Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 September	3 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Done per author request. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matyu Elliott[edit]

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

As the author and creator of this page, I wish to delete it. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzxelliott (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted. Almost identical re-creation of a previously speedily article about an unreleased YouTube movie, no claim of importance or significance, no third-party references. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The NPC Exodus[edit]

Contested PROD by author for no reason. YouTube movies are not notable. Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 12:17, 2 September 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) 19:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletin Today[edit]

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

Recent PROD was removed without comment. Removal was justified; the article has already survived one PROD.
The article is unreferenced. A Google search turned up no secondary sources. The subject's own link is Under Construction, indicating that the subject is not yet operational. Rhadow (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - complete blank when searching for sources, too soon for an article if it's been established in September 2017. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no acceptable sources Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:11, 7 September 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) 19:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Beniwal[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable media personality, sources are not in depth enough for him to meet GNG either. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable internet personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, non notable Chrisswill (talk) 20:54, 6 September 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) 19:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Reformed Seminary[edit]

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

Not notable religious organisation Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as these are a dime a dozen. Pandeist (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment more delete than keep, author should fix issues Chrisswill (talk) 10:03, 8 September 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) 19:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YawpBox[edit]

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

Fails web content notability standards. Little coverage in secondary and tertiary sources to suggest passing the general notability guideline. I can find no major reviews either.Google search. DrStrauss talk 20:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article on a defunct social network proposition. The given references are a mix of primary and geographical/alumni local start-up coverage. These don't make a convincing case that it ever attained notability (WP:NWEB or WP:GNG), nor are my searches finding better. AllyD (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Short-lived site that made no measurable impact during its existance and certainly hasn't since. Fails any remotely reasonable concept of encyclopedic notability for a website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 4 September 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) 19:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmet Yakut[edit]

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

No indication of biographical notability. Claims "immense influence" but provides no evidence of such influence, sourced or non-sourced. Google search reveals little in the way of reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 19:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While google searching is often less than useful in finding sources on individuals who died in 1970, if Yakut was as truly influential as the article claims, there should be something. Beyond this, Wikipedia need to be verifiable. There have been tags on this article indicating needs for more sources for over 8 years, yet there are no sources at all. Keeping an unsourced article like this undermines Wikipedia's credibility. I will reconsider if we can find sources, but without such we need to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Immense influence" without any source, online, or printed (a newspaper article, an excerpt from a book)? ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Pingumeister^(talk) 12:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket at the Summer Olympics[edit]

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

Cricket was only played in the 1900 Summer Olympics, which has its own article. Ignoring the fact that some of the content in this new article is copied unchanged from Rugby sevens at the Summer Olympics, I fail to see how this article can be justified given the existence of Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 19:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how the potential re-introduction of cricket at the Olympics fits into an article about the 1900 event. They are clearly separable and different topics. If anything, you should be suggesting the merging of the 1900 article into an article about cricket at the Olympics. mg SH 20:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topics are clearly different. I am also sympathetic to a reverse merge but that would require a discussion by people knowledgeable in the subject matter and is beyond the scope of AFD. Please close this AFD and start a discussion on the talk pages. Thincat (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles clearly cover two different topics and both are justified. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:49, 3 September 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) 21:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Savita Kovind[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as the subject has only received trivial coverage and nothing independent from her husband. The most reliable source about her is this here and even that is just her talking about her husband. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I would not necessarily be opposed to the article being kept as a redirect for Ram Nath Kovind if it can be proven that Savita Kovind is going to be a valid search term. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ram Nath Kovind, without prejudice against recreation if and when she can be sourced better than this. While technically being a national First Lady constitutes a valid notability claim in principle, the headline on this article's one cited source explicitly reveals a reason why we might have to treat India as an exception to that: "Savita Kovind enters Rashtrapati Bhavan, but India’s First Ladies are yet to make a mark". So it would be a valid reason for an article if she could be shown to clear WP:GNG — but if even the one source that does exist explicitly questions right in its own headline whether it's notable or not, then we can't treat it as an automatic inclusion freebie that somehow exempts her from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In previous discussions, this community has accepted that the spouse of the President, Prime Minister, or equivalent, constitutes a valid notability claim. (Under that circumstance, all that is needed is a reliable [or official] source confirming that the subject holds that position). While recognizing that consensus can change, one of the basic principles of this encyclopedia is that once a position is presumed notable, the position is notable across nations. In this case, there are several sources that contain information about the subject and her family. --Enos733 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733: I do not see anything in WP:POLOUTCOMES or WP:NWOMEN about this inherited notability of being a spouse of a political leader. In fact just because a subject is associated with someone who is notable does not mean they themselves are notable. Believe me I hate nominating articles for AFDs but there is next to nothing I could find that discussed Savita Kovind in any way not connected to her husband, or at the very least some in-depth coverage. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The usual consensus of keep for the spouse of a political leader is quite long. The spouse of the national political leader was kept at AfD in 2007 (Lebanon), 2010 (Austria) 2014 (Egypt), 2015 (India), 2015 (India), 2016 (Republic of China), 2016 (Sri Lanka) and earlier in August 2017. The only deletion of the spouse of a first lady I found was in 2011 when Safia Farkash, the second wife of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was deleted (However, it was recreated only a few months later and not subject to an AfD). While this is not an exhaustive list , the community consensus seems clear.

In addition, it is described at WP:NOTINHERITED, that the presumption against inherent notability does not extend to circumstances "of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady." --Enos733 (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do, however, still require the First Lady to be sourceable to enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, which hasn't been demonstrated here at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a multitude of sources that indicate that the subject is the spouse of Ram Nath Kovind. Since her relationship and status as a first spouse is not in doubt (and sourced), notability is met. Under WP:NPOL, once we source a politician to a notable office, even if that source is an official government source (or even a report of election results), notability exists. The same criteria should extend to first spouses. In addition, WP:GNG states, the "criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it." As was mentioned in the discussion of Representative Adam Young "NPOL doesn't require that we be able to source biographical information about him — that's certainly nice to provide whenever possible, but what's essential in an article about a politician is coverage of his work in politics, not necessarily his birthday or the name of his mother or where he went to high school." --Enos733 (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources which just glancingly acknowledge that she exists as a spouse, but aren't about her doing anything first-ladylike, are not the same thing as sources which actually directly address a person's actual work in politics. So #FAIL for trying to use my own words against me — what I said there isn't applicable here, because there's nothing remotely comparable about the type of coverage under discussion in Young's case and the type under discussion here. In fact, my position here is fully consistent with what I said at Adam Young — I asked for coverage of her doing first lady things, which is the same standard I applied to Young. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My stance is that the community consistently has seen the position as notable, and once the position is notable (and the subject is verified as serving in the position), the type of coverage is unnecessary. With a certain degree of regularity, we see elected officials nominated for deletion, and the sole criteria is verifiability of service (and when a subject is deleted, it is because that no source can verify the claim that the subject served in a position that meets WP:NPOL). The basis behind those decisions is the presumption that additional sourcing exists about the subject. I think a similar standard should apply to the "first spouse" that we apply to state and provincial legislators - once the subject is verified to serve in a position that the community considers notable, the subject is presumed to be notable. --Enos733 (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC) --Enos733 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't know if IP's are allowed to say, but the very fact that she is The First Lady of a country makes her notable. 86.99.13.208 (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the reason we have established guidelines and conventions is to have some measure of stability, and to make it unnecessary to consider the fundamental merits for every individual case. What we do consistently is an established guideline. It's simpler to have firm rules; I will typically support them if they make sense whether or not I would actually agree with them, because consistency is better than my personal view. DGG ( talk ) 12:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but possibly merge to Ram Nath Kovind after discussion on the talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with absolutely everything Enos733 has said here. Very well put. Aside from that, I also agree that national First Ladies, including India's and Savita Kovind specifically, are inherently notable. Scanlan (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would just like to point out that the keep !voters seem to be overlooking that in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria it clearly states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I conclude that it is not sufficient to say she is a first lady so she must be notable and there is no need to meet WP:GNG but rather that she is presumed to be notable and that if the sources are not be sufficient then more sources should be added and until such time a maintenance tag should be added. Or the sources are sufficient to prove notability. There is almost zero chance that a first lady of any large country would not have enough sources out there but I would imagine that some much smaller nations this would be much harder. I would also point out that "first lady" is not an officiel title in every country (notably in France where I live) and also that polygamy is legal in 58 sovereign states so should we presume that all wives are notable by their marital status?. Domdeparis (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- India is one of the largest countries in the world. The subject became the first lady very recently, so she's likely to get more notable as time passes by. I don't see a point in deleting the article at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 6 September 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. Sufficient reliable coverage (especially major news networks). I concur with "keep" votes in this matter. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafik Yousef[edit]

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

This individual was given an article following a minor stabbing incident, and not the more serious event, neither of which are of their own article WP:RAPID applies to state that this individual is not meeting of notability.
One major issue is the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in parts of the background -- there are two sources were published before the stabbing. Who determined the significance of this self-constructed notability other than the article creator?
The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable.
No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE three-day news cycle this incident received (remember WP:NOTNEWS?). This individual has had two events which they appeared in the news for. Simply appearing in routine news coverage does not equal or equate to being notable, consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the individual it is limited and brief, if there ever was any. Going down the list at WP:NOTE, the subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage.
I am now going to quote from WP:RSBREAKING: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS". The majority, if not all, of the coverage for this incident was from breaking news, creating a clear lack of reliable secondary sources. Sport and politics (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, please don't add canvassing templates to AfDs where canvassing is not occurring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being convicted and imprisoned for plotting to assassinate a Prime Minister is not "routine." Neither is getting paroled and attacking a police officer with a knife - whereupon Youssef was shot and killed by responding police, so the is no BLP issue. I created this article. It passes WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced. Lasting. 2 events. Attempting to kill a PM is not routine. Nor is being released and going on another attack.Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator hasn't followed WP:BEFORE. Greenbörg (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:40, 7 September 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanover stabbing[edit]

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

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

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

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

This incident was given an article following a stabbing incident. WP:RAPID applies to state that this individual is not meeting of notability.

One major issue is the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in parts of the background. Who determined the significance of this self-constructed notability other than the article creator?

The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable.

No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE news cycle this incident received refer to WP:NOTNEWS. This individual was a minor when this occurred, and appeared in the news. Simply appearing in routine news coverage does not equal or equate to being notable, consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the individual it is limited and brief, if there ever was any. Going down the list at WP:NOTE, the subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage.

