decades, if not over a century, the term 3D artist meant an artist working in three-dimensional media - such as sculpture, installation, ceramics, woodworking, etc. Content from this article should be merged with Digital art or 3d modeling, or perhaps it should be renamed 3D computer art. Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Painter redirects to painting. If it redirects, it would be good if it says "3d artist" somewhere in the article. Mobygames recommends mapping the "3d artist" credit to "3d modeling". I have a few more refs for whatever happens. StrayBolt (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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