Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 29

Guide to deletion

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. With emphasis on the internationality of coverage. But no prejudice towards a renomination in the future if WP:LASTING coverage doesn't happen; somce !voters are open to this possibility. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Mumbai stampede

2017 Mumbai stampede (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While there is relatively high death toll, it does not even match pilgrimage stampedes. Further, there is no substantive content (with everything in the lead) and the only section is in the reactions. Even if one were to move the lead to a section, there would be virtually nothing in the lead. Every incident does not become of encyclopaedic worth just because it flashes through the news. Lihaas (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep--Abundance of significant covg. across Indian news.Was reported in numerous international media too.This's a good example of not even attempting(??) or clumsily attempting WP:BEFORE.I suggest that the nom withdraw.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Significant international coverage. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Widely covered in multiple news outlets. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep This is a significant disaster which has attracted international coverage. Would anyone nominate a disaster of the same level in the United States for deletion? AusLondonder (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT a newspaper. The only thing "significant" here is the tragic deaths of 22 utterly insignificant people (I too am insignificant). Predictable wall of reactions. This madness must stop. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@CosmicAdventure:--At least I can well-expect you to be reasonably civil.Being hyperbolic does not help much.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing hyperbolic about it. This is "if it bleeds it leads" fodder, utterly irrelevant, no different from a bus crash or a train crash or a rickety plane going down in the mountains. It happens. It's utterly insignificant. Three months from now the last edit to this article will be three months old. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge Relevant content to List of human stampedes. Please keep in mind that a burst of news coverage is not the same thing as notability. The event happened but there's no indication of long-term notability, so should be documented at the given list. --MASEM(t) 15:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Notable event and good article. This should not be at AfD. I suspect if it had occurred in London or the UK that it would not be at Articles for deletion. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep significant international coverage across WP:RS BBC CNN ,ABC Australia ,ABC and across all major Indian major news outlets.Now the only question here whether it will be WP:LASTING that is tough to say at this point .But as of now it is keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Meets GNG for multiple sources and significant coverage. Montanabw^(talk) 01:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - For news, we have Wikinews, there is such an article very welcome (but written as newsarticle). --Livenws (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy keep--Similar articles, with similar impacts in terms of death tolls have been retained, especially those that happened in elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Arkansas_floods — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4201:7D00:2D3A:5539:A1CB:9DED (talk • contribs)

Meh. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Probably some of those should be merged/deleted too. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Merge Relevant content to List of human stampedes. I dont think the subject has long term notability. Soon enough, the people of Mumbai, and India, the media, and even the politicians will forget about this event. The politicians might bring the issue for stirring politics, but not enough for becoming notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Speedy keep — More than enough news coverage to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, and meets WP:GNG regardless. I would politely suggest that the nominator should consider withdrawing. PenaltyCard (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Incidents of mass death almost always have lasting, historical importance. This is no different. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable sources passes WP:EVENT; concerns regarding 'long-term' notability should probably be raised and addressed when more than a week (!!!) has actually passed. — fortunavelut luna 15:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - I know many of you here will disagree with me, but it's my sincere opinion that all these kinds of actuality-related subjects are far more suitable for Wikinews, a sister project on which there seems to be hardly any activity. Wikipedia should not present itself too much as an alternative news site, since it was never meant to be that. The Wiki ghost (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. With a bunch of considerations:

• I've opted to disregard a bunch of single-purpose IPs and accounts because of the canvassing concerns and because most of them are merely making assertions without offering evidence that WP:PROF or WP:GNG are met. I did factor in the opinion of the account that shares its name with the article topic, though. A neutral post on the fringe noticeboard does not per se constitute improper WP:CANVASSING.
• It does not seem like "having a number of species named after one self" is considered a reason to keep, probably because while it does indicate "notability" it does not necessarily indicate "notability".
• That the nominator of an AfD did not start a discussion first on the talk page or add maintenance tags does not demerit the AfD nomination; for one thing, there is a difference between the present state of the article and the amount of information available on a topic (which is what AfD ultimately adjudicates)
• Accusations of anti-creationism bias are not germane to the purpose of AfD, and we don't consider the stances of an article subject on a contentious topic in judging notability.
• All that said, it seems like the sources provided in the discussion are considered to be too tangential - they mention the article topic in passing rather than being specifically about the topic. Other sources have issues like being primary or unreliable or not independent.