I am now going to quote from WP:RSBREAKING: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS". The majority, if not all, of the coverage for this incident was from breaking news, creating a clear lack of reliable secondary sources. Sport and politics (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a particularly notable terror event. If this is kept, perhaps the article should be rephrased (or better sources found supporting the claim that the policeman underwent life-saving surgery at the train station instead of in hospital). —Kusma (t·c) 13:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ample sourcing. Additional book sources ([1] [2]). Additional news later in 2017 regarding a close relative and similar action ([3] [4]). Case is somewhat unique in that this is a women attacker in the west.Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are out there, just as User:Icewhiz says. Article just needs editor willing to invest time to imrpove it. Nomination, in its assertion that this is supported solely by breaking news stories, demonstrates Nom's failure to search for sources WP:BEFORE starting AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article to disambig because there is also an October 2016 Hamburg stabbing attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanover and Hamburg are a hundred miles apart. Jim Michael (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*My bad. thanks for fixing this Jim.E.M.Gregory (talk)

Keep - First ever Islamic State attack in Germany. If that is not encyclopedic, then what is? XavierItzm (talk)
Keep - The perpetrator was a 15-year-old girl. Jim Michael (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And.....? that is a demonstration of what? That comment is an invitation to create original research and cast negative aspersions. It is not reasoning, it is just opinion. It has no bearing on the notability of this article, and does not elevate the article beyond being simply news. I would also like to draw attention to WP:BLP, as the individual is still very much alive. Sport and politics (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First IS attack in Germany which is notable. Passes WP:NEVENT. Greenbörg (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, that is giving the event undue weight, which is again opinion, and original research through synthesis, this also fails to be verified, it is just a claim. I do wish users would use wikinews for this kind of event. Sport and politics (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sport, You seem to be unfamiliar with our policies on sourcing. This first is verified by DW, a WP:RS. You also seem to be almost completely unfamiliar (evidenced by copy-past nominaitons that fail to match articles you bring to AfD, and by tagging new pages for process tampering) with the AfD process, where editors generally respect "first" instances of social phenomena (i.e., "first female" to enter a profession or office or first soldier killed in a war,) as valid claims to notability. Similarly, unusual profiles, such as a 15-year-old girl perpetrating a stabbing attack, is a routine sort of indication of notability on the valid grounds that unusual kinds of cases generate more coverage in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable because? A user said it was? That is in no way comparable to the event listed above. Today will be a first for hundreds of things, they are not all going to get articles simply for being firsts. They must be more than just notable through opinion. I still cannot see the volume of how much blinkering there is that everything which is of this subject is somehow worth being on here. These are just news events, and not notable beyond that. Wikinews exists for these events, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is disheartening to see it being destroyed by salacious news items like this. Another user was right about the articles in this category, there is a better chance of peace on the Korean Peninsular being brokered, than getting through to the must keep everything from a chip pan fire to fender bender brigade. Sport and politics (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above comments. For anyone interested in further improving the article there's much more context to be added regarding the suspect's brother Saleh S. who a couple weeks before the stabbing attempted to firebomb a shopping mall in the same city, and had actually introduced Safia S. to ISIL-members in Turkey. [5] A suggestion might even be to rename the article under a "Safia and Saleh S. attacks" banner somehow, and include all about this significant case. User2534 (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:42, 7 September 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Magnanville stabbing[edit]

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

This incident was given an article following a stabbing incident. WP:RAPID applies to state that this individual is not meeting of notability.

One major issue is the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in parts of the Similar attacks. Who determined the significance of this self-constructed notability other than the article creator?

The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable. The article is mainly WP:COMMENTARY of the event and the individual themselves. This does not demonstrate wider notability of the incident or the subject.

No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE news cycle this incident received, please refer to WP:NOTNEWS. Consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the individual it is limited and brief, there are two reactions which are little more than the usual expected comments. Going down the list at WP:NOTE, the subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage.

I am now going to quote from WP:RSBREAKING: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS". The majority, if not all, of the coverage for this incident was from breaking news, creating a clear lack of reliable secondary sources. Sport and politics (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sport and politics, Can you please explain why you have put Template:Not a ballot atop this and a series of terrorism-related AfDs tha tyou created yesterday? This is a highly irregular thing to do; this template is usually added only after IPs and SPA's show up. After canvassing starts. Or after someone spots an AfD on social media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced article on terrorist stabbing attack passes WP:NCRIME. Soruces include several books, althogh this was a 2016 crime, gBooks search :[6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several book mentions. Continuing (in 2017) news coverage. Maybe it was the child, maybe the facebook live streaming (e.g. Shooting of Philando Castile), or maybe just the ISIS activity targeting people in their home. For whatever reason - this clearly passes notability even after a cursory BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not just notable, very notable - Dedicated coverage exclusively to this case continue a year later.^[1] The victims, who were national police, were posthumously issued the Légion d'honneur,^[2] which is the French equivalent of the Medal of Honor (military) and the Presidential Medal of Freedom (civilian) in the U.S.: the highest national award anyone can get. If this tragic terror attack does not meet notability, I don't know what does. XavierItzm (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:38, 7 September 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Sydney terrorism plot[edit]

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

This incident was given an article following the report of a plot of a potential incident. WP:RAPID applies to state that this trial and verdict is not meeting of notability.

The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable. The article is mainly WP:COMMENTARY of the trial and verdict. This does not demonstrate wider notability of the incident or the subject.

No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE news cycle this incident received, please refer to WP:NOTNEWS. Consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the plot it is limited and brief, if any at all. The subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage. Sport and politics (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, please don't add canvassing templates to AfDs where canvassing is not occurring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced article about notable case that rocked Australian a decade ago and that meets WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historically important article on notable event + well referenced. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, high profile event, sources in the article span 5 years. Coverage continues in current news (e.g. [7] [8]). Multiple books - [9] Was even a cursory BEFORE performed prior to this AFD?Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Checking the article we see, "The trial was one of Australia's longest and involved approximately 300 witnesses and 3,000 exhibits, including 18 hours of telephone intercepts and 30 days of surveillance tapes, which has overtaken the record previously held by..." Unscintillating (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments.Greenbörg (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:40, 7 September 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holsworthy Barracks terror plot[edit]

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

This incident was given an article following the report of a plot of a potential incident. WP:RAPID applies to state that this trial and verdict is not meeting of notability.

The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable. The article is mainly WP:COMMENTARY of the trial and verdict. This does not demonstrate wider notability of the incident or the subject.

No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE news cycle this incident received, please refer to WP:NOTNEWS. Consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the plot it is limited, cursory, and brief. The subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage. Sport and politics (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, please don't add canvassing templates to AfDs where canvassing is not occurring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frankly puzzled by Nom's deletion rationale. This is a well sourced article about a 2009 plot, widely revisited since (gBooks search here: [10]) and back in the news most recently when one of the men convicted in this plot was involved in the 2017 Brighton siege.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike many of the articles about criminal or terror incidents and plots, this one actually has the long-term historical significance and post-analysis (not just WP:ROUTINE news coverage) to demonstrate notability. And this is coming from me: a person who actually reviews all the relevant policies on these types of incidents instead of mindlessly voting keep for any criminal act committed by a certain ethnic group (and the typical keep voters know who I am referring to). I agree there is an issue with writers blatantly ignoring guidelines -- and we must address the damage that is causing -- but this article is not contributing to that problem.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion rationale is invalid for an 8 year old event. Continuing news coverage to 2017. Multiple books. Even a cursory BEFORE (and frankly - sources cited in the article itself) show this is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per arguments above - especially agree with Icewhiz's comments. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. Greenbörg (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and censure for wasting our time with this frivolous AfD. This notable plot received mainstream news coverage as recently as this year (due to the 2017 Brighton siege — an article that nom has also nominated for deletion). --pmj (talk) 11:48, 7 September 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Islamic inspired bomb plot on Australian aeroplane[edit]

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

This incident was given an article following the report of a plot of a potential incident. WP:RAPID applies to state that this trial and verdict is not meeting of notability.

The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable. The article is pure WP:COMMENTARY of an arrest of a small group, which went no further. This does not demonstrate wider notability of the incident or the subjects.

No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE news cycle this incident received, please refer to WP:NOTNEWS. Consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the individual it is limited and brief, if any at all. The subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage. Sport and politics (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~The article probably does not meet the general notability guideline per nominator's comments.~~ If kept, the article name should be improved, per my previous comments at the article's Talk page. I may have missed something, but I appear to be the only contributing editor who has been advised at User Talk about this AfD, which may be perceived as canvassing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. In other words, Nom did ping one editor, but only one editor. And the sole editor Nom pinged was an editor who had expressed doubts about keeping this article on article's talk page? Pretty dicey behavior for an experienced editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Having reviewed the nominator's other AfD requests to delete similar articles, there appears to be a political/ideological motivation beyond simply cleaning up unnecessary articles. I still don't want to 'vote' because of the original perception of canvassing, but I would be leaning towards Keep if pressed on the matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Pinging contributors: @Coriantumr15, Quinton Feldberg, and IronGargoyle:. Jeffro77 I pinged the other editors who contributed to this article. I am sure the nom simply made an honest mistake so hopefully this addresses any issues with canvassing. I did not ping the article creator because they are indefinitely blocked and cannot participate any time soon.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a contributor. I just cleaned up some vandalism. Why did you ping me? Quinton Feldberg (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton Feldberg if you do not want to participate, just carry on. No need to overreact. I just did not want this AfD to be marred by fears of canvassing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note That this is one in a series of articles in which Nom templates the page for outside interference at the moment of creation. Highly irregular. User:Sport and politics, can you explain why you are doing this? E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what on earth is being talked about here. Outside interference what on earth is that all about. This feels very much like bad faith being assumed here. I would like an explanation of what is going on and why if there is an issue it is not being fully explained on my talk page. This is not the place, and this feels very much like bureaucracy being used to interfere with a deletion discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you putting this template atop a series of brand new AfD?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this discussion to my user talk page. Sport and politics (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, please cease adding canvassing templates to AfDs where canvassing is not occurring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop flogging a dead horse, you are now just being disruptive. It has been discussed, on another forum and if you wish to continue with this discussion do so on my talk page and not here. Going from article to article, and arm waving the same thing is a violation of WP:POINT. Sport and politics (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could show good faith by removing the templates.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attempted attack uncovered just weeks ago when police investigated overweight suitcase being checked onto a flight. Suspects are in police custody, and, frankly, deleting this so early in the investigation would delete useful information, precisely what WP:RAPID is meant to prevent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more recent coverage, gNews [11] form which coverage of the bombing attempt can be sourced. According to the BBC, a suicide bomber was planning to board the place with IEDs concealed inside a meat grinder and a Barbie doll. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No comment on notability yet but E.M.Gregory can you at least agree, assuming this article will be kept, that there needs to be a name change?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure. Lousy name. Maybe change name to 2017 Barbie doll bomb plot. joke, that was a joke. But an inappropriate name is no reason to start an AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was, nor did the nom for that matter.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name should be changed. Flight number or perps (who are named in the article - Khayat brothers).Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This also received coverage in foreign media as well, so it is not a local minor matter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable counter-terrorism event. Passes WP:NEVENTS. Greenbörg (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:Notability (events) An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In-depth world coverage through late August - [12] [13] [14]. Significant plot, cross-continent security coordination before capture of suspects.Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment more international coverage today 7 sep 2017 [15].Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 7 September 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Brighton siege[edit]

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

This incident was given an article following the news reports of a man killing one person and holding a prostitute hostage. WP:RAPID applies to state that this trial and verdict is not meeting of notability.

