Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 November 6 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deberah Bringelson[edit]

Deberah Bringelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person. Many of the many references are complete nonsense; the first one only appears to support the claim that Orlando is in Florida and has nothing to do with the subject of the article. The claim of being elected to political office is not discussed in the body. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is overstuffed with 75 references, none of which appears to be a profile or feature story about her. Spotchecking sources on the page beings up brief mentions of her in her professional capacity as "CEO of Samceda, San Mateo's economic development agency", and similar. A gNews search on her name got one lonely hit, an opinion article she penned for the opinion article farm Forbes hosts for self-promoting business consultants, her byline there self-promotes her in her capacity as "CEO of Your Strategic Solutions." Fails WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with E.M.Gregory; a PR piece of trivial nature, which fails GNG; local news interest, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the page creator attempted to move this to draft space, but it was moved back by a different editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the original draft was copied directly to mainspace without any review on 13 October. I moved it back to Draft on the same day since the notability was very suspect and I formed the view that it would be speedily deleted in its current state. However it was later moved back into mainspace without review on 19 October by the author.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - despite attempts to help the author to establish notability, none has been demonstrated and searches reveal nothing else - the barrel appears to have been scraped. This still reads as a politicians hustings address and an advertisement. Despite all the references it fails WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We judge notability by the quality of sources present in the article, not the quantity — an article is not keepable just because it has 75 footnotes in it, if none of the footnotes represent reliable source coverage that's substantively about her (which is not the same thing as coverage that merely mentions her.) Nothing claimed in the article passes an automatic "must-include" criterion at all, and I'm especially unimpressed by the claim that she's one of the youngest people ever to hold political office in Illinois, when the article completely fails to actually explain what political office she ever actually held — so it's entirely impossible to even measure that claim against WP:NPOL at all. This looks for all the world like a direct conflict of interest, whether by Bringelson herself or by a paid-PR editor — but even if she does actually pass NPOL, which again hasn't been demonstrated, she still won't get to write the article herself or pad it out with PR bumf. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iyoki Station[edit]

Iyoki Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:V Rhadow (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Three seconds with Google satisifes WP:V including a category at Commons. The article does need referencing desperately, but that is something to be done in normal editing, not at AfD. The nominator is reminded that when it comes to V, for anything other than BLPs the article itself does not need to cite "this is a real thing", it only needs to have that proof exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V means that readers can verify the information, not that editors can verify the information.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The Bushranger, my Gooogle search, taking well over three seconds, did not turn up any reliable independent secondary sources in English. You have asserted there are plenty. Please add two ... as others have not done for the last nine years. Rhadow (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, that is not what I said and that is not how WP:V works. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that references do not have to be in English. That's not the point, I contend there is no Iyoki Station as no one has provided to the article an independent reliable citation in any language for nine years. Wikipedia and Wikimedia are not reliable sources. Rhadow (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...that is not how references work. As noted by Mjroots, sources do not have to be in the article to pass WP:V, and a third-party reliable source is not needed to pass WP:V. WP:N, yes, but "there are no sources in the article, therefore I conclude that it doesn't exist" is something that leaves me absolutely dumbfounded. Now, the lack of references would be something to open the 'are railway stations inherently notable' can of worms, and had you cited WP:GNG or WP:STATION in your nomination, it would have been a valid nomination. Instead you chose to cite WP:V, which, as the article has a photograph of the station that establishes it exists, makes it a case of speedy keep #3 applying. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube is not a reliable source.  Sources that are not in the article provide no verifiability, so finding them does not make the article verifiable.  WP:V#Notability is different in that it requires a third-party source be found for the topic of the article, but that source does not have to be cited.  WP:N does not require any sources.  Why you think the picture verifies anything is a mystery.  The picture has some Japanese characters at an angle, so maybe you read Japanese?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Bushranger Nightfury 08:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All railway stations are considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- All railway stations are considered to be notable. -- Where is this policy established? Rhadow (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus over many AfDs. That's how consensus is always established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The threshold of notability for transportation topics is generally extremely low; I have no doubt that this meets those standards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Notability is not a content guideline.  Content in the article does not define notability; and notability does not define content in the article, with an exception regarding certain lists.  See WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The first sentence of WP:V states, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete  The article fails WP:V (WP:DEL7 with IAR for the source search, and see also WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators).  Using AfD to source unsourced articles is a questionable use of editorial resources, since the article must be entirely rewritten.  This article might well be an exception, but no one so far seems interested in turning this into an article that satisfies our core content policies.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep − As far as I could tell from my search, 伊与喜駅 a.k.a. Iyoko Station, a.k.a. Ioko Station is notable. gidonb (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Verifiability is a core content policy, and as per WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "core content policies...are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus."  This deletion guideline further states, "Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions."  Unlike NPOV, which might have a grey area, this particular case is a bright line, as it unambiguously breaches verifiability policy.  Note that the deletion guideline further states, "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant."  Unscintillating (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Unscintillating -- You say, " Using AfD to source unsourced articles is a questionable use of editorial resources." I had looked WP:BEFORE with a reasonable amount of effort. Nothing found. Now we are getting claims of notability for a station spelled differently in English. What is the alternative, let these articles molder for another nine years? Rhadow (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the big picture, notability is a minor guideline blown out of proportion at AfD.  See also WP:RAILOUTCOMES.
    Core content policies are different.  We can hope that a closer will make a policy-based close, but I suspect that before that happens a closer will source the article instead of closing, rendering our delete arguments moot.  At that point, I can change my !vote to keep, and if that happens I think you should consider withdrawing your nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brookfield, Connecticut#Education. User:Kudpung's reply to User:AirportExpert pretty much sums it up. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huckleberry Hill School[edit]

Huckleberry Hill School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable elementary school. I tried redirecting this to Brookfield, Connecticut#Education per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (when it was at Huckleberry Hill School (Brookfield) before the article's creator did a copy/paste move) but was reverted by the creator, and I don't feel like getting into an edit war about the matter. It's to be hoped that a consensus for deletion or redirection here will convince him or her. Deor (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Deor (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or reinstate redirect. Nothing significant about this school has been covered by reliable sources. Fails notability per WP:ORG, GNG, and WP:N. Primary sources and coverage of routine maintenance do not indicate notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brookfield, Connecticut#Education as is our usual practice for non-notable primary schools. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand why this school is being targeted among all the Connecticut school stubs on the Category:Connecticut school stubs page. This article is much longer than these other articles, and includes many more references. This is exactly why I said earlier to allow me more time to finish working on the article and not remove the construction template, but that was not the case. If this article is deleted, then it seems that we must delete many more school-stub pages, since this one contains much more material, is larger and more notable than many others.
Another aspect I would like to point out, is that school notability is different than notability for let's say, a business. Schools are notable based on alumni (which are rarely listed on middle and elementary schools), academic and test score rankings, and significance within a community. I encourage everyone who will vote or has already voted to keep this in mind while reading this article, and then make a realistic decision as to whether or not this school is any more or less notable than the other schools currently listed on the Connecticut school stub category page.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
Schools are not notable based on alumni - notability is not inherited. Academic and test score rankings certainly do not add to notability - Wikipedia is neither a 'Best schools' site nor a popularity contest for any other topic. And AirportExpert, could you please remember to sign your posts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am just confused as to why this page should be deleted, when pages such as these belong under the Connecticut school stubs category. If what is being described here are reasons to delete a school-based article, then it seems as if every school listed under this category should be deleted.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
As WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES indicates, there has been an (unofficial) working procedure on Wikipedia with regard to schools: articles about verifiable secondary schools and colleges are usually kept, whereas articles about elementary and middle schools are redirected to their locales or school districts. If there are any of the latter in the stub category, it's probably because no one has noticed the articles yet. Deor (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This fate of this article is being determined on its own merits which has nothing to do with other articles. As noted above, other schools in this category probably have not been noticed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doruk Erkan[edit]

Doruk Erkan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with no external references Rathfelder (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't pass WP:PROFESSOR, and a few trivial mentions doesn't pass WP:GNG. He has a few decent citation counts, but none are for anything solely written by him. Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is outdated, he's been made an associate professor [1]. That's still a very good sign that he's not notable, especially in medicine. I don't see anything here that would get him in past PROF, and the GNG isn't met, and even if it was it should be considered subordinate to PROF in the overwhelming majority of cases involving academics. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. nom withdraw (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 23:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Epstein[edit]

Arnold Epstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP without external references Rathfelder (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Assuming by "external references" you mean sources independent of the subject, as far as I'm aware there's no requirement that all BLPs include them. The references in the article are reliable sources for the information they're supporting, and a Google Scholar search turns up several thousand more independent sources that could be used to expand this stub. That citation record and, as Tony says, his position at Harvard is a clear pass of WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - clearly meets WP:PROF as a named chair (already pointed out by TonyBallioni), and as Captain Raju has pointed out his citation count is more than adequate to pass WP:NSCHOLAR. This isn't even close. Onel5969 TT me 21:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Einesman[edit]

Fred Einesman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP lacking references Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:KalamazooGuy has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are things here that could be potentially valid notability claims if he were properly sourced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage for them to clear WP:GNG, but there's nothing here that makes him an automatic must-include just because he exists. And I'm not finding any strong evidence that he's been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG, either. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per bearcat Fails WP:GNG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 21:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Eckel[edit]

Robert H. Eckel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with no external references Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an endowed chair at a research university, he is a clear pass of PROF and since the subject is in the United States, the odds of not being able to find reliable sourcing for him are approximately zero. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 20:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 20:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 20:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to withdraw. Even eminent people have to comply with the BLP policy. Rathfelder (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As noted, evidence that the organization exists is not enough to justify an article. I'll not salt yet but if it is recreated without some independent reliable sources it's a prime candidate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Lambda[edit]