On balance, it seems like the case that the sources do not establish GNG notability is more thoroughly argued than the case that they do (which is mostly assertions) and there is no indication that any other PROF notability criterium is met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Günter Bechly

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly
• Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination)

Günter Bechly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This individual does not appear to pass GNG based on the source I can find. Notability concerns have been raised previously on the talk page so I felt it should be dealt with. ★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak delete either way. GS h-index of 17 marginal for WP:Prof#C1 Nothing else. . Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC).
• Delete lacks a strong enough citation level to pass academic notability guideline , nothing else to suggest notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep a little surprised that this has been flagged. Bechly seems to be a well-credentialled paleontologist with what was a fairly public career in Germany. He is also of wider interest, however, due to the events surrounding his conversion to ID, as discussed in the article. - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk • contribs) — 139.216.50.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Seems to me that someone who has new taxa and species named after him is by definition "notable"; for people who are working with such specimen should surely be able to find after whom they are named, with the bibliography attached! There are no sane reasons to delete this page. - AE Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstreamegypt (talk • contribs) Note: "Tanner" was added to the signature by a different single-purpose editor, 194.96.90.219 (talk · contribs)
• Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete. I'm really surprised that deletion is even being considered. - EA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsabe13 (talk • contribs) — Elsabe13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep no valid acceptable reason to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.183.87 (talk • contribs) — 82.29.183.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Based on what, just your mind I guess, my concerns about lack of sources are very legitimate. Why is there a bunch of keep votes with no real signature and such poor motivations?★Trekker (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Little to no secondary sources discussing Bechly, and the article itself has been written mostly by the subject, a Conflict of interest.--Kevmin § 18:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. He has one well-cited paper ("Fossil odonates in Tertiary amber"), one reasonably well-cited co-edited volume ("The Crato fossil beds of Brazil: Window into an ancient world"), and lower citations for his other works, not enough to convince me of a pass of our standards for academic notability. His turn to fringe creationist views does not seem to be notable at all, and cannot be covered without mainstream sources giving it an adequately neutral point of view. So the only possible source of notability would be as an exhibit curator, but that would require in-depth coverage of his role in the exhibits or as a museum leader (not just inherited notability from special exhibits he organized) and I don't see that in the article. On top of all that, the autobiography issues are a big problem. And none of the sources we have are reliable; the only one with any plausible appearance of reliability and independence from the subject, the interview by Probst, is essentially self-published. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Deletion's not justified. Dr. Bechly's considerations on biological evolution are relevant, User: Daniel O. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1205:34f6:a640:c58:b384:f97e:cf26 (talk • contribs) — 2a02:1205:34f6:a640:c58:b384:f97e:cf26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - This whole process of trying to delete Dr. Bechly prove the small-mindedness that prevails these days and the threat deep thinkers like him pose to certain members of society. His interpretation of Origins issues are his personal business. He is an outstanding academic and scientist in his own right, if he hadn't changed his stance this wouldn't even be an issue. The ones shouting "delete" are just out to censor anyone who thinks differently. That's not acceptable practice. EA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsabe13 (talk • contribs)
  • I have struck your "keep", because you are only allowed one keep or delete opinion per AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I don't know much about Wikipedia notability guidelines or what's acceptable, but I've been visiting this page off and on for several years now, including before Dr. Bechley's acceptance of ID. I've enjoyed reading about his work and how his views have changed. So I hope it stays.JoeCoder (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not a legitimate defence of the article, the fact that you like it is not relevant. A deletion discussion is also not a voting thread, like so many people here are clearly treating it as. Will the people who do not understand what an AFD is or works please stop spamming this discussion.★Trekker (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Given the number of apparently-unrelated long-term mostly-inactive users who have popped out of the woodwork to leave bad deletion rationales (Mainstreamegypt, JoeCoder, Approaching) I suspect some off-site canvassing may be going on. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes that seems to be what is going on. Sigh.★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep This page of Dr. Bechly is not to be deleted! It must stay here! Tis is my opinion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.141.206 (talk • contribs) — 84.167.141.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. The h-index argument for deletion is weak if it doesn't look at subfield, and argument from academic impact alone is insufficient, since there are also non-academic notability factors at play. On the other hand he has a range of species named in his honor. It would also be odd to have the species but delete the honored person they are named after. He's also a relatively noteworthy if controversial figure in the whole ID controversy. And finally, article improvement is an option, so why delete? —[Approaching] (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Notability is not inherited, it should not matter if he has a number of species named after him. Only coverage in multiple reliable sources grants proof of notability. If you can find sources and are intending to improve the article you are free to do so.