The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable. The article is mainly WP:COMMENTARY of the event and little more, simply saying police said it was being treated as terrorism, does not make it notable. This does not demonstrate wider notability of the incident or the subject.

No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE news cycle this incident received, please refer to WP:NOTNEWS. Consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the individual it is limited and brief, if any at all. The subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage. Sport and politics (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, please don't add canvassing templates to AfDs where canvassing is not occurring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-sourced article meets WP:NCRIME. (Also note fact that perp was also involved in the 2009 Holsworthy Barracks terror plot makes it especially likely to garner ongoing attention.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCRIME. In-detph coverage continues through late August on various angles - [16] [17].Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as enough coverage exists for the article. Greenbörg (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well written and referenced article that meets WP:NCRIME. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable terrorist incident in Australia - many other Australian terrorism incidents articles on Wikipedia. Of note is that Australian Commonwealth government and all States/Terrorities commenced a gun amnesty throughout Australia following this incident from the use of the shotgun. In which people can surrender any unlicensed firearm. Last amnesty was in 1996. Not added to article yet. Offender also did terror de-radicalisation program - will be debate if these programs are effective. Not added to article yet.--Melbguy05 (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:39, 7 September 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Queanbeyan stabbing attacks[edit]

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

This incident was given an article following a stabbing incident. WP:RAPID applies to state that these individuals are not meeting of notability.

The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable.

No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE news cycle this incident received refer to WP:NOTNEWS. These individuals were minors when this occurred, and appeared in the news. Simply appearing in routine news coverage does not equal or equate to being notable, consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of these individuals is limited and brief, if there ever was any. Going down the list at WP:NOTE, the subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage.

I am now going to quote from WP:RSBREAKING: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS". The majority, if not all, of the coverage for this incident was from breaking news, creating a clear lack of reliable secondary sources. Simply putting more information on how the individuals are doing in prison, and being behaved is not lasting notability. Sport and politics (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, please don't add canvassing templates to AfDs where canvassing is not occurring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this well-sourced article on recent horrific murder, and series of spree attacks that meets WP:NCRIME. Both perps in jail awaiting trial scheduled to begin in October. Some ~~proson-system impace~~ prison system impact due to one of the perps violent behavior causing difficulties in juvenile detention center, raising questions about where to incarcerate violent, ideologically-committed juveniles. Crime being investigated as terrorism. AfD inappropriate per WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~- Umm, this incident occurred nearly five months ago; WP:RAPID does not apply. A trial is WP:ROUTINE: every criminal in a fair legal system gets one, nothing noteworthy. A crime being "horrific" does not make it any more notable. The lack of a WP:LASTING impact, bursts of typical media coverage (WP:NOTNEWS), and the failure to address WP:RSBREAKING does, however, display how unnotable this attack is, at least in a standalone article. RSBREAKING also points out crimes, including this, need historical significance, not just widely-covered media. Nothing has been established.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where it is written that crimes "need historical significance" to to be notable? Certainly it is not required not at WP:RSBREAKING, nor at WP:NCRIME, nor at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. In fact, creating articles on widely-covered crimes when they occur is normal WP practice despite the fact that no crime can possibly have demonstrable LASTING coverage or "historical significance" when it happens. This is why RAPID deletion is disparaged.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should just ignore the section in WP:EVENTCRIT where it specifically mentions that crimes, even widely reported ones, are not notable unless something more makes them notable; hence my historical significance comment being the "more" per WP:LASTING.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." This is what WP:NOTNEWS states. And is a longstanding practice on WP to create articles on major events as they happen. No one is suggesting that you "ignore" policy. Rather, this is a case where you and differ in our evaluation of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were we not just discussing EVENTCRIT? Why did you just shift to NOTNEWS? Did the tidbit from EVENTCRIT contradict your beliefs? The same policy also notes that there is a "tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance". If you want to discuss NOTNEWS, you should also point out that it states most newsworthy events are not notable events. WP:RECENTISM also advices editors just like you on that. There is nothing to evaluate: there are just parts of policy you choose not to follow I'm sorry to say.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY. Article has undergone a modest expand, source. The length and intensity of this murderous 14-hour series of spree stabbings, bludgeonings many not have been apparent to Nom. Other details have been added, including the fact that the judge has questioned an earlier judges order to embargo release of information to the press, and the unusual fact that one of the youths involved in a crime being investigated as Islamism-inspired terrorism was of aboriginal origin.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep following hey and additional late June sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very wide coverage across many months (April, May, June) establishes notoriety. Lasting impact is demonstrated by the fact Melbourne had to install 200 "ugly" concrete bollards overnight in a bid to defend itself from attacks such as, specifically cited Queanbeyan, as noted by the Herald Sun on 23 June, not to mention that Victoria's top counter-terrorism officer has requested major security upgrades, including airport-style checking-in at public venues. Hey, who here loves standing in line at the airport? As the Herald says: "The face of Melbourne is being transformed by the spectre of terrorism", while citing Queanbeyan. Not to WP:CRYSTALLBALL, but I hasten to note the court case for these murders starts October 25. Any deletion is quite premature. XavierItzm (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. Greenbörg (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:Notability (events) An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:39, 7 September 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. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Endeavour Hills stabbings[edit]

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

This incident was given an article following a stabbing incident. WP:RAPID applies to state that this incident is not meeting of notability.

This article was previously nominated, the main distilling of that was WP:WAIT, waiting has happened, and nothing significnt has occured showing the lasting impact of this event. In particular WP:EVENTCRIT advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable. That has not been shown to have occurred here.

I am now going to quote from WP:RSBREAKING: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS". The majority, if not all, of the coverage for this incident was from breaking news, creating a clear lack of reliable secondary sources. Sport and politics (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sport and politics, Can you please explain why you have put Template:Not a ballot atop this and a series of terrorism-related AfDs tha tyou created yesterday? This is a highly irregular thing to do; this template is usually added only after IPs and SPA's show up. After canvassing starts. Or after someone spots an AfD on social media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close 24 seconds to create this AfD including the template on the article is not an attempt to prepare the community for a deletion discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Total rubbish. The use of Show preview, and then doing all of the typing in the preview, and then pressing save changes is how things are done. Going look look they were saved within 25 does not mean they only 24 to create. That is like saying filling out a form to 20 seconds, when the content of the form was written in offline mode, and then saved online when finished. What a complete missing of the point, and complete attempt to close down a discussion, simply for specious arguments. Comment on the substance of the deletion. Sport and politics (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were advised at WP:BEFORE B4 to check the talk page for previous nominations, and this topic had a previous AfD with unanimity of seven editors. The nomination's explanation for these seven editors is a humor essay? Where is the evidence of preparation? Thank you for a partial explanation of the 24 seconds, but the principle still applies, as there are a large number of nominations posted in a short period of time. Instead of worrying about other editors shutting down this discussion, perhaps you should consider doing so yourself. Unscintillating (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding template to a brand, spanking new new AfD is utterly inappropriate. WP:TROUT Nom for doing so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments do not make any sense, and are pure opinion, based in WP:LIKE. The question is what template is being talked about? Sport and politics (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-sourced article about terrorist attack on a police station in Australia in peacetime that meet WP:NCRIME and that has had ongoing, WP:SIGCOV, see, for example gBooks search: [18].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Focus on the content and not the contributor. This article is not notable enough to have a stand alone article, primarily for the reasons listed above. Simply going, I like this article, so keep it is unhelpful. Stating well-sourced is not enough here there must be notability from those sources, that is not established in this case, passing coverage is not enough, and minor interest is again not enough. Saying this is terrorism, therefore it goes in Wikipedia is again not based in any Wikiepida policies, it is pure opinion. What is the lasting notability of this event? Nil. What is the is the wider impact? None. What is the reporting aside from general news coverage? Very limited. This article is a prime example of why Wikinews is the place for these types of articles, and not Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not WP:BLUDGEON the discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lasting coverage. Besides 2014 coverage In depth in Guardian in 2016 ([19]), And onward: [20] [21] [22]. Possibly since this was the beginning of a wave of militant ISIS activity in Australia - or for whatever reason - there is lasting in-depth coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I said three years ago, aside from extensive coverage in the Australian media, the incident also received widespread attention in international sources, including Canada, India, Israel, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States. Easily passes WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as another notable event up for deletion. Enough coverage for this article. Greenbörg (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per comments above. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per common sense ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Alex Shih ^Talk 15:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Parramatta shooting[edit]

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

This individual was given an article following a shooting incident, WP:RAPID applies to state that this individual is not meeting of notability.

One major issue is the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in parts of the background -- there are two sources were published before the stabbing. Who determined the significance of this self-constructed notability other than the article creator?

The subject fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable. Knee-jerk changes to terrorism legislation does not count it needs wider impact thatn politicial reactions.