Delta Lambda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no independent sources, and article keeps getting over-written by a version with no sources. Appears to fail all appropriate notability guidelines, and just an attempt to promote. KylieTastic (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've worked on pages for a lot of Greek Letter Organizations including the Philippines and I've come up empty. not even any google hit on the University of the East website: ue.edu.ph.Naraht (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete Prior to this discussion, the page "Delta Lambda" was up and running fine without much prior or third party information available. Through my own means I was able to contact a benefactor of Delta Lambda in the Philippines that wished I carried on the baton here in the United States. This was months ago. The organization is legitimate and is now a legitimate organization in the United States. I assure you, this is a newly established organization, but not one that shouldn't be given a chance to remain on wikipedia. The page prior to this was far less developed, with far less sources than beforehand, and it would be a shame to see this page deleted in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beexj (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — Beexj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Naraht Don't Delete this Page I can vouch for the legitimacy of this organization as I had a colleague in my law firm in NYC that was a prominent member of DELTA LAMBDA for some time in the early eighties. He told me how this organization formed him into the lawyer/ attorney he is today, graduating from University of East, NCR. Those practicing law find the United States a great breeding ground for law professions given their first language is English. Those with the background from the Philippines find migrating to America to be a smooth transition for living, and practicing their careers. These bridges also make the immigration and naturalization process much easier. DELTANs are some of the most compassionate people when it comes to relationships and friendships too. Thank you for hearing my testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpicyTiger (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — SpicyTiger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Personal testimony has zero value here even from accounts with long positive historical use, so a new account coming to give this would have less relevance, if that was possible. But to counter the argument it's a new proto-organisation with a webite (blogspot) that appears to be only created today. Wikipedia is not for promotion of aspirations. KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– KylieTastic Can you tell me why the old page stayed up so long without any other credibility? The page was mostly untouched, only now is it receiving such scrutiny. I understand the organization has been dormant for some time but only when new life is being breathed into it is it questioned for deletion. This is upsetting. JJII (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Beexj there are 5.5 million articles so yes many with 'issues' go undetected even if its a low percentage. Many of the older articles get a bit of leniency on policy as they have existed for a long while, although they should not. However, just because the old version was around for a long term without showing notability gives no help to the current situation. The reason it now has scrutiny is because it has been changed fundamentally, or more to the point your edits changed the article in ways that were noticed by both the humans and the automated systems, thus bringing attention to its issues. KylieTastic (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
– KylieTastic Thank you for explaining that. I hope you can see my efforts through as this is a real organization and I'm trying to comply with the rules. I'm starting to feel defeated though since everyone is trying to disprove the existence of this organization. Lack of concrete sources is getting to me though, they will be available soon. I just wish we could have worked through the rough patches before putting the page up for deletion. JJII (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beexj fails to understand that the criterion here is not whether the organization is "real" ("legitimate"), but notable. Which it is not. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello all,J. Johnson (JJ)KylieTasticShawn in MontrealNaraht JJ I do understand the criteria needed, only I cannot prove the pure notability of this organization until relevant notable sources are produced. Thank you all for the discussion regarding this page, I will be back with notable information once it is made readily available to me. I'm determined to keep this page up, even if it's laid to rest for some time. I look forward to future discussions with you all. Thank you. JJII (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ: it appears that you do not understand the criteria needed. (Which I explained at here.) In the first place, you are still getting your terms mixed up. E.g.: "notable" does not apply to the sources, or even information; it applies to the topic. Second, notability – do read WP:Notability – means that the topic has gained a certain amount of "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". There are several aspects of "significant"; you might note that "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" are explicitly excluded.
Finally: that you do not have reliable sources to show any significant attention by the world at large is a demonstration of non-notability. The issue is not in having "notable information" made available; the issue is that whatever attention Delta Lambda has gotten in "the world at large" is so minimal even you can't find it. That, despite that, you are "determined to keep this page up", and your lack of any other editing, indicates that you are "not here" for the encyclopedia, but only for this article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
±J. Johnson (JJ) I appreciate your ambition towards this topic. This is a new organization based on old style ideals. I'm trying to prove that via the Wikipedia page, but the connections are vague because they are connections I have reestablished. The "connections" are vague, and therefore difficult to prove. And I've lacked other editing because I don't have the tools to keep posting updates to the page until I have sources readily available. If I could pull sources that are of influence to the club, I could use those, but still the connections between those sources and my new organization would be unclear. I am looking forward to updating the page for the sake of the encyclopedia, and it's upsetting you would think otherwise. I have been on these talk pages for the last week discussing validity and notability with KylieTastic and Naraht. And as far as my terms, I may have overlapped the meanings of legitimacy and notability but I think my point shines through. I suppose I would have to assume that any new organization, even when tied to an old one is difficult to broadcast on Wikipedia, and that's understandable. I just thought if I could connect it to old style ideals it would prove its legitimacy and therefore, it's notability. I suppose that isn't the case based on these inquiries.JJII (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your "point" (whatever it is) does NOT "shine through". What does shine through is that you do not understand the basic concepts here, and that trying to explain them seems futile. It doesn't take a crystal ball to anticipate how this is going to turn out, including frustration on your part because you don't understand why. I'm afraid there is not much any of us can do about that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A comment which (like your previous comment) does nothing to save this article from deletion. What you seem to have not yet learned in your two-day old WP career is that competence is required. Nor is incivility a useful substitute. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
J. Johnson (JJ) your attempt at being a deep intellectual is failing, as you seem to be unable to formulate a simple sentence with grammatical structure. I suggest going back to university and taking a basic english and or sentence structure class, as it could do you well in a career on Wikipedia. Cheers SpicyTiger (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only warning to all parties. Knock it off, be civil. We're discussing an article about Delta Lambda, no critiquing each other's grammar. Primefac (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The old version at Special:Diff/766064642 appears to be about an entirely different thing than the current version, and is entirely unreferenced. The group at Michigan State is not verifiable either and isn't at [2] (a separate Delta Lambda Phi does exist); the blogspot blog isn't a reliable source and I believe it may be a WP:HOAX created by a participant in this AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect. Delete per WP:TOOSOON (and I'm using understatement) and protect per edit history and pressure at this AfD. gidonb (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus here is to keep the article, but to seriously consider renaming the page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-Canadian cities with a Canadian namesake[edit]

List of non-Canadian cities with a Canadian namesake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of places in other countries which happen to have a namesake in Canada, without regard to whether either place was named for the other or not. Richmond, British Columbia was not, for instance, named after Richmond, New South Wales or vice versa -- they merely happen, through different processes of relevance to Canada and Australia, to both be named for the same historical person. And neither are Kinmundy, Alberta and Kinmundy, Illinois relevant to each other just because they were both named after the same third place in Scotland, nor do Warsaw, Ontario and Warsaw, New York have a defining connection to each other just because they were both named after the one in Poland. Certainly some places in this list had the Canadian settlement directly named after them, which might be legitimate to note in a very different list than this one, but we don't need a list of every single place name in any world country that merely happens to also exist in Canada for completely independent reasons. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some entries on the list are indeed correct, such as Bruxelles, Manitoba being the namesake of Brussels. But many other entries--probably most--are inaccurate or not supported by the sources cited. Hull, Quebec may or may not be the namesake of Kingston upon Hull; the source cited to support this does not even mention Kingston upon Hull. As well, many entries are sourced by the Geographical Names Data Base (GNIS), which contains no information about the history of the places it lists (so how can GNIS support that this place is named after that place)? The article also lists a number of Canadian cities which are the namesake of some non-Canadian "place" that is not even a city, such as Waterloo, Ontario being the namesake of the Battle of Waterloo, and Grimsthorpe, Ontario (an redirect with no article) being the namesake of Grimsthorpe Castle. This article as it is, is misleading and of little use to Wikipedia readers. Delete (and save to a draft if requested). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia677 (talk • contribs)
Keep The objections to the entries on the list are all mistaken. Most of the entries on the list are supported by the reference cited in the "notes" column. There are some do not have a citation; those are supported by the Wiki page for the Canadian city. Now many of the citations just take you to the Googlebooks page for the book and it's up to the user to type the name of the city in the search field to find the actual cite. This was done in an effort to keep the total number of citations for this page to a resonable number. If every cite took you to the exact page, there would be several hundred citations for this list. If someone thinks that's desirable, I can do that. But it's not a reason to delete the page. OK, let's take the specific objections in order:
  • Richmond, BC -- cite is British Columbia Place Names. Direct link: Richmond Googlebooks won't let me copy the page, but it says that someone's daughter named it after her favorite place in Australia and this pre-dates someone else's claim that it's named after a place in England.
  • Kinmundy, Alberta -- cite is Community Place Names of Alberta. Direct link: Kinmundy Again it won't let me copy and paste, but it does in fact say it was named for Kinmundy, Illinois, the hometown of the first postmaster. Kinmundy, IL was named for the Scottish place, but that's irrelevant to this list.
  • Warsaw, Ontario -- cite is Place names of Ontario. While Googlebooks has this book, all it has is snippetview. Unfortunately doing a search does not turn up the entry for Warsaw (the search function on Googlebooks is flakey at times and this is one of them.) I did not use Googlebooks, but rather checked the book out from the library. If I put it in the list, then the book actually says it was named for the place in New York and not the city in Poland. You'll have to take my word for it or check the book out of the library yourself.
  • Hull, Quebec -- The cite given says "Hull Township got its name from the city of Hull in Yorkshire, Eng. ". Ok. so where is Hull, Yorkshire? Go to the page for Hull, Yorkshire and you'll find it redirects to Kingston upon Hull and the first thing it says after the pronunciation is "usually abbreviated to Hull".
  • Cites to GNIS -- GNIS is a resource for USA places; this page uses the Canadian equivalent. However, it only uses them to establish that the place in Canada actually exists, not that it's named for another city. That's because not all places in Canada have their own Wikipage. All those with cites to this database also have an additional cite in the "notes" column that establishes that it was named for the non-Canadian city.
  • Places named after non-cities, i.e. castles. If you read the lede, it says that " the namesakes are places (cities, towns, villages) in Canada that are named for a city, town, village, or institution such as a castle or country house in some other country." (emphasis added) OK, that part is not in the page's title, but there's only so much you can put in a title before it gets too unwieldy. Perhaps the title needs to be modified. If you think so, please make a suggestion as to what it should be. But it's not a reason to throw out the whole page.
  • Places named for battles such as Waterloo: These are indirect namings. The city in Ontario was named for the battle but the battle was named for the town it was fought at. I see no reason to object to these. (And if we do remove them, at some future time someone else will come along and add them. You can pretty much bet on that.)
I felt this was a useful addition to Wikipedia. If I didn't, I wouldn't have expended all the time and effort to compile it.
Dtilque (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Just to note:
Waterloo, Belgium is of course a city, and the Battle of Waterloo is named after the city.
Grimsthorpe is a village in England after which Grimsthorpe Castle is named.
I think the page is useful. Even if a few of entries need to be amended or deleted later, or need better citations, the great majority of them seem to be valid, so there seems to be no reason to delete the whole page. Green Wyvern (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Keep This list is actually interesting; and there is no point in deleting articles which may need to be recreated some time in the future. Impressively intensive. And very well-sourced. Claverhouse (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We keep or delete stuff based on whether or not the content is encyclopedic, not whether or not the content is interesting to somebody. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Claverhouse. Some of us find the page interesting and useful, so what purpose is served in deleting it?Jamesdowallen (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We keep or delete stuff based on whether or not the content is encyclopedic, not whether or not the content is interesting to somebody. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be the Royal We ? encyclopedic is a very subjective term, however there is nothing in this article that could not have been included in print encyclopedias of the distant past. Claverhouse (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been suggested to me elsewhere that I change it to something very much like that, where the emphasis is on Canadian cities rather than cities in other countries. That would reduce some confusion about the list. It would require some work, since the tables would have to be reordered to put the Canadian cities first. It would also open the list up to more than one Canadian town per foreign city, but this would not result it a great expansion of the list. Unlike, for example the US, where there are a dozen or more places named after many large European cities and even several each named for certain more obscure places. I'm amenable to doing this, but I'm not going to make any changes to the list until this deletion issue is resolved. Dtilque (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intention for the title change to require a re-jigging of the list, just that the title should clarify that these are cities named after other cities, rather than simply cities sharing the same name. Perhaps something more along the lines of List of non-Canadian cities which have Canadian cities named after them--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep  WP:SK#3, "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question", or in this case the talk page of the article.  WP:BEFORE C3 states, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page".  This AfD has quickly turned into the author providing explanations to the nominator, that are proof that no attempt was made to discuss this BEFORE nomination.  Nor is there an argument for deletion, since "we don't need <this> list" is not to be found on policy-based WP:DEL-REASONs, so WP:SK#1 also applies.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Unscintillating. There is no real criterion for deletion put forth in the nomination. Ifnord (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1, nominator has withdrawn, all outstanding !votes are Keep. The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy E. Dunlap[edit]