★Trekker (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't get your reasoning in the first sentence. What is the relevance of inheritance? And species named in honor of him is only specified not to fall under the first criteria of academic notability. You can't jump from this to "it doesn't matter". Multiple minor things might be enough to cumulatively put one over the edge, even if it's a mix of academic and general notability. Add to that a little more work on the article, and maybe there's no need to purge useful information from Wikipedia. Maybe it's also worth noting, for the evolution warriors, that you need such bios to note the scandals. Otherwise there will be no record of it. —[Approaching] (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
      • The reasoning is WP:NOTINHERITED: being related to something notable is insufficient for notability. It's also important to understand that significance and notability are two different things. And most deletion-discussion participants (myself included) do not adhere to the theory that lots of things that are individually too small can add up to notability. Re "evolution warriors": see WP:BATTLEGROUND. We are not here to fight that battle, but to describe things in neutral terms (which means, according to the mainstream scientific consensus) according to the balance of reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks for clarifying. I got a bit of spare time so let me clear a few things up: First, I'm not making an inheritance-based argument. That is, I'm not arguing that the subject of the BLP gains notability by virtue of the subject's link to something notable. Rather, I'm saying one contributor of notability is your notability among colleagues in a field, and one such indicator is when they choose to honor you by naming species after you. Second, WP:IMPATIENT and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP: You can't delete an article simply because nobody has worked on it quickly enough. Especially so because the subject appears to be German-based, it's not abnormal to struggle to find English-language sources. A reasonable response to this cross-cultural difficulty is a bit of patience, and some requests for assistance. Notably, in this regard, user requesting AfD has not even added a Refimprove tag on the article before seeking to delete it. Third, user initiating the AfD has failed to comment on the talk page, let alone start a discussion on improving sources. Nor has user made an improvement to the article other than to nominate it for deletion. None of this demonstrates enough effort on the article. You can't call an article's problem insurmountable if, so far as we can tell, you haven't tried to surmount it. Fourth, it's worth noting that this AfD request relies on a call for deletion on the talk page. Has anyone looked at how abysmal its reasoning is? I quote: "By way of comparison, Volker Mosbrugger, the head of the Senckenberg museum, and also a paleontologist, doesn't have his own page.". Somehow this half-baked argument has been deemed so persuasive as to snowball into an AfD. Critically-thinking Wikipedians, say it ain't so. Fifth, note that the user requesting AfD has tried to establish GNG, but not academic notability. Seems like not enough work has been done all-round to establish a good basis for AfD. Such efforts ought to be undertaken before seeking AfD. I want to know if the user requesting AfD is willing to work with others on this problem, or if user is dead-set on deletion. —[Approaching] (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
      • What the hell is an "evolution warrior"? You and many others here clearly lack understanding of what wikipedia considers to be notability.★Trekker (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.70.65 (talk • contribs) — 70.140.70.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment I was initially a little confused as to why this article had been flagged for deletion, given Bechly's academic standing in Germany and his prominence - or notoriety - as a convert to ID. However, it seems from the above thread that it is exactly Bechly's conversion to ID that might be the issue here, which is unfortunate. One or two users apparently have an axe to grind on that point, with a rather combative tone, and comments like "[Bechly's] turn to fringe creationist views". This is related to the whole issue of WP: NPOV - a perennial challenge for Wikipedia, given that those with the strongest feelings on either side of a debate tend to invest the most effort in pushing their view. I understand the concerns of these users regarding ID, but deleting a prominent paleontologist's biographical entry isn't an appropriate way to resolve them. Not sure if there's an admin who can have a look and close this thread off? - Sam Tanner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk • contribs)
  • I don't care at all about any of that, what I see is a lack of sources, which I doubt you will be able to fix. The point of the other editor is that his views are not notable.★Trekker (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. It's perfectly possible for someone to be notable as a creationist, but the sign that they have reached that point is that their creationist views have been noted as such by mainstream sources. But from what I've seen so far the creationist side is by far the weakest point of the article, after his work as a scholar and curator, to the point where even if we keep the article on other grounds we can't keep that material in it. Again, not because I or other editors here have any particular bias against people who hold this sort of belief; rather, it's because we don't have the reliable mainstream sources for that material that our policies on coverage of living people require. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, a little note, Wikipedia doesn't care about personal views, it will always reflect evolution as factual because that is what overwhelming scientific consensus says. So any attempt to try to turn this into a debate about how Wikipedia is biased will be null and void, don't even attempt it. This is an encyclopedia that reflects sources and consensus not about how stuff should be fair for both sides or some nonsense like that. You have made several keep "votes" already Mr Tanner which isn't even allowed do I'd say you have no clue about how Wikipedia works so lay off it.