Simply appearing in routine news coverage does not equal or equate to being notable, consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the individual it is limited and brief . Going down the list at WP:NOTE, the subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage. Sport and politics (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sport and politics I am flattered you used much of my rationale from a prior AfD for this discussion but it looks really fishy when that happens. I do not want us to be falsely accused of socking or whatever so, please, next time use more of your own words.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable well referenced article on an event meeting WP:CRIME. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Ample sourcing in article. Quick news check shows this is still being discussed in the news in 2017 in various angles (e.g. A relative going to Syria - [23]). Quick book check shows multiple books references. Was even a cursory BEFORE done here?Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination states that "This individual was given an article following a shooting incident", but a look at the article shows that Parramatta is the name of a town, not an individual. Looking further in the article, it states, "In November 2015 the Four Corners TV program ran an episode entitled Plan of Attack: The making of a teenage terrorist which documented the chronology of related events prior to the Parramatta shooting." This is what makes notability notable: reliable evidence of attention to the topic from the world at large. The article shows broad worldwide attention following the event, so that in May 2016 the U.S. reported the death of the sister of the perpetrator in Syria. Unscintillating (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW KEEP. Notable attack that passes WP:NCRIME. This is One more in a series of rapidly created, poorly argued, AfD nominations that appear to fail WP:BEFORE, to lack understanding of policies cited, and even to demonstrate Nom's failure to read and evaluate sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 3 September 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. Lots of verbiage here, but there seems to be a consensus that the coverage of Miles that exists is not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG, mainly on the basis that they were either trivial, primary sources, or inappropriately local. The only other major objection to deletion raised as an IAR-based argument that did not find wide support. No prejudice against redirecting the article, a proposal that was only brought up towards the end of the discussion but not widely considered. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Miles[edit]

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

Miles is not notable. As was established in a recent discussion, at least since it was revived in 2009, the Miss Canada pageant has not been a pageant with wide attention that would grant default notability to the subject. A perusal of the sources here shows this. To gain coverage we go to thinks like a passing mention in a local paper of a local protest in which the subject is just mentioned because they are one of many protestors. There are none of the signs of indepth coverage that would show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Unscintillating pointed out below, this is the umpteenth AfD by the same nominator, consistently and purposefully ignores ATD, WP:BEFORE, and others, along with misleading intros. As such it should be closed as a procedural keep and brought before ANI. gidonb (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability apart from being Miss Canada. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This opinion fails WP:IGNORINGATD and should be considered WP:JUSTAVOTE. The opinion was provided before national sources and more regional coverage were included. gidonb (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reluctantly: her organization Breaking the Silence does not seem notable (and is not the UK-based "Breaking the Silence" which was founded in 2004 by Kate Short. PamD 11:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This opinion fails WP:IGNORINGATD and should be considered WP:JUSTAVOTE. The opinion was provided before national sources and more regional coverage were included and is confused on what has been nominated. gidonb (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim of national sources are hogwash. They are passing mention of a parade, not indepth coverage of Miles. Piling on more local, Western Ontario coverage adds nothing to show that Miles is a notable figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Completely untrue and silly at best. Also nothing wrong with Canadians and South Ontarian. In order not to become repetitive I'll refer you to my comment above the second relisting. gidonb (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pamd, this organization is just "Break the Silence". Without the ing. I totally agree that the organization isn't notable. Imho it should be seen as an activity she undertook. If the organization had an article, I would suggest redirecting it to the biography. However, there is no such page and this well-covered activity does count towards Miles's own notability. So it's actually a major strength. gidonb (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Known for different activities. I strongly disagree with the previous opinions that she is only known for being Miss Canada or that the fact that her organization is not notable in its own right is an impediment on the personal notability. Sourcing is good and relevant. It still contributes exactly the opposite way. The one weakness that I do see and want to point out is that all coverage is in a span of 3 years. gidonb (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After better referencing 4 years now. gidonb (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD should be closed as procedural keep since nominator has been limited to 1 AfD per month and this is his second at just days distance. These AfDs do not resemble serious procedures that would dignify the topic or Wikipedia and follow the general format of so and so is just unnotable, claim that the many articles which were all about the woman were just passing mentions, daily newspapers with global, national and regional coverage are done away with as "local press" and there is some concentration on a document that was used to reference one of the facts and does not contribute to the general notability. Sure but then it wouldn't reduce the notability either. There were so of many of these that nominator has been restricted in submitting these "AfDs" (probably too much) but breaks with the community restrictions. In the other AfD a few days earlier, he just removed the entire article after it was found to be notable, then nominates it for deletion after being caught red handed. This entire series of AfDs needs some serious scrutiny. gidonb (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to take over as nominator if necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim of Gidonb is false. The limit placed on me was 1 AfD created per every 24-hour period, not one per month. This procedural opposition has no grounding in fact, and ignored my arguments for why we should delete this article on an extremely localized figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference in the lede to [24] is trivial, but founding an organization might be a claim of notability. I see no secondary coverage of "Break the Silence", and the only activity I can find on their website is that they sponsor an annual 5k run, which isn't sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a separate argument regarding Miss Canada. Winning Miss Canada doesn't guarantee that the winner is notable (the way that winning an Academy Award would), but is it (or should it be) a situation where winners who pursue a public profile are almost always notable? Power~enwiki (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The last one is actually a good point. I look at it, however, not from a pageant perspective because personally these shows (and tv in general) bore me to death. I look at the articles and their sourcing in their entirety and weigh if it is sufficient for notability. So the titles are out there now let's see if the person actually was covered. To your previous point, the coverage in "City approves trespass policy" is not trivial at all. It is an entire paragraph, plus the photo, plus its caption, plus the intro also draws our attention to the fact that Miles had spoken at the meeting. Thirdly, "Break the Silence" was an activity Miles undertook. If I understand correctly she had worked to fund it but was scammed out of some of the money and then had less budget=impact as it might have had. All that was covered in daily Canadian press which is pretty amazing. So this activity is not worthy of its very own article but definitely counting towards the general notability of Miss Miles. All her diverse human rights activities are. Now let's look at all 10 sources because without looking at the entiry we're going to make previous mistakes over and over again:

Willick, Frances (August 9, 2010). "'A pageant with a cause'". Windsor Star. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Daily newspaper, Miles is the main subject of the article, counts towards notability

Schmidt, Doug (May 27, 2013). "City approves trespass policy (With Video)". Windsor Star. Retrieved August 19, 2017. Daily newspaper, Miles is a subject in the article, counts towards notability

Charron, Joel (February 28, 2012). "Miss Canada Jaclyn Miles speaks out". River Town Times. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Daily newspaper, Miles is the main subject in the article, counts towards notability

"Jaclyn Miles – Miss Canada 2012". The Joy Smith Foundation. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Miles is the main subject in the article, does not count towards notability

Belanger, Joe (April 21, 2013). ""If we valued life more than money maybe things would be different."". The London Free Press. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Daily press, Miles is the main subject in the article, counts towards notability

Sims, Jane (June 7, 2013). "Tripped up in the tropics". The London Free Press. Retrieved June 15, 2013. Daily newspaper, Miles is a subject in the article, counts towards notability

Sims, Jane (June 14, 2013). "Chris Bassoo says the government promised capital investment that never came for the Facebook tourism videos". The London Free Press. Retrieved August 19, 2017. Daily newspaper, Miles was a subject in the article, counts towards notability

"Profile: Jaclyn Miles; Miss Canada – exhibiting strength and humility in abundance". Brescia University College. Retrieved August 19,2017. Miles the main subject in the article, does not count towards notability

Carruthers, Dale (May 10, 2012). "Miss Canada speaks of abuse". The London Free Press. Retrieved August 18, 2017. Daily newspaper, Miles is the main subject in the article, counts towards notability

Schmidt, Doug (December 13, 2012). "Miss Canada to lead Santa parade". Windsor Star. Retrieved August 19, 2017. Daily newspaper, Miles is the main subject in the article, counts towards notability

IN SUMMARY, out of 10:

8 are articles are in independent daily newspapers, 2 are on organizational websites
In 7 articles she is the main topic, this include the 2 organizational articles, in 3 other she is a topic with significant coverage