Nancy E. Dunlap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP lacking external references Rathfelder (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dean of the University of Virginia School of Medicine. --RAN (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sorely needed an update (she ain't dean anymore), but I did some work on it, she appears to be notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Rathfelder: you've nominated a series of articles with this identical rationale; could you please clarify what you mean by "external references" and why you think lacking them is grounds for deletion? – Joe (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that the rules for living persons require some references which are not connected to the person themselves. WP:BLPPRIMARY for example. I'm not suggesting that this person is not notable, and indeed I have no reason to think any of the statements made about them are contested. But the rules about BLPs are there for very good reasons and they should be applied to respectable doctors and academics as much as to anyone else. A surprising number of the articles about physicians are extremely poor. I am only nominating the worst ones. Rathfelder (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you may be conflating primary sources with independent sources, which seems to be a common misunderstanding. Primary sources—things like public records and documents—are what WP:BLPPRIMARY covers. But as far as I'm aware there's no guideline that says BLPs must contain sources that are not connected to the subject (independent sources). The independence of sources is usually discussed with regard to notability, but they only have to exist, not be cited in the article. Just applying our common sense, there's no reason to think that a university website is an unreliable source for the details of an academic's career, simply because it is not an independent source. Therefore its perfectly acceptable (and routine) for short academic biographies to be sourced exclusively to institutional websites. As long as there are independent sources out there that could be used to expand the article in future (which is what WP:PROF helps us judge), I don't think it's a valid argument for deletion. – Joe (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having held a position of Dean isn't a slam-dunk under WP:PROF#C6, but it does count in that direction, I'd say. I did a little cleanup on the references (fixing linkrot, etc.). XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am quite happy to withdraw now the article has proper references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. just to clarify, I think our common practice is that Dean in the sense of a subordinate officer is not intrinsically notable, Dean as in head of a medical or law school usually is. Such schools are usually at least in the US essentially autonomous. One must look at the function, not at what happens to be the title of the position. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaylee Matuszak[edit]

Kaylee Matuszak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is only mentioned in passing in local sources thus, lacking significant coverage. Meatsgains (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has her music on iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, and CDBaby, among other retailers. Yes, mentioned only in local sources, but I don't see why she wouldn't be notable, as she is actively selling her music, streaming it, and performing it. User:Oneilno (talk) 3:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable WP:MUSICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete simply being on iTunes isn't enough to meet WP:GNG; I see a few local Duluth sources (the best one being [3]) but not enough to keep. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 19-yo folk singer lacks substantial coverage from independent reliable sources, offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Dawood Yaseen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mohammed Dawood Yaseen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with the last AfD, this footballer still has not received significant coverage or played in a fully professional league, meaning the article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per below sources, meets WP:GNG. Article needs improving to reflect that, though. GiantSnowman 20:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Beyond the sources in the article form the AFC (which is probably too close to the player to avoid being a primary source. The following sources seem to begin to indicate GNG in English language sources and given that I am not able to search Arabic language sources, I would assume from the below that there is also plenty on him in local sources:
  1. FIFA - would argue that FIFA are sufficiently far removed from the player not to be PRIMARY (although this is in the article as form the AFC, it seems quite clear it was an interview with FIFA)
  2. FourFourTwo - in depth article on the player
  3. The Hindu - article of medium length on the player specifically prior to the U17 world cup
  4. xtratime.in - article of medium length on the player specifically prior to the U17 world cup
  5. Indian Express - article of medium length on the player specifically during the U17 world cup
  6. sportstarlive.com - article of medium length on the player specifically during the U17 world cup
  7. ghanasoccernet.com - dedicated summary of the player's career to date
  8. Guardian - pen pic
Would be interested in the opinions of the editors above who have said he does not meet GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per good work by Fenix down.Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As nominator, per sources listed by Fenix down. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although some of the sources listed above are duplicative (e.g., the ghanasoccernet piece is a reprint of an article from the-afc.com) or nearly primary sources (AFC and FIFA - while not technically his employer, these organization are closely aligned with the Iraq FA - which is a member of both), it does appear that the GNG can be satisfied here. Jogurney (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fails WP:NFOOTY but that's irrelevant as subject passes WP:GNG. As Jogurney mentioned in the !vote above some of the citations are not the best but still enough, article needs expansion not deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With everything I see and that FIFA.com citation, article more than passes GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capital J[edit]

Capital J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No credible notability, lacks references from reliable sources. The one reference from the Toronto Star does not address the subject of this article. PKT(alk) 18:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indhuja[edit]

Indhuja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant reliable coverage. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City's Cash[edit]

City's Cash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and seems to focus more on Occupy London than the account, one of tree accounts used by the City of London. I found a grand total of *two* RS's mentiong the fund, which seems underwhelming. Kleuske (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the issue of how information became available is to do with Occupy London, but the fact that there is this account of £2.3bn, and is one of just three funds available to the City of London makes it very notable. Leutha (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I bet most financial centres have funds available the public knows little to nothing about. Kleuske (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG as there are many more than two sources out there. Andrew D. (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability seems clear; plenty of scope for expansion. --Mervyn (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MTY Food Group#Groupe Valentine Inc.. What content to be merged into the existing section can be determined outside of AFD. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine (restaurant)[edit]

Valentine (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable small chain; references seem to only discuss it in context of being acquired by another firm, but redirect was reverted. Inappropriate content: absurdly trivial menu in both infobox and text, and trivial news event--possibly because there was no other possible content at all. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP, despite what previous user states, only from a united states-centric point of view is the chain non-notable. The chain has a hundred or so locations, as stated in in article, all in eastern canada, and while not necessarily known to non residents of said area, the chain is very popular and rather ubiquitous. References have been added, and the chain itself has notoriety from having started off as a single restaurant in rural quebec to a large chain now part of MTY group, one of the largest franchisor in Canada. While previous comment might find the chain trivial (undoubtedly due to lack of local knowledge and interest in local chain, which might explain why everything is "trivial" for said user), there is at least one newspaper article discussing the chain, as cited in the article, which makes it much less trivial than several hundred thousand wiki pages which discuss a topic not cited once, yet still deserve attention to be improved. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide knowledge and removing all articles that a single user without interest in a specific topic suggests for deletion is not realistic. This is not a chip stand at the corner of a street, this is a large chain 1/4 the size of white castle covering an area 1/16th the size of white castle's footprint.Dread Specter (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes, MY
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete Tudor's Biscuit World with it. There is no reason a West Virginia chain should get an article and those who live in the thirteen northern states don't. Tim Hortons isn't even Canadian anymore. We like articles that celebrate putain and curling, eh? To those who say there is no press coverage, of course there is. It's written in French. Rhadow (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
where is? It would help to add it to the article. (that is, substantial coverage, not routine reviews or notices about a store opening.) DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
French press added, DGG, okay? Rhadow (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a 150 word brief promotional notice, the second a 50 word paragraph introduced a video advertisement they made of themselves. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG -- No, it's not Pulitzer material, but it shouldn't inspire such undeserved scorn. It is independent. Infopresse is the analog of Adweek. Valentine paid to make the TV ads. That's legitimate; whether it is routine is another question. The other piece about 10,000 steps for a poutine is independent and ironic. Did you get bad service in a Valentine? Rhadow (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can not find any of the cited articles in the web or on wayback machine, but from the tiles it seems they deal with the chain only in context of its purchase by MTY. The two refs I can find are from the company itself, one direct, one on wayback. There are also two article in the Globe Mail about MTY acquisitions of food chains--both of which mentions this particular acquisition only as one of a list in a paragraph "MTY brands include: Mr. Sub, Country Style, Thai Express, Yogen Fruz, TCBY, Cultures, Tiki-Ming, Jugo Juice, Vanelli's, Tandori, KimChi, TacoTime, Sukiyaki, Koya, Sushi Shop, Vieux Duluth, Chick 'n Chick, Franx Supreme, La Crémière, Valentine, Croissant Plus, O'burger, Panini, Tutti-Frutti, Vie&Nam, Villa Madina, Koryo" [4] ; [5] claims of importance would seem to be based on ILIKEIT. I will certainly look at any other similar chains you mention--I've helped delete a number where the references don't amount to sayign more than it exists or once existed. And how is a section reading "==Products== French fries, hot dogs, hamburgers, poutine , club sandwich, hamburger steak, hot chicken sandwich ,smoked meat, chicken burger, chicken strips and breakfast items. " encyclopedic content? .(Some other trival or promotional contentthat I tried to delete has been restored also. At this point, it might qualify for G11. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very probably a few dozen at least in the US also; experience has been that they ted to very difficult to remove from WP, because they depend on pr and reputation: they tend to make sure they get a good deal of trivial press, and when they brought here, tend to encounter iLIKEIT.
I wouldn't object at all to an approach that considered several at a time, but of course they each have to be considered individually, because probably in a group of 10, 1 or 2 will have something substantial for notability. The same goes for many other classes of promotionalism.
More practically,we need to remove promotional material more systematically from the articles we do have--I might not have really bothered with this article were it not for the promotional contents--I haver found it almost impossible to remove trivial menu contents from restaurant articles. I do not understand the indifference to this: I could understand an approach to promotion that just removed promotional content though an approach which removes the article also is a more effective way of keep such content out of WP, but I do not understand an approach that keeps such articles with content intact. Those trying to do that may not be writing promotionalism themselves, but they are encouraging it. Either they do not know what promotionalism is, or they actually think it belongs in an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operation XYZ (book)[edit]

Operation XYZ (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Book lacks significant coverage in reliable sources establishing notability and the page's current references are weak. Meatsgains (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article seems to be a promotion for the book. Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sources are really scraping the bottom of the barrel and suggest a serious lack of notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Referenced articles are more about the author than the book. I do not see evidence of notability for inclusion in them. All I see in this article is an attempt at promotion. -- Alexf(talk) 12:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Richter[edit]

Joey Richter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor whose main claim to notability appears to be semi-pro or non-pro University production. I am not very familiar with US sources, but those that are independent don't appear to qualify, or are dead. Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RBMedia[edit]

RBMedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing++ 18:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The references establish notability and pass WP:GNG. Also world's largest audiobook publishing company. -- GreenC 19:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RBMedia is an umbrella company that formed in 2017 through the acquisition of other independent companies. Some of those companies were notable and others not. The companies are now imprints or brands of RBMedia, it's all one company. So there has to be an umbrella article about the company that owns brands like Recorded Books and Tantor Media - but also an article to discuss brands that are not (yet) notable like Audiobooks.com and HighBridge. Thus an article on RBMedia serves this purpose. It's theoretically possible to merge Recorded Books and Tantor Media into RBMedia but I wouldn't recommend it at this time. These companies are of historical interest as discussed in the history section of audiobooks they were pioneering companies in the audiobook industry. -- GreenC 19:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to have sufficient significance and coverage. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep claims like "It claims to be the largest audiobook publisher in the world." are almost certainly puffery. However, if multiple of its imprints/acquired companies/merged companies are notable, this entity probably is as well. The references are largely of corporate acquisitions and not of any actual business. If a merge with Recorded Books is possible, that would be preferred. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond MVC[edit]

Diamond MVC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly non-notable software that I can find exactly zero coverage of in reliable sourcing. Article currently reads as a spam directory entry as well, making it fail both points of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The delete arguments (specifically JPL and Celestina007) are perfunctory and there is no real rebuttal to the assertions that the subject passes WP:AUTHOR. A Traintalk 19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bruce Ware[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Robert Bruce Ware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines for a person My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails primary notability requirements for inclusion into the encylopedia.Celestina007 (talk) 18:04, 05 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no where even close to meeting the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Slow down. The article as currently constructed is trash. It is a badly paraphrased version of this [6] with no critical thought. Ware is a published expert on central Asia (check Google Scholar). He's a TV guy [7]. He's a full professor now. His books sell on Amazon not just by obscure university presses. He is way more notable than a single-appearance cricket player. And more literate than Walid Phares. Rhadow (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking about his own page, this is basically a self-published or simply an unreliable source. As disclaimer tells, "The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by SIUE.". If something can be supported by other sources which qualify as RS, that something can be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:PROF#C1 is more adapted to paper-publishing academics than book-publishing ones. But with two books and an edited volume, all with multiple published reviews, I think he passes the lower bar of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I checked his ISI citation index ("Web of Science"), and it gives h-index of 3; his publications included in Web of Science (24 publications) were cited 30 times excluding self-citations. This is way too low. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, you are applying paper-publishing standards to a book-publishing academic. That doesn't work, and what you see is exactly what you would expect when you do this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I understand correctly, you refer to WP:PROF#C1 which reads as The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Yes, he published a few books, and each of them was cited several times in reviews, such as that one. OK. But it does not seem "widely cited" to me. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure why you are failing to understand what David Eppstein is saying. The subject is not a scientist, so shouldn't be judged on metrics applicable to scientists such as citations in the Web of Science. A book review is an article completely about the book author's work, so can't be compared to a citation to a particular finding in a journal article about something else. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a scientist? Oh no, he is most certainly a scientist, he published in scientific journals, and his work therefore included in "Web of Science" database. My very best wishes (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our article describes him as a philosopher, and one might imagine that at this point he is also more of a historian. Neither of those things is generally classified among the sciences. Which of the journals that he publishes in do you think is a science journal? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must note that there is a reliable secondary source saying that the subject is a leading specialist on Dagestan, but the nominator has repeatedly removed both the source and the statement from the article. How can we have a proper discussion about notability when one of the participants is removing reliable sourced content? This is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour rather than an attempt to reach consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do I get the idea that you have a verdict, and you're just waiting for your jury to come tell us what you want to hear? This guy is a professor of the humanities. He writes papers and books. If the New York Times would review one of his books, that would be, like, a thousand citations of a research paper on cancer. But he doesn't write about cancer. He writes about Dagestan. PBS News interviews him about that. Truth-out says he served as an advisor to the US State Department from 1999 to 2007. I have no idea who Truth-out is. He publishes in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies. How many citations do you think he will get? He wrote Ethnic parity and democratic pluralism in Dagestan: A consociational approach, 47 cited him. Not bad in that field. In the fifty years since Henry Kissinger wrote The troubled partnership: a re-appraisal of the Atlantic alliance, it has been cited only 350 times ... and he taught at Harvard and headed the State Department.
    If the standard for academics is the Nobel and the standard for a writer is the Man Booker, then the equivalent standard for athletes would be a world championship or the Olympic gold. That, however, is not our standard. We recognize anyone who has made a professional appearance. When PBS Newshour interviews you for four and a half minutes, you've made a professional appearance [8]. Quit being such snobs. Rhadow (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PROF#C1 tells "widely cited". There are certain standards what is called "widely cited" in the scientific community. There are various resources and indexes, such as Science Citation Index and h-index. These resources and indexes usually do not make distinction between citations of books, reviews and original scientific articles (all count the same). They also do not make distinction if the citing paper was in Nature, JACS, or any other journal included in citation database. Based on these widely accepted indexes, that author has very low citation. This is all. If you want to check indexes other than Science Citation Index (and h-index it provides), that's fine. Please do, with supporting links. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also has a very low vote count in the last US presidential election, not enough to pass WP:NPOL. Why do you think this is relevant? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with David that the multiple reviews of his books passes WP:AUTHOR/WP:PROF, and that citation metrics are not a reliable way of gauging the notability of humanities scholars. – Joe (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We keep academics who have written multiple books each of which has gotten multiple multiple, thoughtful reviews in multiple, respected academic journals. We keep them. We just do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think that would be consistent with WP guidelines. I am looking, for example, at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). #1 tells about high citation and Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. #4 tells: Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education. This is not the case. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see your point. However, there is also WP:AUTHOR, which is routinely passed with three book reviews of at least one book in reliable, secondary sources such as an academic journal or general circulation newspaper. It is often used instead of WP:PROFESSOR with with academics in the humanities and social sciences. I am not saying that his books are reliable, or good or anything else about them - I do not know his work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not know about the "three book reviews of at least one book" rule. Was it written in guidelines? If not, that must be written in WP:AUTHOR. If I knew, I would never nominated this page for deletion. However, honestly, I think that "three book reviews of at least one book" is a very low cutoff. One can only guess how many pages about hardly notable researchers in humanities have been created and kept. My very best wishes (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It's an informal rule of thumb used by editors who regularly do WP:AUTHORS which, as you may or may not know, is an area where Wikipedia is swamped on a daily basis by self-published, wannabe writers self-promoting self-published novels and by non-notable writers of non-notable books of self-promotion in all fields . We need some kind of guideline, and this is the rule of thumb we use. You're right that it's a pretty low bar. I have wondered about that, too.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I had no idea. Was it a discussion or an RfC somewhere to establish such rule and use it per WP:Consensus? My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not. It's just a sort of consensus interpretation of WP:AUTHOR 4.c. I know it sounds strange, but that guideline reads "The person's work (or works) either... (c) has won significant critical attention" and this is a sort of way to operationalize that. And, in our defense, to deal with the daily avalanche of truly non-notable authors who create pages for themselves. Three independent full-length reviews in major daily papers, or academic journals. An unwritten rule. (I hope that you have seen Tom Cruise cross examine Noah Wylie in A Few Good Men, here:[9].)E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Addendum; to clarify. It is, as I stated, a sort of rule of thumb. Other arguments can certainly trump it, and no one states outright: Keep as per three review rule - or anything like that. It's just, I have been doing AUTHOR and minor academic AfDs pretty regularly for for 2-3 years, and, well, I can't remember an article being deleted when an author had a book that had gotten three solid reviews in well-known journals or newspapers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is bad. One must start a formal RfC or discussion and include such rule in official guideline if RfC succeeds. Then I would not waste my time here. But I'd like to hear what a closing administrator thinks about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC
The formal rule or guideline exists, and has already been pointed out to you. It is WP:AUTHOR. All such rules are interpreted as meaning something by the editors who apply them. EMG is merely describing to you EMG's interpretation of WP:AUTHOR, which is apparently consistent with how many other editors have been interpreting it. What is bad about that? We are not robots, nor should we be; the guidelines and policies guide our interpretations, but they are not and cannot be purely mechanical. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It tells: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.. Should someone simply with a couple of books mentioned in several reviews be regarded as "widely cited" or an "important figure"? I thought the obvious answer was "no". Actually, I am even surprised that reviews like that serve as a proof of notability. These guys/journals probably just review all recent books. This is not a scientific review of all literature in the field, where such citation would definitely count. This is like a peer review after the publication. Such book reviews frequently are not even included in "Web of Science" database. My very best wishes (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's only criterion #1 out of the four criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Arguably, it is supported by the claim in a source you pointed to yourself on the article talk page that Ware is "arguably America's leading authority on Dagestan". But the part of WP:AUTHOR that is more relevant to EMG's argument is 3, "the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and 4(c), "The person's work (or works)...has won significant critical attention". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, he was not "the primary subject" of publications here or elsewhere. Yes, his work was cited, among many others. This is all. Having a few reviews of books does not mean "significant critical attention". Like I said, he has h-index of 3, and his works were cited ~30 times according to "Web of Science" (probably more because it does not cover everything). So yes, he was cited. However, this is very low citation. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to misread WP:AUTHOR. It's not that long. Try harder. It doesn't require that Ware himself be the primary subject, but that his works be. His works (three books) are indeed the primary subject of multiple publications (the book reviews). And why on earth are you returning to this off-topic argument about citation counts? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read it. It tells:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
You are quoting only second phrase. It tells "In addition...". But I do not see any signs that the "person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Low citation index is the proof that whatever he published was not "well-known" or "significant". My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep as WP:AUTHOR; author / editor of multiple books with non-trivial reviews. Sample reviews:
  • Dagestan: Russian Hegemony and Islamic Resistance in the North Caucasus - By Robert Bruce Ware and Enver F. Kisriev. Zabyelina, Yuliya. Political Studies Review, Jan 01, 2012; Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 154. The article reviews the book "Dagestan: Russian Hegemony and Islamic Resistance in the... more
  • Caucasian problems and old Russian questions. Andrew Wachtel. Political Quarterly, Jan 01, 2014; Vol. 85, No. 1, p. 90-109. Reviews The Fire Below. How the Caucasus Shaped Russia, edited by Robert Bruce Ware. Bloomsbury. 360pp.
Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a typical "opinion piece" that does not explain anything. One can only guess that Evangelista criticizes B. Ware for misrepresenting genocide during Second Chechen War as a legitimate anti-terrorist operation. However, this is not really in the quoted source. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do have an article on Justin McCarthy (American historian), a genocide denier with footnotes, so bad history does not get your page deleted. However, I promise to return later and take a deep dive into the sources. One question would be whether the journals cited are reliable and independent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone was a genocide denier is completely irrelevant. Only notability of the person is relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There is a big POV problem here. User:My very best wishes, who argues for citation counts, dePRODs Simon Saradzhyan, a similar academic who is a research fellow, not professor, with substantially lower citation counts than Ware. Oh, and NO book reviews. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Rhadow (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I PRODed this page again. Now this is your responsibility to follow up. I simply do not have time, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to closing admin. Based on discussion here and elsewhere [10], the participants keep pages about academic researchers if they published at least a couple of books that have been reviewed, even without other indications of notability. Is it generally a good idea? Is it consistent with our guidelines? I understand that in the case of Ware there are additional indications of notability, such as his appearance (once) on TV and someone else calling him a "leading expert". My very best wishes (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation -- Not just once on TV. Not the most notable appearance, but another on Pravda.ru [11], and an interview by UPI [12].
Pravda.ru is actually "a link to avoid" (no one will listen to this heavy Russian accent). 2nd one is a good RS, although the content is terrifying (the subject justifies murder of moderate Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov as an "achievement"). But here is bottom line. Just look at the page. It is now well sourced and objective, thanks to David Eppstein! Should it be kept? Yes, if someone thinks that pages about all authors with multiple reviews of their books should be kept. But is it anywhere in AfD guidelines? No, this is only in the "common outcomes" that should not be used as a guideline. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 July Movement[edit]