Now, it maybe also appropriate to point out that I was not even aware that this person was some kind of creationist or whatever when I put this article up for deletion. I simply saw it a while ago by looking at someone elses edit it and decided to check the sources, which I do regularly, and saw that they were very lacking. I then checked the talkpage which had already brought up the issue of notability. I felt a AFD was a good idea. That's that.

Now find reliable sources to support your belief that this person is notable or go away. If you are feel I'm being combative and condescending towards you that's because I am. I have no patience for attempts at vote manipulation and people who don't respect or know a thing about wikipedia standards. I will not be adding anything to this discussion anymore. As far as I see this is a case of canvassing and incompetent attempts att saving this non-notable persons article.★Trekker (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Trekker, let's keep it civil. I appreciate your concerns about the article, and respect your position. However, the tone is unhelpful, and does suggest that this is more than routine housekeeping. So, too, your suggestion that I've been voting multiple times to keep the article, which isn't true - I've voted once, as anyone can confirm above. I have no axe to grind here. If you're concerned about the quality of the article I'd encourage you to go ahead and edit it. Given Bechly's standing, however, I'm yet to see a compelling reason to delete it. Peace, Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I should add that WP:CIVIL is probably an issue here, given that you openly admit to being "combative and condescending". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can confirm that this discussion has been overrun by editors who have a similar lack of experience with Wikipedia, its policies, and its deletion discussions, write in much the same way as each other, use the same arguments and similar wording to each other, repeatedly fail to provide proper signatures for their signatures, sign things with some combination of the same initials "A", "E", and the name "Tanner", and in some cases even complete each others' signatures. I think we can be forgiven if we consider the possibility that you might not all be different people arriving at this discussion without any connection to each other. And now suddenly despite your complete naivety with respect to other Wikipedia matters (and without even a welcome message on your talk page through which you might have been linked to it) you have discovered WP:CIVIL. How very interesting. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

David, this is getting silly. I suspect the "AE Tanner" entry was an edit error, where someone accidentally copied part of my own signature, though of course it's possible that we have another Tanner on this page. Either way, it wasn't me, and I'm sure you can geolocate the IPs to confirm this. I've voted once, and made one other comment. I'm not sure what your last point is, but in any case I've done quite a bit of Wikipedia stuff in the past, and I'm generally familiar with the rules, including WP:NPOV and the problems with WP:CIVIL above. You've both made some valid points, but I think the view here generally is that it's time to move on. Best, Sam Tanner (laptop instead of phone). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note:"Tanner" had nothing to do with that entry. Why some third party added his name is beyond me. AE [=User:Mainstreamegypt]