So in summary we have 50% (!!!) main coverage in independent daily newspapers, 30% other significant coverage in the daily press, and 20% that is only used to verify fact in the article. gidonb (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe notability works the way you think it works. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, actually this is exactly how it works. You look at the coverage that would count towards someone's notability, what is in it, what publications, did the journalists care to sign with their very own names (i.e. took pride in their work and the data in the article), was it one event, etc, and decide if it is sufficient. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the coverage. For example, the weakness that I see and mentioned in my opinion above is that the span of coverage is short. If one concentrates only on the articles that do not count towards notability, only tries to dismiss arguments of others, or claims that an article that has significant coverage does not have the same, one's opinion should get discounted. It is not late to take another look at the articles and subject, I understand also that the intro was "somewhat" misleading. We have dealt with that as a community. gidonb (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Miss Canada to Lead Santa Parade" is not an article that adds towards the notability of someone, it is a warmed over press release. If everyone who was mentioned in the headline in their local paper as the person who was going to lead a parade was notable, then we would greatly increase the level of notability. Not one of the articles listed has a background that allows it to stand as a truly indeendent source. These are all local human interest stories, with the lone exception being the passing mention in an article on a protest that does not focus on her. Being briefly mentioned in an article on a protest is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how silly your arguments get - you keep trying. That is special! This news item was carried by two national networks for very good reasons. It was a hot national Canadian news item: West Ontario celebrity trumped American celebrity. Also it is not nearly the only item that contributes to Miles' notability; there are tens of articles in regional daily newspapers in which she has significant coverage. I can't add all the sources. There are just too many!!! Anyone can check for themselves. gidonb (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IAR Canada is a nation of 35,000,000; and the article has multiple sources~~, including some from England~~. Nomination does not appear to be aware of WP:BEFORE, WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, WP:INSIGNIFICANCE, WP:ATD, and WP:IGNORINGATD, but the nominator should by now be well aware that if he believes that this topic is non-notable, deletion is not a policy-based option. So what does he believe? Why are we here? Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- California has more people then Canada, yet we regularly delete articles on Miss California winners who do not meet our notability guidelines, so the opening is not really an argument. It also ignores the level of coverage of the contest itself. I was very aware of before, and performed a proper before search that showed no other significatn coverage. Having multiple sources alone does not make someone notable. Nor does extremely passing mention in the international press make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above analysis of the sources is clearly flawed. That said, I am not sure that the claim by unscintillating that some sources from England is proved. What source exists that is from England? All the sources I see are local coverage from Canada. Not one constitutes substantial coverage in a reliable source that proves anyone cares about her outside the local area where she lives. College publications and local paper blurbs do not add towards notability. Put another way, if Miss Canada was truly something of note in Canada we would be seeing articles from across Canada about Miles. That is not what we see. All the listed articles are from publications in the western part of the Ontario peninsula. So unscintillating's claims about "sources from England" seem to be based on misunderstanding what London was referred to. Gibonb has made false claims about the limitations against my activity on Wikipedia, and has shown a clear lack of understanding of what does and does not add towards the general notability guidelines. We need something more than human insterest stories and press releases to demonstate notability. One more time, is Miss Canada was as notable a title as some claim, we would be able to find indepth articles on Miles when she won in major Canadian papers, in the same way the winner of Miss America gets covered is the press all over the US. This is not what we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your correct conclusion that I'd never heard of a town in Ontario of 400,000 people and their daily newspaper does not validate your straw men. Where was your WP:BEFORE D1 analysis that might have better prepared me? Why do you flee WP:IGNORINGATD like a vampire from a cross? It never adds up. Unscintillating (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My wife has a special connection to London, Ontario so we had quickly driven in and out before en route to Toronto. In 2013 we finally spent a weekend there and I was even asked to give an impromptu presentation before a rather large audience. While the Thames of London, Ontario may be a bit of a disappointment after seeing the one in England, I have only pleasant memories from this city! gidonb (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis invalidates the ludicrous claims that there were sources from outside Canada. There is no obligation to give a full, item by item listing of every sub-standard source in an article in a deletion proposal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I last edited this article on 2017-08-27T15:39:08, yet on 2 September here you are mocking a statement redacted long ago, as if this is important to you. You still have no argument for deletion, since WP:DEL7 does not exist in isolation of WP:ATD, and you are still WP:IGNORINGATD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 20, "Wikipedia deletion practice right back to Nupedia days has been based on the implicit assumption that 'if a significant number of people are likely to consider the topic important, it's generally important enough to warrant an article provided one can be written'...This [is] a straightforward statement of how Wikipedia functions". Unscintillating (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CBC News and CTV News are *not* news sources from Western Ontario but prime(time) nationwide Canadian news sources operating from Toronto. I also stand behind every other statement made above. By structurally misleading the community JPL attempts and sometimes succeeds at removing articles. gidonb (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Passing mentions about who is leading a parade do not show that the person leading the parade is notable. Especially when they are last minute recruits to replace truly notable people. The CBC News and CTV News articles are about the parade, not Miles, and so add nothing to the notability of Miles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your comments gets sillier every time! There is nothing passing about the articles referenced in the entry. For example, the national Canadian CTV Television Network article has 6 paragraphs on Jaclyn Miles, including a photo. This article is among the better referenced articles at Wikipedia and it would be a shame to throw such a well-referenced article away. Also there is nothing wrong with the people of Canada or of South Ontario. Happily married to a wife who is precisely from there, I should know! Ontario is home to 40% of the population of Canada so regional matters in Ontario are national matters (as we see in the national coverage of Miles), far more even then in California, the most populous state of the US that is home to just 12% of the Americans. Miles has been well covered and substantially covered in the national, regional and local Canadian press. There is much and much more but this should be enough referencing. It's already exceptional on a WP scale. gidonb (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist: Since this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not included yet in the article, but here is more significant coverage in one of Canada's main newspapers!!! (in addition to the the main television networks)

http://www.metronews.ca/news/2012/03/05/miss-canada-takes-on-domestic-abuse.html This is a major article entirely about Jaclyn Miles in the sixth most-read newspaper of Canada. This AfD is totally baseless and clueless, with an intro that disregards all our rules. It is a huge waste of time for the WP community. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I now see that it was carried by all the Metro editions (can be checked when comparing with the other item that was carried by the London edition), not just by the biggest one in Toronto. So the total readership is nearly twice that of the #1 newspaper in Canada. This piles up on and beyond the other distinguished newspapers and national television networks with significant coverage. gidonb (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "significant article" reference provided by gidonb above fails WP:BASIC as the vast majority of the article is a word-for-word interview with the subject and is a PRIMARY source. No indications of any substantive independent articles from secondary sources. Overall, topic fails criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the majority of this particular article is *not* an interview! gidonb (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it would be nice if you could follow the simple guidelines for formatting and indentation. And you are correct - not the majority but the *entire* article is *based* on an interview. The article uses a mix of direct quotes "in quotes", or statements directly attributed to Miles, or statements made to put the next "quote" in context but which were obviously part of the interview. The bottom line is my statement above is still correct. The references fails since it is not intellectually independent and a PRIMARY source, just like the other references. I believe you misunderstand the criteria for establishing notability if you believe that this source is good for that purpose. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment John Pack Lambert claims without evidence that sources are not working as independent journalists. HighKing claims that the sources are not "intellectually independent" which simply means that the reporters are people living on the planet Earth with further connections to the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a continuation of Unscintillating twisting what others say to advance his single minded attempts to preserve every article on a beauty queen ever. I never stated that the journalists were not indepdent, except for those publishing on college periodicals. What I did state was it was local coverage, or passing coverage, and thus not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources fail to meet the requirements for WP:INDEPTH; being Miss Canada also is not an instant claim to notability as John pointed out earlier. Perhaps I can be the first delete voter that isn't met with a big ol' mallet?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Canada. I have no strong objection to keeping, but the case for notability is borderline. And {{R to list entry}} is a valid alternative to deletion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:25, 5 September 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) 19:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of younger and junior versions of cartoon characters[edit]

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

This AfD is something of a last resort. I actually think the articles are notable topics, but the first article reads like egregious trivia because most of it is unsourced (even though I do agree with most of the examples). I tried deleting the unsourced material but that got reverted; and the second article (below) has the same problem but with no sources at all. I then thought about merging or redirecting the articles, but I don't know what the target article should be (animated character redirects to Character (arts) but neither animated character nor animation is mentioned in that article at all). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the inclusion is overly broad. It may as well be List of Flashbacks. The Star Wars prequels aren't even a cartoon. Babyfication may be notable enough for an article, but this list is useless. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both - Trivia, fancruft, and no sources. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR. How about characters that wear red? Or non-human? Or human? Or gender bender? Or flying? Or... random fan list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 7 September 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) 19:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angel T. Tuninetti[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there have been notices of lack of good sourcing since 2008. It is time to stop letting these shallow sourced articles fester and start either improving them or removing them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although work is in a low-cited area, cites on GS do not meet WP:Prof#C1. Nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Associate professor with no significant citations or awards, so nothing stands out as a basis for notability. Department chair is not a high-enough level administrative post (he would need to be head of his whole college to reach notability that way). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Jinmo[edit]

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

TL;DR: delete per WP:PROMO and WP:NPERSON.

G11 speedy was declined, in hindsight probably correctly because it isn't unambiguous. However, unsourced phrases such as "renowned expert" don't belong in an encyclopedia. It's written like a hagiography and sources show no indication of him being the primary topic of significant coverage and is instead mentioned in passing in books about Chinese medicine, not him. Google search. DrStrauss talk 16:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the claim "renowned expert" would and can be taken literal, as a known expert, this itself would satisfy our WP:PROF in the relevant field; a simple online search cannot be confided with something from the last century and nearly into the one before that; especially when the subject is clearly going to have limits given the circumstances, therefore a one search cannot be considered enough. The current article claims he was part of the Legislation, that itself would be enough for the (currently quoted in nomination): WP:Politician. The current sources are enough to show there is actual significance and that alone can lend into notability, the current availability of other sources not being relevant at all. If we take concern in something as simple as the "expert" claims, it would potentially mean removing any article simply because they were claimed to be important in the field, which isn't how this encyclopedia works. Including if this claim were ever a concern, that itself is not a WP:Deletion policy cause; there's actually no advertising at all, especially since the subject hasn't lived for over 40 years. Founding a national education academy itself would also satisfy the relevant notability WP:PROF. Also, as the linked WP:Before mentions: search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet, and we have no evidence of it here. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - numerous secondary sources attest to his notability. He was one of the most renowned doctors in China. See [25] [26] [27] and many others. The article as written actually understates his fame. -Zanhe (talk) 08:48, 3 September 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) 19:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of the Yakuza series[edit]

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

Article appears to miss the boat on both the WP:NOTPLOT and the WP:GNG dimensions. It is entirely a plot regurgitation with but three sources to its name. Efforts to redirect it have been unsuccessful. Izno (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT with no references to reliable, third-party published sources. Woodroar (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is clear WP:GAMECRUFT and better suited for The Yakuza Wiki than Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. The sole editor in favor of keeping it so far has been operating over invalid reasoning. Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above arguments and policies. I have no idea how anybody could argue this article belongs here in its current state. It's just a massive mess of fictional and non-notable information with basically no sources. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create redirect to Yakuza (series)#Characters - there just doesn't seem to be enough RS coverage of the characters independently of the games to warrant a separate article.--IDV^talk 19:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?), it should be first demonstrated by expanding Yakuza (series)#Characters appropriately and only splitting out when warranted by length or depth of coverage. In the absence of that evidence, TNT sounds appropriate. No objections to a merger or redirect, as the article was before it was recently reverted. czar 04:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the editor who is pushing for his article is refusing to provide refs for the characters section currently so I'm not sure the whole "proving its notability at the parent article" route is being taken anytime soon. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Czar's January edit. Full protect page now or later if reversion back to a full article persists. If the topic (NOTE: "Characters of the Yakuza series", not "Yakuza series") can be demonstrated to meet GNG in the future then the current article and article history could be helpful. If not, then no harm done with a redirect. -Thibbs (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps early close this? It has a total of four references. It's clear that this is a trivial, in-universe list. It retells the plot from each character, without any substantial information that would merit its own article, like creation, development and reception. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT and all other above comments. Ajf773 (talk) 10:26, 7 September 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) 19:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soo Ik Lee[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Doesn't appear to have a Korean language article and no sources here, I didn't see much through Google. Has been tagged for notability for 9 years, hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has 6 publications with over 100 citations each in Google scholar, possibly enough for WP:PROF#C1. But this is unsourced and appears unsourceable. As such it fails WP:V, and citation counts alone don't give us enough of a basis to write an article. I'd be willing to change my mind if, for instance, a reliably published obituary (not paid death notice) showed up, but I looked for and didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there is anything showing he meets specific guidelines on notabilty, and without that His published works don't make him inherently notable, any notability on a book he wrote would justify an article on the book, not the author. I cant find anything that shows normal notability. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails PROF and GNG. Seems to have been created by someone who edits primarily about U Virginia med school neurology faculty. Special:Contributions/Karmattol. Will ask them about what is going on. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 3 September 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) 19:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Buddhist Society[edit]