AfDs for this article:
1 July Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally PRODed by me, it was converted, out of process by an inexperienced user using my signature, to a AfD which had to be procedurally closed as keep. Concern was: Small organisation recently created with the goal of founding a new political party. Translated from the French Wikipedia (where it is also PRODed) without attribution. Totally unsourced. Fails notability at WP:ORG. Let's do it properly this time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep major political party created by Benoît Hamon. For FI, it is a political party which considers itsef as a movement. It is possible that the movement won't change it name. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Panam2014, I see that you are a major oontributor to the article. According t this statement: The final name of the movement will be announced on December 2, 2017 at a national meeting. To this end, a questionnaire was sent to the activists on 22 October to choose the name and define the functioning of the future party., the organisation is not a political party. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it is a political movement but not a party or a simple political organization. The congress will took place in Deecember. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficiently covered in reliable sources: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], etc. Even if you didn't believe it's notable enough, why would we delete this rather than merge to Benoît Hamon? --Michig (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am in favor of keeping all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology. Our readers have a right to expect such things from a comprehensive encyclopedia. Moreover, this passes GNG, per the exhaustive list of sources provided by Michig above. Carrite (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep almost all political parties are kept; one in a major country started by a major political figure will definitely be notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Baba (franchise)[edit]

Ali Baba (franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We generally don't have articles for vanity franchises. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forty-five kebab stands? Not notable. No reliable secondary sources that discuss it that I could see. Rhadow (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not stands but brick and mortar shops. Aoziwe (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Including in prominent locations in Canberra at various times. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a long-standing and fairly prominent chain in Canberra, though it seems to have reduced its operations in the city over recent years. Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete at this point. I am surprised I could not find a lot on this franchise chain. It is I suggest relatively well known. The first of the following is a better reference I think. Aoziwe (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
# http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/best-ingredients-the-recipe-for-success-20120916-260pe.html
# https://www.goodfood.com.au/eat-out/the-taste-of-things-to-come--more-super-foods-step-up-to-the-plate-20130107-2cctt
# http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/managing/student-paid-just-330-an-hour-20110904-1jsdk.html
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London & Country Mortgages[edit]

London & Country Mortgages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion from a shill connected to a prolific sockmaster OfficialPankajPatidar. Non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of notability I can see. Rhadow (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORGCRITE as not having "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". AusLondonder (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete small firm with few press mention. No sustained significant coverage WP:CORPDEPTH.  — Ammarpad (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep, not speedy, but snowy. POV is no reason for deletion (nor is any POV proven), and as multiple editors point out, there are multiple reliable sources discussing the topic. If there are concerns about individual sources those can be addressed on the article talk page; same with POV concerns. I am closing per WP:SNOW since the unanimous opinions of a great number of seasoned editors points toward "keep", and there is no sense in wasting time. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology[edit]

AfDs for this article:
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be an attack article which does not have a NPOV. Looking at the sources, they are either blogs, no RS or do not support the text cited. There’s also the issue of notability, which does not appear to have been established. Looking at the recent editors and edit patterns, can it be said they they have a NPOV? Overall, this article does not belong in WP due to source issues, NPOV issues and notability issues. Tonyinman (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Before bringing an article to AfD we expect editors to do at least a cursory search for possible sources. Such a search using Google News immediately turned up 4 reliable sources discussing this organisation.[26], [27][28][29] These seem sufficient to establish the notability of the subject. They also seem to share the same pov as the article. {re|Tonyinman}}, given your accusations against editors of this article, presumably including me, you should have notified them. Most of them aren't active any more or only did technical edits. But I'll ping the ones that are still active and have edited in recent years. @Randykitty, Tokyogirl79, EdChem, and Headbomb:. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain which, of any of the sources on this page you consider to be reliable. Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficiently sourced (and more sources exist as per above) even after discounting the blogs that specialise in this company. As to NPOV, are there any RS that state the company is not what the article claims it to be? —Kusma (t·c) 13:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain which, of any of the sources on this page you consider to be reliable. Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)c) 18:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All of Doug Weller's sources are reliable, they just haven't been added to the article yet. —Kusma (t·
    Can you provide any examples of reliable sources cited in the article? Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Ottawa Citizen is a RS, and the waset-watch blog cited in the article is not a RS, but links to three RS discussing the article. —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the Ottawa Citizen is RS , however the article text which relies on a page from the Ottawa Citizen for the citation is not backed up by the content of the Ottowa Citizen page referenced. Tonyinman (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you started a deletion nomination, we are here to discuss whether we should have an article about the topic at all. If you want to suggest improvements to the article, please state your specific complaints on the talk page. —Kusma (t·c) 20:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is a non sequiter. I don't believe this interaction is constructive so I'm not responding further.Tonyinman (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly there is sufficient coverage, already by the sources listed in the article, to justify notability per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There are many other examples of nontrivial coverage, e.g. Times Higher Education[30], Japan Times[31], etc. There may be issues with neutrality of the language currently used in the article, but, at least at first reading, the statements appear to be well supported by the sources cited. The nominator has not mentioned the existence of any other published sources that present and discuss more positive info about the subject of the article. If such sources exist, or if there is some positive counter-info/counter-arguments regarding WASET present in the sources already cited, such sources/info could be added to the article. The proper place to address the issues of neutrality and the language being used is at the article talk page, not by deletion of an article on a notable topic of significant current interest. Nsk92 (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please give an example of any text on the page you consider to be neutral. Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please give me an example of statement you consider to be non-neutral, and why. In the cases where neutrality is disputed, the burden is on the disputer, to bring up a specific issue, not the other way around. Nsk92 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have given an example in the AFD. I cannot see any text in the article which is neutral, ie all the text in the article is non-neutral. Perhaps you could detail which text you believe is neutral and compliant with NPOV?? Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please humor us. Be more specific. Pick one specific sentence or a small paragraph as an example of something violating WP:NPOV and explain why you feel it violates WP:NPOV. Nsk92 (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note my edits have been civil. I trust yours will be too. In response to your request, the following text in the lede is cited using a personal blog (not RS) and the term was coined by the same person who wrote the blog, therefore not NPOV."The World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology or WASET is a predatory publisher[1]"
WP:NPOV doesn't say that the article has to be neutral. Our articles on Creationism and Evolution are not neutral, they make it clear that Creationism is pseudoscience and evolution real science. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice in your edit summary you've said "editor clearly doesn't understand our policies." Perhaps you could explain 'your' policies, and do you consider your edit summary an appropriate statement? Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, by our I meant Wikipedia's. Yes, you've brought an article to AfD without doing the work that you should have done first and you failed to show good faith concerning its editors. But I'm not going to get into an argument here, if you want to discuss NPOV for this article to it at the article's talk page. The article is going to be kept and it would show good will if you withdrew the nomination. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal comments will be ignored, thanks. I conducted a WP:Before and could not find RS sources to support the claims made in the article. Per Attack Pages, I still have concerns about this article.
  • Speedy keep It is as though this nomination is made without a thorough WP:BEFORE accessment. Celestina007 (talk) 18:30, 05 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Doug Weller and has sufficient coverage and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's multiple statements sourced to reliable sources all describing this organization as a prolific predatory publisher. I don't see any reason for this article to be deleted. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) Discussed in multiple prominent general-interest and specialist publications. It could stand a thorough edit of the prose, but that's not what AfD is for. XOR'easter (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources as detailed above, and even the blogs are of the kind permitted per WP:SPS. The nominator seems to have either failed to perform a proper WP:BEFORE, or has an axe to grind here. – Joe (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My edit history suggest otherwise. Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.
  • Comment. While I disagree with Tonyinman's criticism of the sources (they seem quite adequate to establish what the alleged journal actually is), do the NYTimes and Japan Times articles demonstrate a pre-existing notability, or create it? How is WASET more notable than the thousands of other predatory journals? Would we still keep the article if the POV was different? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the way we look at notability at WP, this is not a real distinction: reliable sources establish notability by writing about something. they may have a pre-existing importance in some manner, butthey only acquire notability for the purpose of wikipedia article if they are considered sufficient important to be written about . DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J. Johnson: WASET isn't a predatory journal, it's a publisher of predatory journals and has been accused of scamming by at least one university. And of course then there's the "conferences". Doug Weller talk 11:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But those sources, while clearly RS, don#t actually support the claims made in the lede of the article.
Here we are discussing deletion of the article. Concerns with content of the lede (or other parts of the article) should be taken up on the article talk page. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The WP:SNOW, it is falling in blizzard proportions. The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional military ranks[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional military ranks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Something like this is of zero encyclopedic value, it's completely impossible to maintain and distinguishing what would be a notable inclusion is near undoable. It's been unsourced since five years back now and I doubt it will improve. ★Trekker (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Really not sure what function this serves, totaly unsourced and OR (are they "fictional ranks" or real ranks used in fiction?) and with some sever undue issues.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources. Possibly OR. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Might be worthwhile in each specific series/book, might not, however collecting these does not seem to serve any purpose.Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per other commentators.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zip references. Might be relevant to individual series (and within such articles) but not here (this article). Cinderella157 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A "list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source"; clearly not the case here- fails WP:LISTN, WP:NOR, and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. — fortunavelut luna 13:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The best with this would seem to be splitting it down into genres and having each of those well sourced. We do manage to do this, with List of fictional aircraft, so I think the sourcing problems aren't insurmountable. But I can't see how a single list article like this can cover from Game of Thrones to Star Trek in one article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most the ranks listed are infact real ranks used in series like star trek, a better type of of article would be something like, Command structures in Star Trek etc etc, which would allow a more in depth look at the context. Dysklyver 14:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete INDISCRIMINATE does not apply and FANCRUFT is not a reason for deletion. However, this is OR that fails GNG, and that is. In general, these are not even fictional military ranks, but rather real world terms applied in interesting ways to fictional militaries. While the fictional military organizations might be notable, the lack of RS commentary on their rank structure renders our suppositions OR and demonstrates a lack of GNG. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:SKCRIT criteria #2 a0 and b), as an "obviously frivolous or vexatious nomination" and seemingly "made solely to provide a forum for disruption"- in this case, to make a WP:POINT. Suggest immediate swift and temporary sanction for nominator for deliberately wasting our time. See also an increasingly bizarre conversation here: apparently the purpose of this AfD is to challenge a previous closure... (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 13:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 July Movement[edit]