Ah, I just had a closer look, and you're right, AE. A third, anonymous IP has, indeed, added my surname to your vote. A bit curious, given the suggestion now that I've voted more than once. - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Dear Wikipedia editors, you are all welcome to add dozens of more secondary sources from the print press, TV and radio, which you can find listed here: https://gbechly.jimdo.com/science/tv/ , https://gbechly.jimdo.com/science/radio/, https://gbechly.jimdo.com/science/exhibitions/, https://gbechly.jimdo.com/science/links/. Or google my name and find reports about my research on BBC, Scientific American etc. (e.g.,http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150502-ancient-predatory-cockroach-found, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/odd-insect-fossils-suggest-early-carnivorous-lifestyle/). Add to that three described new insect orders, more than 160 described species, and insect family Bechlyidae, a genus and 8 species named after me, 2 edited books and numerous book chapters, 1 book in German about me, and a ResearchGate score that is higher than 85% of ResearchGate members. And if this should not be sufficient to meet the arbitrary notability criteria for Wikipedia, please start with deleting the pages about atheist intellectual nobodies like Richard Carrier and Matt Dillahunty, who score much lower.Dr. Günter Bechly (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Precedent is relevant to AfDs. See WP:SSEFAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.201 (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Bechly is a well-known paleontologist in Germany after whom several species have been named. I see no reason wikipedia should not make a page for a person like this, as it seems standard for anyone else with similar credentials. I'm not sure why it was even brought up for deletion. jfraatz(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I see what you did there, David. - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.222 (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I left this notice here. How people get informed of deletion discussions is supposed to be public information; see WP:CANVASS. So how did you get informed of this one? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per Nom and John Pack Lambert. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete The sources given in the article are not WP:RS for Wikipedia purposes. Three citations are to a self-published e-book by Ernst Probst that transcribes an interview with the subject, six are to Bechly's various webpages, one is to a Discovery Institute front group, and the one remaining is to a conference announcement from 2008 that mentions Bechly in passing. The links Bechly offers above are to sources that are sometimes unverifiable (404 or other errors), and the verifiable ones are often in non-independent sources. The subject apparently has some expertise and has published in paleontology of insects, but their ability to qualify under WP:NPROF is doubtful as there is a lack of evidence that those papers have had "...a significant impact in their scholarly discipline...as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete due to failure to pass WP:PROF and insurmountable sourcing issues. XOR'easter (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Citations While I don't think there's anything to warrant an AfD here, I do agree that the citations could be improved. Bechly's work has frequently been referenced in public media. Here are some articles regarding Bechly's discovery of an ancient cockroach species: on ABC, http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/05/14/4231744.htm, on Phys.org, https://phys.org/news/2015-05-dinosaur-times-cockroach-caught-amber-myanmar.html, in New Scientist magazine, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27439-predatory-cockroach-from-dinosaur-era-found-trapped-in-amber/, and in the Independent (UK), http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/100-million-year-old-insect-discovered-perfectly-preserved-10218634.html. Here's an article on Livescience.com about Bechly's discovery of a fossilised "Frankenstein' insect: https://www.livescience.com/15100-insect-frakenstein-fossil-order-coxoplectoptera.html. Bechly's name is frequently cited in connection with scientific images, often due to his role as curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart - for instance in the Washington Post and Scientific American: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/09/07/these-four-legged-fish-teens-died-underwater-could-adults-have-walked-on-land/?utm_term=.0aaed6be31ca, and

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/gharial-snouted-archegosauroids-and-kin/. Plenty more if necessary, e.g. on BBC and Fox News and in German newspapers and TV. - Sam Tanner

• • You really think a blog post that mentions him only in the credits for a photo counts towards the nontrivial coverage in reliable sources needed for GNG? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The credit from Scientific American is a little weaker, but I included it as a sample of the dozens of such references in scientific and media publications, which as a whole do reflect on Bechly's standing. The others are pretty strong. - Sam— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2017‎