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

previous PROD, non notable and unreferenced article about a student society Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Legacypac (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately, another dime a dozen. Pandeist (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley J. Macdonald[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. 1) No indication of significant impact on their field of work. 2) No highly prestigious award. 3) Not a fellow or a "distinguished" professor. 4) Per point 1. 5) No major offices held. 6) Per point 5. 7) No indication of general notability. 8) Not a head of a major, well-established publication - note Associate Editor, not Editor. 9) Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR as his books have received little attention from independent, reliable sources. All nine points of WP:PROF failed, delete. DrStrauss talk 15:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This seems a borderline case to me, a fairly typical and successful scholar but not one who stands out in any way. He has two books (not counting the two edited volumes) but I only found one review for each, not enough for the low bar of WP:AUTHOR, and in this area I think it is books rather than highly-cited journal papers that are more relevant. Managing editor of Strategies is not the same as editor-in-chief. Our article inaccurately said he is an associate professor; actually he was promoted to full professor in 2007 but that is not a notability criterion. So basically, I can't find a strong argument that he passes any notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet GNG and a Gscholar check was not promising. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Achini Chamen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NGYMNAST #1 by virtue of having competed in the World Championships. Smartyllama (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a single source is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NGYMNAST as mentioned by Smartyllama as she competed in the world championships. This appears to be an open and shut case. Ross-c (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough for the scope the subject has been covered. Bisharch (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User Bisharch's 4th edit was to this Afd; I'm not sure they understand the import of our guidelines while mentioning keep. Re-listing this Afd one conclusive time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 15:07, 2 September 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 as the nominator has struck their deletion rational and !voted keep. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @

New York Mycological Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~No secondary sources since 2011. Notability in question. Rhadow (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rather a lot of mentions on Scholar [28], nicely spread over 50-odd years. I don't see how lack of sources from the last few years is an issue in that regard. Article needs some love but the material is there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's my take, Elmidae -- People said the same thing in 2006 when this article was last nominated for deletion. In the last eleven years, nobody cared enough to give it some love. We aren't talking about no references for a few years; we're talking never. Now is the time. Rhadow (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but the fact that nobody has made use of the sources yet does not the negate their existence. "No one is interested enough to write it up" != "not notable". WP:NODEADLINE and all that jazz. I'm not an aficionado of amateur mycology myself, so I'm unlikely to do the job, but my assessment is that it is doable - which really is the question under consideration. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Elmidae, I just wanna argue. If the fact there are sources out there, but no one has bothered to dig them up is enough to keep an article, then no article should ever be deleted. And in the mean time, the whacko editors will write whatever original research they want, and say, "References? I was getting a round tuit."

I hope you are having as fine an evening as I. Rhadow (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I question your interpretation of notability. What gets deleted under that criterion is stuff for which no sources can be found - not for which demonstrably existing sources are not used. And unsourced statements have never been justifiable by that excuse. - Anyway, thanks to Power~enwiki for being more productive than either of us :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some references. It should pass WP:GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Power~enwiki is my hero. Rhadow (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Elmidae mostly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 3 September 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. sufficient consensus after relisting . DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TeachPitch[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Promotional article. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Created by a WP:SPA, who has only edited this and the company's founder Aldo de Pape. Edwardx (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP has a relaxed criterion where schools are concerned. Why should it not be for the tools those schools use? I agree, this article is promotional, as is the parallel article about Aldo de Pape (which shares the same editor). Rhadow (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a school though - it is a commercial for-profit company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPIP. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Suggest template be added to remove promotional material. Company appears to pass the notability test. 158.59.127.132 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Lemme try this again. If subject is judged on the same basis as other startups, then we need to look at the pattern for articles about startups that are accepted; they included less data. The more that is written, the more possible objections there are. At the risk of a standard that can be gamed, I suggest an informal yardstick in addition to WP:RS (a common flaw). Fulfill two out of five, keep. Fail to make two, delete.

Time in business: two years (makes)
Employees: 20 (almost)
Funds invested: $2 million (dunno)
Profitable (probably not)
Products: Two demonstrably new, not improvements or derivative (seems so)

I suggest that the list of investors and founders is not important, even if the article is a WP:COATRACK for them.

The most successful publishers can be found in List of Y Combinator startups. Competing suggestions requested. Rhadow (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that being in business for two years and having 20 employees is enough to establish notability? Do you realise how many local shops, restaurants, car repairers etc. would meet that standard? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 86.17.222.157, it's easy to criticize. Why don't you be creative and suggest something better? Before you respond, test fly your standard against List of Y Combinator startups 21:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that most of the companies on that list would survive deletion discussions, so they shouldn't be used as a benchmark, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no reason to use different standards for startups from those we use for any other companies, which are described at WP:NCORP. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To your point, 86.17.222.157, I'm not suggesting that the subject article be kept based on the list, but rather, the list be reexamined based on the precedent of this decision. Let's face it, the reason editors of promotional material fight so hard is to get prime placement on the top right of the Google search results -- much better than any SEO effort. What, by the way is your suggested threshold? Rhadow (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to get involved in any policy/guideline discussions, but would suggest that at least your proposal for the number of employees needed misses by orders of magnitude. The place to discuss such things with those who do have the time is WP:NCORP. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources lack WP:CORPDEPTH; $2M in funding is way too small of an investment for this startup to be presumed notable. Was created as part of a walled garden that also included the company's founder (since deleted). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello K.e.coffman -- If the VC can call a buddy at a magazine and get a piece published on her nifty $2 million investment, then we kinda have to call it notable ... unless we adopt a new standard for startups. Rhadow (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 100% promotional, and such content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM, as in: "Furthermore, TeachPitch was selected in 2015 to participate in the Accelerator program of the World Innovation Summit for Education, Qatar.[8] In October 2016, TeachPitch was shortlisted on the 2016 Great British Technology Shortlist...!" Etc. In any case, if such content were to be removed there'd be nothing left, for lack of WP:CORPDEPTH sources. Hence I advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 6 September 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Australian counter-terrorism raids[edit]

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

This article falls squarely under the following categories WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:CRIME, of which it fails to generate enough longstanding or individual notability, under WP:LASTING, or WP:NOTABLE. As a result this article should be deleted as nothing more than routine news coverage of police activity. Sport and politics (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with selective merge to Terrorism in Australia#September 2014 AFP raids, where it is already covered. I am not finding enough sources to support a stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Redirect It could be argued that this event is notable as it received significant, non-routine coverage that persisted over time in multiple reliable sources with a national or global scope. But also agree it could also be merged into Terrorism in Australia#September 2014 AFP raids where it has already been covered. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The BBC called it "the biggest counter-terrorism operation in Australia's history".[29] Easily passes WP:EVENT. WWGB (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Case is already included in books,^[3]. The case got widespread national media coverage in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 (see article for refs for e.a. year). The main suspect is to be tried by the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court case starts November 2017. Meets WP:SIGCOV. XavierItzm (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing iVote due to WP:HEYMANN carried out by the indefatigable content creator User:XavierItzm.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as event has decent coverage which passes WP:NEVENTS.Greenbörg (talk) 10:38, 7 September 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Norway terror threat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted, and is now having had years pass, an even more suitable candidate for deletion under WP:routine, WP:NOTNEWS. In addition I would like to request that page creation for this title be blocked. Sport and politics (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the previous AfD, I !voted to delete, stating, "Nothing in Google books. Most of the attention is in regards to an unnamed future event that may or may not happen, and at Wikipedia, we don't need to speculate about the future, we can wait for it." I also endorsed the subsequent DRV. Well, it now has coverage in Google books. Also, we have waited, and now we know that it is part of the history of European terrorism. The previous AfD nom stipulated that it already passed WP:GNG. I don't see that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies, as this is no longer breaking news, and books are not newspapers. Nor is there anything related to routine news in the arming of Norwegian police. Unscintillating (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Unscintillating. Significant incident, well-sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sport and politics I wish you discussed some of these recent articles with someone. Some of your nominations are spot on but inevitably the rapid AfD spree will be exploited by automatic keep voters. This subject has the historical analysis that many articles of this nature lack. It meets WP:LASTING and is being more thoroughly documented in books, not just media.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to this article I do not see the issue here it was deleted once, and then re-created through improper channels, I do not see why avoiding a deletion review, should entitle an article to stay. There is little lasting notability of this and it was deleted once, and should be deleted again. Sport and politics (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the creation of the article, and the accusatory language "re-created through improper channels" lacks evidence. Articles created on Wikipedia do not need permission of central authorities. The deletion review endorsed the deletion of the article. The article at the time (based on my comments at the DRV) was concerned about the unfolding possibility of an act of terrorism (which violates WP:NOTNEWSPAPER), but with the perspective of history, and the record now available in books, the article can focus on the context that led to the unusual arming of Norwegian police. Unscintillating (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Led to arming Norway's police with guns for 1.5 years. Received SIGCOV through 2016 at least (just added Wapo and FP to the article).Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. Greenbörg (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. The article made no assertion of this channel being significant. —C.Fred (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ExoParadigmGamer[edit]

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

Non-notable Youtuber, fails WP:GNG. Since it's made by a WP:SPA it also likely is WP:PROMO. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 07:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JASK Labs[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, no major coverage. User's contributions are very interesting, possible sock farm. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JASK Labs is a well-respected startup company that has some innovative technology. They are expected to make an impact in the emerging security analytics space. I would suggest retaining this entry (although the entry can be improved). Joergvader (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JASK Labs has received significant news coverage in the IT security trade press consistent withWP:GNG. The firm has a noteworthy approach to solving the problem of false positive and false negative IT security alerts. The article is well-substantiated (the references are unique news coverage, not press releases). Cryptodd (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JASK Labs is an emerging firm in the security analytics space that has gotten media coverage in the IT security press - the references for the article are well substantiated. The firm is notable in the IT security space. JASK is has an innovative approach and is expected to make an impact on the market and keeping this page makes sense. While the page can be improved (linking rather than being an orphan article), it makes sense to retain the article and not delete the article. Kjritacco (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)— Kjritacco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPIP. References are based on PR and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity and learning, It would help to point out which references are press releases or do not have depth from independent sources. The media coverage referenced in the report might have been a result of PR outreach on the part of the company, but as far as I can see the resulting coverage does not regurgitate press releases. The references appear to provide depth from independent sources. Cryptodd (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This reference from globalsecuritymag starts with "Jask announced" and is based on this Press Release and fails WP:ORGIND "any material which is substantially based on a press release". This reference from geekwire fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is based on quotations from the company's personnel and fails WP:ORGIND are it is an article whereby the main substance is the company talking about itself. This betanews reference fails because it is based on the same press release as the first reference (even uses the same quotes). This venturebeat article fails WP:ORGIND since it is based on an email their CEO sent to venturebeat and is therefore a PRIMARY source and is material published indirectly be the company. This techcrunch article fails WP:ORGIND as it is substantially based on this Press Release.