1 July Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

" Small organisation recently created witht he goal of founding a new political party. Translated from the French Wikipedia (where it is also PRODed) without attribution. Totally unsourced. Fails notability at WP:ORG. --Kudpung (talk) (UTC)"

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you brought this to AfD if you believe it should be kept? --Michig (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: because of this. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to this: The final name of the movement will be announced on December 2, 2017 at a national meeting. To this end, a questionnaire was sent to the activists on 22 October to choose the name and define the functioning of the future party, it is not yet a political party. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For FI, it is a political party which considers itsef as a movement. It is possible that the movement won't change it name. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aravinnd Iyer[edit]

Aravinnd Iyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minimal coverage in reliable sources. Almost everything in this article except filmography is unverifiable in secondary sources. —Guanaco 11:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia (record company)[edit]

Inertia (record company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America1000 09:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After excluding social media and mirror sites there was nothing left that I could find to support GNG at all. Aoziwe (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - despite impressive roster list, this is just international distribution for artists signed to other labels. Per nom and Aoziwe. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this in February, but apparently it was declined for a prior prod 10 years go. The article hasn't improved since and has major issues with WP:NOTABILITY as a minor fictional element with no real world significance. I don't think there is much here that would be even merge'able anywhere. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep I'm seeing plenty of coverage for this fictional element in online game reviews and similar independent sources. If it were just the boardgame, you might be right, but there appear to be entire games centered around this fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient material that a standalone article is justified. Artw (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. Original statement and timestamp:- The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) IM3847 (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC), has had to be re-closed owing to a formatting break with original closure. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 11:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S/s Helsingfors[edit]

S/s Helsingfors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not meet Notability guideliness as per WP:NN IM3847 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Unreferenced, fails WP:V, also little indication of notability per nom. Still, on second thought, this may be notable since it was involved in an accident that had fatalities. Maybe someone can find sources? My quick search only turned few things in Finnish that I am not fluent in :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 12:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Enough info found to satisfy V and GNG. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Excellent work by Jussi Karlgren and Mjroots has established this as a notable ship, and the article is now clear and comfortably formatted and referenced. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — As per above, the vessel has been established to be notable enough to warrant an individual article. Tupsumato (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dulam Satyanarayana[edit]

Dulam Satyanarayana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG .Subject is currently working on his debut feature fiction project and and has only done documentry film and a promotion film upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON not notable currently.A case of apparent paid editing as well. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too soon; fails GNG; COI issues Spiderone 22:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perharps nominator; Pharaoh of the Wizards, is angered at the alleged "Paid edting" perpetuated by article creator. Which really can be quite vexing, however, a WP:BEFORE shows that as per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:GOLDENRULE this article deserves a space on the encylopedia and to state otherwise is to deny that which is true.Celestina007 (talk) 20:32, 05 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is a documentary film maker and is only making his debut film in 2018 and best is only upcoming cannot see how he is notable at this point. His debut feature fiction project based on Telugu writer Dr. Kesava Reddy's novel for which even the actors have not been selected as of now and it is still in the planning stage.His documentary Welcome to Telangana is a 3 minute film and so is Make Movies and Celebrate’ promo film another 3 minute film which are really ad films done for the government of Teleghana .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON and suspicious creation. Only pages that are dedicated to him or his activities are social media sites that are not WP:RS. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination Kanatonian (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is an extremely unlikely search term so there is no value in preserving as a redirect. A Traintalk 19:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Company B, 2-124 Infantry[edit]

Company B, 2-124 Infantry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a company-level sub-unit that is not independently notable as most sources are primary and secondary sources appear to be too closely associated with the subject. Doesn't meet WP:MILUNIT as below battalion level. Merge relevant details then redirect to 124th Infantry Regiment (United States). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or just redirect - not sure which) to 124th. This is much too low a level of unit to merit an article of its own, save exceptionally. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This thing does not meet WP:MILUNIT and is puffed up by citing platoon-level deployments and the names of non-notable company grade officers.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cant see what would even be appropriate for merging DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable as stand alone article; local trivia; with redirect of the name to 124th. Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creation if the subject does become the US attorney. Happy to userfy upon request, please just ask on my talk page. A Traintalk 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Berman[edit]

Geoffrey Berman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails GNG. Berman appears to only have received coverage due to the fact he was and/or is being considered for appointment as a U.S. federal prosecutor. May be a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have seen articles on US district attorneys deleted, but in general they are in the long run held to be notable, although no ruling that they are absolutely notable exists. The postion he is being considered for, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is especially important because it covers Manhattan, and thus is key to US securities enforcement, and is one of the more populous districts with large amounts of business going on. There are articles on every appointed (as opposed to interim) holder of the office since 1958, and many articles on previous holders. Although I did not review to see how many are most notable for this position, and how many notable for other positions held. Still, until Berman is actually confirmed as the USDA, and even more so until he is actually nominated, he is clearly not notable. If his nomination does occur, even if unconfirmed, it might propel him to notability, but nothing right now suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy As per John Pack Lambert, if/when confirmed and commissioned he will undoubtedly pass GNG. And, because this might occur in the very near future, I am changing my initial nomination to userfy. Chetsford (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or sandbox in user or draft space. If and when he gets appointed, he'll definitely be notable — federal prosecutor for New York City, as in Preet Bharara, is pretty much a no-brainer — but merely being a possible candidate for appointment to an office that's still up in the air as of today is not a notability criterion. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he's appointed, but nothing here already gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think we all agree that in the absence of a nomination, Berman will be a one-event phenom (his interview). If he is nominated, we can argue his notability. Berman was a defense lawyer in the Bridgegate trial. He represented the deputy director of the Port Authority. He exceeds WP:BLP1E If confirmed, notability is almost assured. His popularity with the administration continues (and attracts press). It seems counterproductive to delete the article now, only to reinstate it in a few weeks. If another is nominated for the post at S.D.N.Y. I will see that this article is deleted. Rhadow (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep articles just because the subject might become more notable in the future than he is today — that would turn us into a repository of campaign brochures, because we'd have to keep an article about every non-winning candidate in every election on exactly the same grounds. We do not judge includability by what might become true in the future — we judge it by what's true today, and then permit recreation in the future if circumstances change. It's almost painfully easy for an administrator to simply restore the original article if that happens — it takes one click on one button, not any sort of complicated process — so the amount of work involved in recreating the article if and when those circumstances change is not enough of a burden to justify suspending normal practice. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. Dump it if you want. I find your argument about how painfully easy [it is] for an administrator to simply restore the original article not very compelling. Betcha a hamburger barnstar that if this article is deleted and Berman is formally nominated that someone writes a new one and the work from the old goes to the big bit-bucket in the sky. It is one of the unintended consequences of the policy to make deleted articles invisible. Only if an editor remembers that there was a previously deleted article would the idea to resurrect it come up.
That brings up another approach: a hybrid approach between PROD and AfD. Set this Berman article to expire in six weeks or six months. If he hasn't been nominated by then, the article can just slip beneath the waves.
It's impossible to "forget" that the original article existed; by the very definition of how our process of article creation works, anybody who tries to create a new article will see a notice that there was a deleted old one, right on the very page they would have to be looking at to start the "new" one in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bearcat -- Let's say I want an article about A. Amaranath. I type it in, get a red link, and an invitation to create an article. Yes, there will be an invitation to contact the administrator who closed it the last time, but I suspect it's rare that an editor who has an opportunity to put her name on a new article will want to honor the original author or wait for the administrator. Or am I misunderstanding human nature? Rhadow (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Berman is nominated for U.S. Attorney S.D.N.Y., the article will be valuable as a first stop for a reader. If he isn't, it should go. The question in a TOOSOON discussion is how much leeway we give. The AfD process probably gives it another two weeks of life. We don't have a means to sunset articles that grow stale over three weeks or three months. If we keep now, there is a good chance that if he is not appointed, a worthless article will be hanging around in three years. On the other hand, if his nomination proceeds, it's a waste of time to delete, with the likely result that the work already done will not be recovered, but created again from scratch. At the rate the administration is going, we won't see more discussion of Berman till 2018. Look at the progress of the nominees for DOL and EPA. Two months David Zatezalo has been on the docket for MSHA. For good order's sake, I'll stash a copy of Berman's article. Then, whatever consensus we arrive at will be okay. Rhadow (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User-fy if he's nominated for US Attorney he'll meet GNG. As it is, I don't see it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Act III Communications[edit]

Act III Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete References are not intellectually independent and/or relating to their productions and not to the company itself. Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing++ 18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article could stand some attentive editing, but the company is a highly entertainment/media entity whose activities are covered extensively in reliable sources. Passes GNG and NCORP with ease. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of the films that were produced by Act III Communications received some Academy Award nominations in some of the categories. One of the films, Stand by Me received a Golden Globe nomination for best Motion Picture Drama. This is why we should keep it. Evil Idiot 14:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as expired, endorsed WP:PROD. ansh666 08:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Kim Booster[edit]

Joel Kim Booster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor/comedian/writer lacking in-depth, non-trivial secondary support. Esquire article is a brief paragraph and the other references are WP:PRIMARY. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not yet meet our notability requirements for actors/comedians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Balaban[edit]

Nelson Balaban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is for a Non notable designer. The article was created by a SPA, and written in a promotional tone. Of the four citations, none meet WP:RS and most of them are broken links at present. Theredproject (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - current sourcing is not anywhere near what's needed. Sources 1 and 2 don't even mention the subject. Another one appears to be publicity for quite a few folks, and the fourth is dead. Searches turned up a couple of trivial mentions, nothing else. Onel5969 TT me 22:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable graphic designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article for a non-notable designer. Celestina007 (talk) 21:04, 05 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete good reliable sources are basically nonexistent. Notability is not established.104.163.155.95 (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 08:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aapno Gramin Rajasthan[edit]

Aapno Gramin Rajasthan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A newspaper in India with a circulation of 5,000 across seven states is little more than a vanity publication at present. I've raised the issue at WT:INB in case non-English sources might improve the thing but it seems to fail WP:NORG. Sitush (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. There's no significant independent coverage. It appears to be a vanity page by a conflict-of-interest editor. — CactusWriter (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bandari (AVC)[edit]