• Keep, because his rethinking has by no means changed his scientific expertise. Nelkenwurz (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)— Nelkenwurz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - While some of his work is impressive to me, does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:NBIO. The current article also has apparent WP:COI issues. If kept, it should be pruned (as WP:NOTCV). I tried to find some mentions in large English papers and found one mention in The Washington Post as the author of an image used in a paleontology related news article (which was not about him and is not significant coverage). The current sources used in the article are far from ideal (fail to demonstrate significant coverage in sources independent of the subject and notability). It is possible that the person is better known locally/nationally than internationally. —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is more a referencing issue with the article as it stands, not with Bechly's notability - see the citations provided above (e.g. Bechly's discoveries reported in New Scientist and The Independent). - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As noted before,Bechly's taxon descriptions do not in and of themselves impart notability to him. There is little to no secondary coverage of him, and the suggested sources that have been provided are not about HIM, but only mentions of him in passing while talking of other things. The references that are in the article now are not acceptable, due to them being published by Bechly, and thus considered primary sources, which articles on living people are to avoid.--Kevmin § 01:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you search for "Bechly" or "Blechly"? [Edit for clarity: previous post initially had "Blechly" throughout, and stated that it was difficult to find secondary sources.] Try the former on Google News and you should find dozens of references to Bechly's work in the media (I.e. specifically about discoveries by Bechly, sometimes in conjunction with a colleague). For instance, Bechly's co-discovery of a prehistoric cockroach seems to have gained coverage in most major news outlets around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.219 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That is coverage about Manipulator, NOT about Bechly, so for the 3rd time, it does not confer notability to Bechly, simply because he is mentioned in passing....--Kevmin § 05:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The criteria for notability don't require that coverage be biographical in nature, just that the subject is frequently mentioned in "conventional media" as "an academic expert in a particular area". Coverage of Bechly as discoverer of Manipulator - in articles about the discovery of Manipulator - counts for more than a "passing reference". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.202 (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

KevMin, I saw that one of the Wikipedians who advocate the deletion of my page is himself an academic with a Wikipedia page (David Epstein). Could you please provide secondary sources that justify his entry with the same rigorous criteria discussed here, because otherwise I will request its deletion, which will almost certainly never happen because we all know that this complete farce is not about notability.Dr. Günter Bechly (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

True, Eppstein seems to have virtually no media coverage at all, local or international. One might counter with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but precedent does carry weight as far as AfDs are concerned - see WP:SSEFAR. I've never seen another case where questions were raised as to whether the level of coverage Dr Bechly has received in world press fulfills criteron #7 for academic notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.201 (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What, in your view DO you feel this is about, if not about not meeting the notability criteria that Wikipedia has crafted over years of exisitance? I am not going to tit-for-tat about asserted crusading--Kevmin § 20:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course it is nothing but crusading, and you perfectly know that it is NOT just a „lucky coincidence“ that deletion was requested relatively shortly after I am officially involved with an Intelligent Design organization and more publicly active in endorsing my critique of Neodarwinism, while no such deletion attempts happened in the years before (my page exists since 2012).Dr. Günter Bechly (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that your badly-sourced autobiographical additions to the article documenting your changed beliefs caused the problematic nature of the article to become more readily apparent to other editors. But you are still missing the point about the nature of the problem. It is not about your religious beliefs or their incompatibility with science. It is about whether it is possible to have an article that presents you as others see you (as published in reliable sources) rather than as you see yourself. If the sources that would make that possible do not exist, or if you cannot be made to stop editing the article about yourself, then the better option is to have no article at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

David is correct that Bechly's views on evolution are irrelevant per se to whether he is notable. Notability is an objective measure of the amount of secondary coverage a subject has received. This is why David's attempt to frame the discussion, above, in terms of WP:FRINGE over at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is obviously an attempt at WP:CANVASSING, prejudicing users over there as to what this AfD is about and inviting them here to vote. What I want to see is a policy-based argument that the scores of references to Bechly in international press as "an academic expert in a particular area" do not fulfill criterion #7 for academic notability. In the absence of such an argument, this AfD should be closed off and work should focus on enhancing the citations, as several users have discussed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.201 (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this request of yours is that there aren't "scores of references". The references that the subject provided were uniformly deficient in some way: they weren't in independent sources, they weren't significant coverage of the subject, they weren't in reliable sources, or they weren't even verifiable. None of this demonstrates "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." At the very most generous reading, they demonstrate fleeting interest in some of the insects he has studied. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The "scores of references" have been provided in this thread. See above. -Sam Tanner— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2017‎

And have been evaluated, assessed, and deemed not acceptable. See immediately above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What is unacceptable about, for instance, the interviews on German TV? - Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