Just to add (and not saying you suffer from the same miscomprehension) but a lot of editors misunderstand "independent source" to mean a source (publisher) that is not affiliated with the topic (company) but in fact it means a *reference* that is *intellectually independent*. Stating that a source is "independent" and "reliable" only means that the source in question can accurately reprint, word for word, an interview or Press Release, without mistakes. For notability, the reference itself must be *intellectually independent*. So while information from a requoted press release reference may be used in the article (depending on other factors) - the reference does not count towards notability as it fails the criteria for establishing notability (for companies, this is WP:NCORP. Hope that helps. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do that HighKing. I agree with all that - a lot of trade industry websites lightly edit press releases and publish posts like that. This is churnalism. I come across this all the time in the biotech industry, but one finds it in finance, IT, etc. Lots of industry news is spurred by company announcements, but higher quality refs do actual reporting and add context that is really important for us to use, when we summarize them to create content. Relying only on press releases and churnalism spurred by them, we end up providing only promotional content to readers, following whatever messaging the company is putting out there. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and searches didn't turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:32, 10 September 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) 19:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tessares SA[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, does not pass WP:GNG. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm not so convinced by an article that does not explain the importance of its MPTCP solution and authored by a WP:SPA Rhadow (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. No indications of meeting the criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 3 September 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 Sino-Vietnamese War (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Vietnamese wars[edit]

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

Possible content fork, mainly just a disambiguation page which already exists. Sino-Vietnamese War (disambiguation). IEsuredI (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per all the above. I am not a content expert, either. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete no point creating a separate page to the disambiguation page. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sino-Vietnamese War (disambiguation) to make sure the DAB page has all relevant entries, then move the DAB page to this title, which is the base title. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Sino-Vietnamese War (disambiguation) into this, because this article has more detail than the dab article. I agree that we do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as stated above; non-needed redundant content fork. Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as separation is not necessary, however Keep a summary of this content to lead off the disambiguation. Burroughs'10 (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but it's a little more complicated. There's actually three titles involved here. We're talking about Sino-Vietnamese wars (plural) here. There's also Sino-Vietnamese War (singular) which is a detailed article about the 1979 conflict, and Sino-Vietnamese War (disambiguation) which covers several millennia. So, I think merge this into Sino-Vietnamese War (disambiguation) just to make sure we've got complete coverage, and redirect this title to there. However, I would not keep the summary text from here, since that's specific to one particular conflict, and seems kind of WP:OR-ish. I'll take a shot at merge and cleanup now. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, this is even more complicated than I thought. There's also Chinese domination of Vietnam. And, looking at all these various pages, it's clear that there's multiple names for some of these conflicts (and, names of wars often have political influence, so it's hard to tell which is the best name). So, I think I'm going to leave the merging to somebody who's more of a subject matter expert than I am. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under WP:A7. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 16:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Habab Idrees[edit]

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

received press coverage for a single event which doesnt makes the subject notable enough to warrant a WP entry. Saqib (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 2 September 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 redirected per WP:BOLD (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoice Records[edit]

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

Been around for 13 years and still one sentence, I think that should tell you something. Pariah24 (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to Word Records. This seems obvious to me and there's really no need to waste time on an AfD here. --Michig (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I apologize in advance for the lengthy rationale but these discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies.

Two months after this incident, WP:RAPID and the non-existent WP:OBVIOUSTERROR can hopefully be discarded in favor of actual discussion about notability.
One major issue is the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in parts of the background -- those sources were published before this vehicle-ramming. Who determined the significance of this self-constructed background other than the article creator?
The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advices writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable. No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE three-day news cycle this incident received (remember WP:NOTNEWS?).
Another issue is WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the attack was limited and brief, if there ever was any. Going down the list at WP:NOTE, we find the subject also fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; remember, passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage.
Lastly, here is an interesting quote from WP:RSBREAKING: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS". The majority, if not all, of the coverage for this incident was from breaking news, creating a clear lack of reliable secondary sources.

I thoroughly analyzed all the relevant policies and determined why this incident is not notable for a standalone page. Please do not simply ignore policy in favor of personal opinion or bias. Thank you. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree wholeheartedly with the nominator of this article and they have succinctly encapsulated to point. Very well analysed and this page should be deleted. Sport and politics (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good sources, noted incident. We had a AfD that closed as Keep as late as June for this article. This article should be kept.BabbaQ (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ I thoroughly explained why the sources are not "good". Why are you ignoring the relevant policies which demonstrate why the coverage does not support notability?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not true that the article had a "3 day coverage cycle". For example, Le Parisien dedicated an article to it on 13 July.^[4] El Pais published an in-depth reportage on 18 August that vehicular attacks are increasing in Europe because the Islamic State has been encouraging its followers to execute this tactic for three years, and included this particular attack as an instance of the success IS is having with it.^[5]. With regard to the argument that mentions of this attack during coverage of more recent attacks is "no further coverage," remember that each time the WP:RS refer to this incident, it proves the significance of the Champs-Élysées attack. Finally, if anyone does not like literally a couple of sentences on the background section because of differences of opinion with regard to their relevance to the attack itself, I should point out that the correct way of addressing any such issues is to edit the 11,187 byte article, not to nuke the article from orbit. We are trying to improve the Wikipedia, not to obliterate it, and there has to be a reason why the article had ca. 4,400 page views in August.XavierItzm (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Marie Zinck; Sophie Parmentier (13 June 2017). "Policemen killed in Magnanville: one year already". France Inter (in French). Retrieved 4 September 2017.
^ http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/magnanville-une-legion-d-honneur-posthume-pour-le-couple-de-policiers_1819011.html
^ https://books.google.it/books?id=svh4CAAAQBAJ&pg=PT63&lpg=PT63&dq=Omarjan+Azari&source=bl&ots=yNREGfqvgm&sig=2fDYHVH3c9ytVgTTZGE4HyHnrDU&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Omarjan%20Azari&f=false
^ "Daech claims missed attacks from Paris and Brussels in June". Le Parisien (in French). 13 July 2017. Retrieved 2 September 2017.
^ https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2017/08/17/actualidad/1502988327_789176.html

Keep per the arguments put forward in this AfD and the previous one - as well as the AfDs on previous attacks which resulted in them being kept. Jim Michael (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per arguments above. Note, however, that in the light of the well-attended AfD held just 2 months ago with an very strong consensus to KEEP, and in the light of the series of AfD nominations of terrorist attack that Nom has brought recently feels WP:POINTy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Amazing. All the keep votes blatantly ignore all the policy-based reasons to delete this article or dodge discussing the notability issue entirely. This incident fails every single relatable policy and I thoroughly demonstrated that. I suppose we need a policy that directly addresses this issue because this is ridiculous. I'm sure that hypothetical guideline will also be ignored but at least a closing admin will recognize it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being pointy is not policy based. We are not ignoring anything, simply because we disagree with you does not mean we are wrong. Still, placing a new AfD nom on this article so soon after a clear Keep consensus seems odd.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ then please demonstrate why every single issue I brought up has no bearing on the notability of this article. I know you won't.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:IAR As per WP:BEFORE B4, nominators are expected to check the article's talk page for previous nominations. By ignoring the principle that "Keep" AfDs should not be renominated in less than six months, this nomination shows disregard for AfD norms. This current AfD comes in the context of a massive outpouring of event nominations. Unscintillating (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, no, there is no staunch rule saying I must wait six months or more, even in a "keep" situation. If you cared to read my rationale, you would notice I did address the prior arguments at the first AfD. Two months was reasonable, avoiding WP:RAPID and the regulars who ask us to "wait for the subject to be notable". Why should I be surprised at this point: five keep votes and they all disregard several policies or presenting a keep rationale entirely.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Since~~ I said nothing about a "staunch rule"~~, the argument is a straw man~~. As for the nomination "address[ing] the prior arguments at the first AfD", I'm unable to verify that assertion. I even tried skimming both the nomination and the previous AfD. It is a long AfD, and while I can't doubt the theory that there are related elements, I see no attempt to review the previous AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you bring up the six months if you agree it isn't set in stone? To your other point, Unscintillating perhaps I should have specified the WP:RAPID and WP:OBVIOUSTERROR comment was referring to the past AfD arguments, ones that can hopefully be discarded here. Could you (or a single voter for that matter) at the very least address my rationale for deletion? Are none of those policies relevant anymore? Your keep "rationale" totally bypasses the notability issue because you believe I ignored the past AfD, and fortunately I did no such thing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble tracking your meaning. One point, WP:SK is not the same as a "Keep" !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above comments. Greenbörg (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in France -- not independently notable. Fails WP:NOTNEWS; the article is written as a news report and is not suitable for an encyclopedia. No lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting, it seems to me that the arguments by Nom and others that this is a mere news report are refuted not only by the contribution that each new attack makes to the French decision to keep Opération Sentinelle (armed soldiers patrolling the Street of French cities; how swiftly the inconceivable is taken for granted,) but also because of WP:SIGCOV such as Barcelona attack mirrors Isis' repeated calls for massacres in Europe using vehicles, [[30]]. The detail of individual incidents, preserved in articles dedicated to a single event, are the building blocks of knowledge, on Wikipedia as in scholarship. I continue the think keep, as I did in the AfD on this incident three months ago. (wait, did I create this one? I may have. Who cares?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was featured in the LGBT media for several months. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian no disrespect but I am having a hard time believing the LGBT community would be interested in a failed terrorist attack for months. Can I see some of this media coverage because I have never seen "several months" of coverage from any media outlets. This was a three-day news subject at best.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:33, 10 September 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) 19:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Silva[edit]