Bandari (AVC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Not finding any significant coverage for this band. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. North America1000 07:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: despite being Swiss, the band is virtually unknown outside of China and Taiwan, and therefore any potential sources are almost certainly going to be in Chinese – there's no detailed information about them in English, or any other European language, by the looks of it. The article used to have one reference from a Chinese newspaper [32] but the link is now dead. Richard3120 (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They exist, but I can find no indication they pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Note: if deleted, there's at least one redirect (Wonderland (Bandari album) which should also be deleted.Onel5969 TT me 14:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects are automatically deleted when a discussion is closed as delete, and do not need to be mentioned. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete the article has obvious problems and no references. A search by a Chinese-language-speaking contributor would be helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC) --> Will never happen as communist China cannot access Wikipedia. Thus deleting this article is valid. Bandari disappears from the world except 2 countries, where it is even mistakenly considered as a domestic band O_o 31.61.114.124 (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)W4rb1rd[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rooster Teeth#Gen:Lock. Moved out of user's draft space without permission; it's been copied back (and since there's really only one author no extra attribution is needed), so this can be converted to redirect. ansh666 19:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gen:Lock[edit]

Gen:Lock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too soon. This show may very well be notable in the future, but right now, all that exists the most basic of teasers -- there isn't even a release date yet. There are no reviews, only one or two "first look" articles -- I think this article needs to be deleted until the show has actually launched and has some significant coverage in reliable sources. IagoQnsi (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hold on. I wasnt going to do this. I was waiting for the show to come out so i can put it in. Im sorry about this. This wont happen again. Crazybob2014 (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crazybob2014: You still made another mistake. I reverted your edit because per WP:XFD and deletion processes you cannot blank or redirect page while its AfD hasn't been closed the same way you can't remove the AfD tag –Ammarpad (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG fail WP:NFO, not yet released and author has no objection it's clearly not notable, at least for now thus WP:TOOSOON. It may be notable in the future as OP said but not yet and we don't predict what the future holds and definitely Wikipedia doesn't either WP:FUTURE Ammarpad (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 08:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post Affiliate Pro[edit]

Post Affiliate Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Heavily promotional article lacks sufficient RS. Chetsford (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article consists of content appropriate to a sales site/brochure: describing the product features and available integrations. The references are poor, tending to "overview, pricing and features" listings. My searches are finding more of the same, with the paragraph on the Quality Unit firm and this product in this article on "The Next Web" perhaps the best. Not enough to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG in my opinion. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G5 as of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Susana Hodge: CU confirmed UPE sock farm with likely connections to other SPIs detected by CU, and behavioral evidence by a clerk. I'll tag it as suck (note, I was the one who declined the original G11, so I exempt my contribution there from counting against G5.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural keep, as per Power~enwiki (non-admin closure) Nightfury 11:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Challenges Foundation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Global Challenges Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a second AfD due to the first finding no consensus. Article on this organization is sourced almost entirely to its own website. The only substantial RS about it relates to a single contest it organized and, therefore, does not meet GNG for sustained and ongoing coverage. Edit - two additional RS discovered in the original AfD were fleeting and incidental mentions of the organization that do not establish anything about it other than it exists and, therefore, fail WP:ORGDEPTH. Chetsford (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We dont put articles up for deletion again just days after the last AfD was closed. This would have been a matter for the talk page of the article. My stance has not changed in the last few days. Still keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason for keep was "sources shows that the foundation exists" [33]. The mere existence of a thing does not meet the threshold of WP:GNG. Many things exist, not all receive WP entries. For instance, my cat exists, however, she does not merit a WP entry even if I were able to prove her existence.
AfD is not a vote or ballot; per WP:AFDEQ "justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself". Therefore, "it exists" should not be given the same consideration as a policy-based argument for delete. Chetsford (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG; proof of life is not proof of notability Burley22 (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That summary makes no sense. BabbaQ (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep I don't see an obvious reason to delete, and it was *just* nominated. Also, I'm voting to merge a different nomination here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Sattar Bhuiyan[edit]

M. A. Sattar Bhuiyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim is that he was notable as a third-level administrative division party leader, as an unsuccessful candidate for Parliament, as a commissioner for Dhaka's 48th ward, and as acting mayor of the city. It's true that for major cities, there is a tendency to keep city councillors, and mayors have usually survived AfD, according to explanatory supplement WP:POLOUTCOMES. However he was at most acting mayor (typically in Bangladesh, a mayor appoints an acting mayor when they will be out of town). His time in government fails verifiability, so we don't know if he did anything or how long he was acting mayor (or of course if any of it is true).

90% of the article is unverified. The cited sources are: (1) a newspaper article that mentions him as the father of Ahsan Habib Bhuiyan, and (2) Wikipedia article Gojmohal Tannery High School (which circularly cites this Wikipedia article). Searches, including by Bengali-script name, of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and Questia found: an elections results listing that confirms he lost a bid for the Noakhali-2 seat in 1996,[34] and a passing mention of his being one of several people injured when protesters clashed with police.[35] (Raw results also include a different MA Sattar Bhuiyan, Chairman of the Bangladesh Finished Leather and Leather Goods Exporters Association (BFLLEA), who was still alive in 2013.) Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Worldbruce (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even for major world cities on the order of Dhaka, we still only keep mayors or city councillors if they can be referenced to adequate reliable source coverage about their work in those roles — we do not hand them an automatic "no sourcing required" freebie just because they exist, but require them to be the subject of substantive reliable source coverage. But there's no evidence of reliable source coverage being shown at all — even the one source present here was written by his son, and just mentions Sattar's existence without being about him. (I've already stripped the WP:CIRCULAR "reference" to another Wikipedia article, for the record.) That's not even close to good enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. Speedy deleted G7 by Callanecc after page blanked by creating user. (non-admin closure) agtx 15:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Borwankar[edit]

Ankur Borwankar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed. Promotional autobiography that lacks independent third-party sources and fails WP:BASIC & WP:ANYBIO. Sro23 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST. Sources are written by the subject but are not about the subject. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable journalist, nothing in reliable sources about him. This article and Indus Dictum (at AfD too) were both created by same person who works for the Indus Dictum and used each article to support other but never disclose so  — Ammarpad (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Miles (treasurer)[edit]

Frank Miles (treasurer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a county treasurer. This is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass -- it would be enough if he could be sourced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass NPOL #2, but it's not an automatic inclusion freebie. All we have for sourcing here, however, is a single local source about him taking an even less inherently notable job after losing reelection as county treasurer. This is not what it takes to make a person at this level of office notable. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete County treasures are not inherently notable. Nothing here suggests the article subject is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any sources to establish the subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just overhauled and expanded the article. Miles has held a bunch of different elected offices (though often by appointment to a vacancy), and apparently been consistently in Madison County politics and administration for 25 years, and just moved to Florida this month. I don't know if that will get it over WP:GNG, but it might: He's probably had more news articles about him than I used for citations. --Closeapple (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. Of the new sources you added, one is an 18-word blurb in the "where are they now?" column of his own alma mater's alumni magazine (i.e. not a substantive source for the purposes of passing WP:GNG), one is the primary source website of his own former employer (i.e. not an independent source for the purposes of passing GNG), and one is the standard and routine "candidate profile", involving the subject talking about himself in the first person, that every candidate in any election always gets. So there are only two sources that actually count for anything toward GNG, which still isn't enough coverage because every person at this level of significance could always show that much local coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL and no other claim of notability; the existing references don't suggest that WP:GNG is met and all the coverage I can find is of his political campaigns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Independent Party of Delaware. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Graham (US politician)[edit]

David Graham (US politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person whose only stated claim of notability is running for political office and losing. As always, this is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL -- a person has to hold office, not just run for it, to be considered notable as a politician, but this makes no other claim that he had preexisting notability for any other reason. And for referencing, this is based entirely on primary and routine sources except for one brief biographical blurb in an omnibus compilation of biographical blurbs for all of the candidates in the election he lost (none of whom but the winner have articles either) -- so there's no evidence of enough substantive reliable source coverage about him to pass WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After I'd initially closed the discussion recommending a merge, it's come to my attention that the proposed merge target isn't quite suitable for the content. Therefore, I've amended it to no consensus, since as I said in the previous rationale, it seems to be fairly evenly split between people who think WP:GNG being met is enough to keep and those who think it fails WP:LASTING and should be deleted. ansh666 06:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Patan riots[edit]