If you'll note, most of the delete !votes do cite policy, while most of the keep !votes don't. Also, I think you meant to say that secondary coverage is an objective measure of notability, not the other way around. Regardless, determining notability, especially in borderline cases, can definitely be subjective. If it weren't, discussions like this wouldn't be necessary. But in this case, it just doesn't seem to be there. And as for your suggestion of focusing on improving sourcing – nothing is stopping you from improving the article's sourcing while the AfD discussion is open. In fact, I've seen articles kept at least in part because people did just that. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Bechly's notability should be assessed not just on the basis of the entry's existing references, but from those provided above as well (e.g. from BBC, ABC, Fox News, Livescience, The Independent, and so on). I've now added some of these to the article itself. - Sam Tanner— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2017‎

And as pointed out by multiple people, multiple times, those do not establish notability (continuing to assert that isn't helping). He's barely mentioned in any of them, and they certainly don't satisfy WP:NPROF.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon Vorbis (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussed above. - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: per User:PaleoNeonate. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• NOTE TO CLOSING ADMINISTRATOR: The pattern of !votes (deletes mostly from long-term productive Wikipedians, supports mostly from those who have make few or no other contributions) strongly suggests canvassing. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of these "long-term Wikipedians" appear to have been canvassed by David Eppstein at the Fringe Theories noticeboard. - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Public notifications at large on-Wikipedia noticeboards or projects (or sorting lists) is not canvassing (especially when a notice is made here about it using {{delsort}} or {{deletion mention}}). Please see the small messages starting with Note:. —PaleoNeonate – 04:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Given where the notice was placed (when WP:FRINGE seems to be irrelevant here), this falls under "campaigning", a specific case of canvassing (see WP:CANVASSING ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.198.149 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC) — 49.199.198.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Fringe is not irrelevant here. Bechly is a person with a fringe belief. WP:FRINGEN is the correct place to notify editors interested in editing articles related to fringe subjects that one of those articles might be deleted, just as we also have boards for notifying editors interested in academic biography (the one I found this from), Germany, etc. Having a fringe belief, by itself, is not a valid reason for deletion, any more than is being an academic or being German, but that's different from being irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I am a fringe noticeboard regular, but that does not make me more or less likely to support deleting this page. For example, if somebody nominated the Ken Ham page I would strongly advocate keeping it. I decide whether to !vote keep or delete according to Wikipedia policies such as WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Ham meets the requirements. Bechly does not. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A wave of delete votes followed David's post on WP:FRINGEN, so I think other users can decide what his motives were. Almost everyone else is supporting "keep". - Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Saying "I think other users can decide what his motives were" doesn't change the fact that you are falsely implying that a perfectly normal part of Wikipedia decision making (notifying relevant noticeboards) is some sort of conspiracy. And your response contains a basic, logical flaw. If then, as you claim, fringe theory noticeboard regulars are more likely to !vote to delete a page because it is about a creationist, how then do you explain the multiple pages about creationists which fringe theory noticeboard regulars not only supported keeping, but expanding? Free clue:those creationist have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Günter Bechly has not. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This is getting farcical, and it's time for a friendly reminder about WP:CIVIL. What we need is an explanation of *why* Bechly's media coverage - in both German TV interviews and world press - don't confer notability, not merely repeated assertions that they don't. On your other point, the purpose of WP:FRINGEN is to "ensure that neutrality is maintained" in articles about "fringe" theories - clearly irrelevant to this AfD about notability, and so David's actions are not a "normal part of the Wikipedia decision-making process". WP:FRINGEN regulars will of course be less sympathetic to Bechly being presented as a "notable" paleontologist, as we've seen. Closing admin needs to keep this in mind. - Sam Tanner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.50.63 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's getting farcical, @Sam Tanner:, but probably not in the way you mean. You are one of seven anonymous editors who have !voted "Keep". There are a further two registered editors who have also !voted "keep" immediately after registering. In fact, all but four "Keep" !votes are from such new users (and those four editors had been long-absent from their editing prior to posting here). This is surprising, since AfD discussions are not generally exposed to new users; there is no link from the main page and this is a bureaucratic "behind the scenes" area that usually takes time for new users to find. Both in my personal experience and in the general experience of regular editors on AfD, new editors do not stumble across AfD discussions. They are nearly always lead there. You have accused David Eppstein of canvassing, so the question can fairly be asked of you, as well. Are you prepared to disclose how you and these other editors were lead to this discussion? Please also note, before you toss WP:AGF in here, that that behavioral guideline generally stops applying to those who have themselves breached that assumption. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the canvassing issue (which hasn't conferred any unfair advantage in terms of actual arguments), the real issue is whether deletion is warranted, and I don't reckon the case for this has been adequately made (see my argument above). The central question--of whether the case for notability is truly irredeemable--has not been adequately addressed, but instead the complaints have been that the current set of sources don't establish notability. This is in violation of WP:IMPATIENCE. In addition, during the course of this discussion, a range of sources have been offered that I think change the landscape significantly. At minimum, I think, this calls for a serious reassessment. —Approaching (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Case for Bechly's notability as a paleontologist is strong (given e.g. international press coverage, ResearchGate ranking, discovery of important new species), but references in article probably should reflect this better. SAT85 (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC) — SAT85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV and low h-index Fails WP:PROF low for WP:Prof#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions are exactly divided, and notability, here, is a matter of editorial judgment.  Sandstein  09:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Historical Status of China's Tibet