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

Unremarkable creationist. I couldn't find any sources to say what his position at the "Adventist University Center of São Paulo" is (or what exactly UNASP is for that matter), nor could I find a citation record to speak of, so doesn't meet WP:PROF. No independent sources in the article, and I couldn't find any additional ones. – Joe (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete WP:FRINGE academic without sufficient mainstream sources to provide a properly neutral take on his work. His employer, the Brazil Adventist University second campus, is insufficiently notable to warrant more than a redlinked line in List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- The subject has impressive qualifications, including two doctorates and has (apparently) produced 3 books. Some of the content of the article looks to me to be designed as ATTACK, including the use of the word "pseudoscientific", which is frequently used of creationists without the writer having investigating exactly what the subject is arguing. I am however dubious whether it is not TOOSOON for an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possessing degrees does not confer notability (I mean, I've got three of 'em, and I'm not notable). "WP:FRINGE academic without sufficient mainstream sources to provide a properly neutral take on his work" sounds exactly accurate to me. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 9 September 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) 19:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Shen[edit]

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

Not a notable person. PROD declined. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Shen(沈永刚) is a famous mediaer in China,much authoritative famous media,such as China Daily、Tencent News、Netease News,has reported him.User:Leonardo8964 (talk)

Delete Subject fails WP:NOTE guidelines due to the fact that notability is not inherited and the sources currently cited do not (to my knowledge, I used a translator) mention Shen extensively.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. I looked at the references and can't see the subject being famous. The sources provided are either interviews or the subject's opinions or introduction, nothing really notable. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 06:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reserve Joseph Shen(沈永刚) or Shen Yonggang is notable in some way.I looked at the references and see the subject being famous. The new sources provided are authoritative news report. -★- ReykjavikMax. _{→Message me. 🖉←} (UTC) (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)

Comment Note these two accounts have only ever contributed to this Afd and are likely SPAs.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:VissarionovichMutk (talk) has now retracted his comment.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be advised that ReykjavikMax is mimicking my signature and user has been indef'ed. Will their votes still count? -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 01:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't about votes it doesn't matter, it's about strength of argument and convincing the community of a particular course of action. Canterbury Tail talk 18:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per SamHolt6. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:34, 6 September 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 Jagged Edge (film). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Mayenzet[edit]

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

Working actress. Fails WP:GNG. One of the references (added by a former admin who should know better) is to a self published book. A few other references are mere listings of Mayenzet's name for her appearance in Jagged Edge (film). Declined speedy deletion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. I searched the newspapers.com archive to see if there was ever in-depth coverage of her back in the '80s or for any stage work. I could only find mentions of her name just in listings until 2006, when, sadly, her father (who had dementia) disappeared in Laguna Beach and they organized a massive search, and they eventually found his remains in the hills, as it appears he'd gone on a hike. There were articles with photos of her but there was no mention of her being an actress, which normally they would if she were notable, and it would have been part of headline ie "Search continues for actress's father, 84" etc . —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jagged Edge (film), the only role that has apparently generated any even passing coverage. All the sources present in the article or available in searches (including a Nexis search) have issues with the "significant coverage" aspect of general and specific notability guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't done any research here, but if there's a viable redirect target, as mentioned above, that's usually preferable over deletion, per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 02:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jagged_Edge_(film)#Cast where the subject is mentioned. Lacks stand-alone notability, but the name could be a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 9 September 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 WP:G5, WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 13:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MyBankTracker[edit]

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

Article in question currently contains extensive content that violates WP:PROMOTION. Coverage is limited to press releases, listing, and trivial mentions, leading the article to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a startup with no indication of notability. The references include quotes from subject; they are not about the subject. Rhadow (talk) 12:22, 2 September 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) 14:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funded Today[edit]

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

Not a notable company. The claims of "$140 million" raised refers to total funding raised by their clients, not to VC funding for the company itself. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, the article subject does not inherit notability from it's clients.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable since it is meeting WP:GNG as well as the Primary criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This is a crowdfunding marketing company which has raised $140 million in total while marketing. No other agency or person in the world has raised more money for more projects. It is clearly mentioned in the article and has been cited in reliable references. Sources are from Forbes, Daily Herald (Utah), Standard-Examiner, Black Enterprise, KSL (radio) and others. Munozmayo (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Munozmayo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete -- This apparently small entity advises others how to use Indiegogo and Kickstarter to raise money. No indication that their involvement was crucial to the fund-raising effort (hanging on to other's success). No indication that it is any more than a two-person shop. WP lends credibility to their operation, which qualifies as promotion. Who did write the original article? Rhadow (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. Promotional article. MB 14:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Munozmayo has a dog in this fight. Editor account created yesterday is SPA to create subject article and Zach Smith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhadow (talk • contribs)
Delete: Agree that subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also, creator of article User:Munozmayo appears to be a WP:SPA to promote Funded Today and its leadership. See WP:PROMOTION. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DriveU[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable tech startup. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Previously deleted at AfD; pls see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DriveU. The company has raise $1M in funding which strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The lede simply does not explain why subject is an encyclopedic topic. Rhadow (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not defined by ledes. Maybe if you read the NY Times article, [31], you'd know that this company is not directly competing with Uber or Ola. Unscintillating (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede says the company is a driver aggregator. I admit that I was not smart enough to recognize immediately that driver aggregation is the business Uber is in. Rhadow (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this should be deleted. However, it passes WP:GNG, which indicates that if it survives for a reasonable length of time we will want an article. Note that Bloomberg.com shows that the company name is Humble Mobile Solutions Pvt. Ltd. of Bengaluru. Unscintillating (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails corporate notability standards. Doesn't have reliable citations and I can't find any after a search. Wikipedia isn't a business directory and citations to Bloomberg are no help. DrStrauss talk 20:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aside from WP:ROUTINE coverage and simple mentions, doesn't have enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 6 September 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) 19:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Pacific Airlines[edit]

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

Created by COI editor. No significant independent coverage online. Fails NCORP. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG guideline and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage, no citations at all. If it gets off the ground, we can create an article later. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't not comment about the pun in the above statement, Orangemike."If it gets off the ground". — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by SouthernNights per CSD A7 (no credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DenFa[edit]

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

Non-notable movement. Although the events may be notable in the history of Denver, the description is a newly-coined term that does not appear in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, possibly G10 or A11. Term is not used in the citations. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Power~enwiki. Hard to assume good faith with this one. -Location (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator admits in edit summary and on the talk page that sources don't cover this term. Creator claims to have heard it used. The article is an unsourced attack page that labels classes of people and institutions "fascist." • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re: attack page - is not attack page, is derogatory term. I did not write articles cited or file any lawsuits mentioned or participate in any actions referenced, i don't know if it meets encyclopedia reqs vs dictionary reqs, still new to adding/editing. Anon15324 (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If article fits as a conspiracy theory and then works as valid article I can adjust based on how i understand topic, but my intent was not to present it as such. It was only presented to me as a term not a conspiracy theory, although connection could easily be made. Anon15324 (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to an A11 speedy deletion, since the original editor admits they've coined the term themselves. —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 2 September 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. Well, really, "restore previous redirect", but I'll go back and selectively restore revisions to implement that after the automation does its thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Smith[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent RS. Of the 15 references, most are "promotional" type interviews or passing mentions, or otherwise not independent. One exception might be the Daily Herald (Utah), but one article in a small city paper is not enough. Article created by SPA apparently to promote the subject. MB 00:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- In-depth coverage in Forbes, Standard Examiner, Daily Herald, KSL. Daily Herald (Utah), Forbes, Standard-Examiner and KSL (radio) all are reputable independent RS. There is not just one article in a city paper. Founder of the world's largest crowdfunding company. Easily meeting WP:GNG. Munozmayo (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC) — Munozmayo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Forbes "article" was written by a "contributor", i.e. it's just a BLOG. The other three are local media, short "articles" which are mostly quotations of the subject - not meeting WP:BASIC. MB 02:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am not sure whether you read those policies or you are just pointing them out without reading. In WP:BASIC, it's written "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". All these 4 Forbes, Standard Examiner, Daily Herald, KSL references are totally talking about the subject. Please read WP:NEWSBLOG before dismissing Forbes as BLOG. "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs". Other three may be local media but they are reliable media. WP:GNG does not suggest that local media is unreliable. If it does then please provide me with the link because I just read the entire policy. You also said that those "articles" are short, they don't look short to me. I guess, most of the news articles are of that length. I hope you are not misguiding the discussion in order to prove your point. If you are going to point out some other policies this time then please highlight the exact wording, I had to read entire policy over and over just to understand where you are trying to point at. Munozmayo (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC) — Munozmayo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:BASIC states that coverage must be "independent of the subject". The local coverage is mostly quotations of the subject, "puff pieces" largely stating what the subject says about itself. These articles also fail the "significant" coverage criteria of WP:BASIC. WP:NEWSBLOG states that "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". Forbes is now a BLOG-hosting service where "contributors" are wholly responsible for the content they post. "Each contributor flies solo with his own blog. He is responsible for conceiving and creating the content, ensuring its accuracy and building an engaged, loyal readership. Forbes provides the technology and compensates some of the contributors, but otherwise, like all entrepreneurs, contributors are left to sink or swim on their own." Forbes BLOGs have been discussed many times at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. One example is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 176#Forbes.com blogs. MB 14:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Subject is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. BLP sources insufficient. The references list is a copy of that for Funded Today. A promoter in a two-person shop is not a notable person, not yet. When the head of a billion dollar fund gets tossed, how can we defend this one? Rhadow (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree that subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also, creator of article User:Munozmayo appears to be a WP:SPA to promote Funded Today and its leadership. See WP:PROMOTION. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation: to clarify, in this case, the proposed "deletion" should instead be implemented by reverting Munozmayo's edits, and restoring the previously existing redirect to the dab page Zachary Smith. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC) rev. 04:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zachary Smith as outlined above. Sources presented are either not independent or not substantially about the article topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

[1] Marie Zinck; Sophie Parmentier (13 June 2017). "Policemen killed in Magnanville: one year already". France Inter (in French). Retrieved 4 September 2017.

[2] ttp://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/magnanville-une-legion-d-honneur-posthume-pour-le-couple-de-policiers_1819011.html

[3] ttps://books.google.it/books?id=svh4CAAAQBAJ&pg=PT63&lpg=PT63&dq=Omarjan+Azari&source=bl&ots=yNREGfqvgm&sig=2fDYHVH3c9ytVgTTZGE4HyHnrDU&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Omarjan%20Azari&f=false

[4] "Daech claims missed attacks from Paris and Brussels in June". Le Parisien (in French). 13 July 2017. Retrieved 2 September 2017.

[5] ttps://politica.elpais.com/politica/2017/08/17/actualidad/1502988327_789176.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]