2017 Patan riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Patan riots Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable random incident that lacks notability per WP:NOTNEWS. Incident was reported for less than 7 days[36] and most of the news website basically plagiarised other. It was just like 100s of other same incidents that occur[37][38] every year. We don't need article for each trivial information. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This riot was covered well into late April and even July due to claims that it was a premeditated attack rather than general WP:ROUTINE communalism. Also, keep in mind that this also probably got more coverage in Hindi newspapers than English-speaking ones due to it taking place in India. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But never again after April. Your source is an unreliable personal website which is saying nothing different than the news sources that covered event for a couple of days. Language card cannot be played here since all Indian articles use English language sources. Looks like you are only 2 of the editors of this article. If this article is any important then why you have to speculate and make claims without substance about this article which is inherently non notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, how long it has to be discussed? Riots usually get coverage for few months only. For instance 2015 Nadia riots or 2016 Kaliachak riots etc. AltNews.in has been widely cited for busting right-wing propaganda. We can discuss its acceptance as RS/N. --Jionakeli (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let me point you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Still an unreliable opinion website. Riots don't go discussed only for few months, they can be discussed for decades. Compare 1984 anti-Sikh riots with this subject that was discussed only for number of days, you would think that this article should be rather speedy deleted. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually the article in AltNews.in above makes the case for deletion shows why it fails WP:LASTING and lacks significant coverage its claims media bias against Vadavali and further states that only one channel made one video relating to Vadavali and that the media ignored the incident and one brief mention in the Guardian is clearly not enough to pass WP:LASTING and 3 brief mentions in 8 months is clearly not significant coverage since the incident and one brief mention in a article in 8 months cannot be called international coverage .It further states no curfew was imposed and it was over within hours and the incident is dismissed as a case of minor communal disharmony. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So we have got the creator of the article defending the existence of this article by misrepresenting sources and policies. There is no discussion in any of the sources, just two months old articles trying to interlink their many articles in one article. Fails WP:INDEPTH, WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could have phrased that in other way. Ok, Mr. 2 times blocked sock please give diffs of my edits misrepresenting sources and policies. These[41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] are all WP:INDEPTH. Do you think this[48] The Guardian article published after 6 months of this riots was only for interlinking heir many articles in one article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jionakeli (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresenting my block log won't turn your article notable. Socks are never unblocked unless the block was a mistake and that was my case as well. Now back to topic, which you have been avoiding. None of your sources are making valid description of this non-notable incident that died out under few days. Just copying more links of news websites that have basically plagiarised each other is not going to help you either. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant personal bickering. Stop, please.
Stop taking this as personal! Its not about you or me. Its about whether this topic is notable for inclusion or not. That incident was covered widely through out all media in India including The Guardian I gave. There might be more. When you said "links of news websites that have basically plagiarised each other" do you have a RS for that? or you are accusing these national media of plagiarism? Jionakeli (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who personalized the dispute by misrepresenting my blog log and then started to wikihound my contribution history. You are only being disruptive. Because none of these articles have found any new facts or findings than those already reported during the first days of the incident, it is basically plagiarism. Relying on passing mentions for proving notability is not going to help you. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You were actually misrepresenting here and elsewhere using WP:POLSHOP. If I am being disruptive then use the diffs and report me. I bet you haven't even looked at the sources because these sources are not passing mentions or plagiarism but reported the facts in-depth and associated investigations. Jionakeli (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you at least use your own rational in place of copying my rationales and pointing them to me even though you make no sense? Yes I have reported you on edit warring board. You can keep repeating yourself but people are not going to agree. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this is a collaborative project. Opinions may differ and that is why we discuss things. So, these kind of irrational comments are not going to help this project. I have nothing personal with you. I presented my sources with my reason and it is upto the community to decide the outcome. That's all! Goodbye! --Jionakeli (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the delete votes, WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. A very common incident that is even less notable than few other already deleted riot articles. Capitals00 (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable--seriously, go read it. WP:GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See no WP:LASTING impact here this sadly is routine violence in India .Lack of indepth coverage in independent sources beyond News and even this is a mere mention here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pharaoh I'm not sure I understand your argument. If this were ITN/C, I could understand somebody saying "violence is routine, therefore not newsworthy". But we're discussing notability here; how do you conclude that a phenomenon being commonplace makes it less notable? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.As per my opinion. I meant violence is sadly routine in India, every incident of violence is not newsworthy and most such incidents do not have a Lasting impact.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LASTING is an inclusion criterion: "If there is lasting coverage, it is likely to be notable", not an exclusion criterion, which is how it's being misused here ("If coverage isn't lasting the event is not notable"). The proper governing policy is WP:NTEMP--notability is not temporary. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no notability to establish when sources and subject violates WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the routine coverage which is clearly WP:PRIMARYNEWS on the day of the event which includes breaking news and Reports on events of the day.And further 2 passing mentions out of 3 in 8 Months to articles not even fully dedicated to the incident are a not synonymous with further analysis and there is no indication of a lasting impact and clearly could not a single book reference. There is a difference between quality indepth sources and finding any news piece that briefly mentions it which includes the piece the Guardian which is a brief mention beyond the incident day WP:PRIMARYNEWS .Now every morning there is breaking news and Reports on events of the day even if covered in many newspapers papers not all topics are not notable for inclusion here it as it fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and Primarynews ,otherwise every headlin across newspapers can have an article which would be news . Passing mentions are not synonymous with further analysis and there is no indication of a lasting impact.I think there is a confusion between quality indepth sources and finding any news piece .There is lack of coverage and even during the heydays the coverage was short beyond routine news on the day in addition to failing WP:LASTING . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if y'all actually read through things. WP:NOT#NEWS is very specific about what routine coverage is, and riots aren't remotely it. GNG is the primary notability criteria; WP:NEVENT is a subject/specific notability guideline, and an event is notable if it meets NEVENT or the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this is a communal riot without a clear victim. Both sides are a party to the incident and one could easily categorize as violence against Hindus regardless of the end result of violence Sdmarathe (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This opinion may be relevant to how the incident is described in the article, but has nothing whatsoever to do with notability. Vanamonde (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Jclemens. GNG is met; the sources already in the article show this. It is unusual for an incident in India to receive coverage in the Guardian, further suggesting it is notable. Comments about "playing the language card" are totally off the mark. It is quite correct to suggest there will be coverage in Indian language sources (quite possibly in Urdu as well) and there is absolutely no basis in policy to ignore such. Vanamonde (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Guardian has made coverage of many other incidents,[49] while they have provided only a passing mention for this incident and it really doesn't means the coverage. Yet you can find many other riots as well as criminal incidents that are covered by Guardian, BBC, but that alone doesn't justify failure of WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there have been a number of riots that happened years ago and to this day they are being discussed on daily or at least weekly basis. However this incident is not one of them and very far from it. It doesn't pass WP:GNG because it violates WP:NOT. Excelse (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed that there are too many riots that receive coverage and there will be dozens of articles created everyday. We need to understand that we have WP:LASTING for a reason. Here the coverage is outdated and this "riot" has been already given enough time to gain importance and what it has gained is similar to thousands of other riots. desmay (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Jclemens, Vanadmonde93. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply - it refers mostly to routine coverage, but this has received coverage in international media too and so passes WP:GNG. There may be much more significant riots but that are talked about for years but that doesn't mean that this one is not notable. There may also be a hundred other riots, but if all receive significant coverage in international media (highly doubt that's the case) all should be written about. Galobtter (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum:Oh and WP:LASTING - "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Galobtter (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Frontline (magazine) has in-depth coverage of this incident on their April, 2017 issue[50]. What makes it different from other routine violence in India is according to the fact-finding team, the victims were "astounded by the speed and manner in which thousands of people were able to gather in a matter of hours to carry out the attack". 5,000 people as reported by NDTV. Jionakeli (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N(E). —MBlaze Lightning T 06:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable incident for a stand alone article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Jclemens, Kanatonian (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Notable -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well sourced. A modern murderous mob is notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Violence against Muslims in India. Neutralitytalk 23:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOTABLE. --RaviC (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  The Guardian article in September is important.  Passes WP:GNG, so notability is not at issue.  WP:NOTNEWS is more complex, but after reviewing the policy, I don't see that it applies, as these events are unusual.  The topic hasn't made it into Google books yet, so a plan to merge would be fine, but that should be a follow up effort.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Communal riots are an unfortunate reality, be it white-black as is in USA, with the establishment and its arms being considered as white proxies, or inter-religious violence in the sub-continent. Finding references for particular incidents isn't going to be difficult, the need is to separate milk from water, is a particular incident of encyclopaedic significance, my delete vote above is my contribution to the debate. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interestingly, few editors manipulate WP:NOTNEWS in AFDs in less covered incidents like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Nadia riots, perhaps because of their political and religious bias. Jionakeli (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a friendly PSA about how OSE is not policy but rather just some essay. Yes, I think that poorly of it. I also doubt Notnews applies but I'm not participating any further in this. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the analysis of Pharaoh of the Wizards. Doesn't pass notability and it exactly fails WP:NOTNEWS per the nom. Orientls (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing seems to indicate that it meets WP:GNG and that this was more than routine WP:NOTNEWS type event. Merging to the Violence against Muslims in India article would also be okay. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Violence against Muslims in India. Regarding User:Jclemens's suggestion to go read WP:NOTNEWS, I did just that and find I have to agree with him that it doesn't apply. Certainly, the Original reports, Who's who, and A diary paragraphs don't apply. The News reports paragraph is a little more interesting, but mostly that's talking about reporting on the latest tidbits about a notable person or event, which isn't the case here. Still, overall, I think (and, I'll admit this is a total judgement call), this makes more sense to talk about in the context of the larger article.
I'll also take this opportunity get on my WP:RECENT soapbox. Looking at Template:Violence against Muslims in India, I note that the events included are from: 1946(x2), 1947, 1969, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1992(x2), 2002, 2004, 2006(x2), 2007(x2), 2008(x2), 2013, 2014(x2), 2015, 2016, 2017(x2). This gives the impression that 50's, 60's, and 70's were decades of religious peace and love in India, which I'm sure is far from the truth. It's easy to look at an event that's happening now, find some threshold of google hits, and declare it to be notable. But, taking a step back, that gives us a very warped view of history. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that calls for old newspapers from the 1950s to be dug up and more articles from there created. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 15:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Good point regarding the template links. I have just looked on the original consensus on the TFD of the template as well as talk page.[51][52] There was consensus to include only Major incidents on the template. Fixed it now. Capitals00 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and Merge an event summary to Violence against Muslims in India. This reminds me of the terrorist attack debate. I'm going to use the same criteria I arbitrarily applied to that - if a group attacks another and kills one or more people, and it can be linked to ethic strife, that could arguably also be defined as terrorism, and so it is notable. A short summary can also go to the violence against Muslims in India article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you are telling that we should make articles about every death incidents of the millions of religious people that have been killed yearly. Anyway, did that "terrorist attack debate" concerned India where such kind of violence is common, or other places like Pakistan, Libya, Burma, where such violence is far more common? Even if it did, which I doubt, we are not going to certainly ruin qualities of other articles where we cite only major incidents, we cannot do anything to make these incidents notable so why we should be including content about the article that fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING? It will only turn other articles into a newspaper. Raymond3023 (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are millions of religious murders by mobs, certainly not covered in the press as this one is. This is going to be a no consensus close. Once that happens, I'm going to add the summary to the Violence against Muslims in India article, with a link back to this one. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you have changed your rationale already. Yes such random attacks get great amount of press coverage, a few recent ones would include[53][54][55][56][57] and many more. They don't deserve an article or mention anywhere unless notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is more than routine news coverage as currently there's pending litigation which will call for more coverage and providing more content to the article as time passes. Also initially it meet WP:GNG by being covered in multiple reliable sources which are well obvious in the article. WP:NOTNEWS is primarily meant to deter reporting original news direct from field to Wikipedia, but once the event received reasonable coverage in reputable secondary sources then NOTNEWS will no longer apply. And this article fulfilled that; UK's Guardian, Times of India and the Indian Express are enough to satisfy verifiability.  — Ammarpad (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's misrepresentation of WP:NOTNEWS, because it is still a news even if it has been covered by numerous newspapers. You haven't even addressed the issue with WP:LASTING. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTING is a guideline while WP:NOTNEWS is a policy. And even as guideline I already addresed it in my previous comment "currently there's pending litigation which will call for more coverage and providing more content to the article as time passes." further coverage of the litigation and ensuing events will only further prove its WP:LASTING effect. And perhaps it is you who misunderstood WP:NOTNEWS, because ALL Wikipedia article are inherently from news, the scope of coverage is what makes one more notable than other  — Ammarpad (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them are, and most of them receive frequent coverage when they are notable. Just compare this random incident with any other riot article you will know, like I have mentioned 1984 anti-Sikh riots which is still getting coverage even 2 hours ago[58], but when they are not notable they don't receive any coverage after few days and that is the case here because this new incident has not received coverage for months. You are saying that because this news was covered by few other media sources it becomes notable, but that's not enough. If we go by your interpretation then we can create article about anything that has been covered by 2 sources, that is not what WP:NOTNEWS says. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see your bolded text. Your point is that for months now, the event have no new coverage, therefore either it continue receiving coverage every month or deleted.The below statement directly from WP:N already answered you

'Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.'

 — Ammarpad (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not only it received any coverage but it was reported in the manner like it is just another incident. And what about WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? That "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." Raymond3023 (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_November_5&oldid=1142224008"