The Historical Status of China's Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article overbooked a book. The reader may think this is like promoting this book.Most of the reference sources are proof that the book is published.This needs to be rewritten to improve, and the list of chapters of this book is unnecessary. O1lI0 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you mean exactly by "This article overbooked a book". Writing in an encyclopaedia implies avoiding giving English words meanings they do not possess. --Elnon (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What is Book?

"Instrument that record, analyse, summarise, organise, debate and explain information that are illustrative, non illustrative,hard bound paper bag jacketed, non jacketed, with forward introduction table of contents, index that are intended for the enlightenment, understanding, enrichment, enhancment and education of the human brain through sensory route of vision... some times touched"

Can you understand Overbook after this explanation?With a simple description is that you advertise for this book.--O1lI0 (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I will use A11 if I think this page can not be improved. This is my habit .Using this delete page means I think there is room for improvement, please go to improve and then come back to explain what you have improved.Other users will see this page and decide whether to delete or keep.--O1lI0 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete This is an incipientWP:COATrack. Add any scraps worth keeping to one of the related articles. Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, major insight, indeed into the Historical Status of China's Tibet, factual article about a book--DDupard (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe you mislept "POV polemicism supporting the occupation of Tibet." Anmccaff (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Neutral. Article might warrant improvement, but this Chinese propaganda book definitely meets WP:NBOOK. It is cited, is reviewed, and is also considered a government position.Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC) On reflection - this doesn't pass on English sources (seems like 1 review in Radio Free Asia, a mention in NYT, and around two dozen citations) or the sources in the article - I'm guessing there is Chinese or other non-English sourcing - but without these being presented, I'm modifying to Neutral.Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete fails NBOOK and GNG, even if the nom can't manage to communicate in English. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep gives background on the Chinese government's approach to presenting and promoting their view on the topic. Cannot be easily incorporated into other articles. I have edited the article, mainly for neutrality. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Meets several criteria of WP:NBOOK. AusLondonder (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• @AusLondonder: Name two. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Criteria 1, and Criteria 2. I would even suggest it meets Criteria 3. AusLondonder (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I can see only one book review (half of criteria 1). I cannot find any source regarding the notability of this "Book of Excellence" award (criteria 2: The book has won a major literary award)--Tiger Chair (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Mere fake news in book form (what we used to call "propaganda.") But the reason for deleting is that it fails WP:WP:NBOOK; I searched and failed to find any scholarly or WP:RS reviews in English, and, as ChrisTroutman says, what I did find did not meet WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment -- I am wary of articles on books, as opposed to ones on their subject matter. History and politics books that need a WP article are likely to be few and far between. In this case the dominant view in the west adopts the view of the British Raj that Tibet was an independent kingdom. The Chinese view is that it was at most semi-independent under the suzerainty of China. The Chinese view of the subject is clearly important. It is not WP's place (or mine) to say which view is right and which wrong. I do not think this is "fake news", since it is explaining the official Chinese POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• As I said, my iVote was based on failure to meet WP:NBOOK and lack of the sort of WP:SIGCOV to support a article on this book. It is an article on a book; not on a policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. French historian Anne-Sophie Bentz has not been writing any review about this book. Her inclusion in the section "Reception" is therefore misleading. She has only written a short half-sentence about the two co-authors and is providing a quote from the book introduction. The book title does not even appear in Bentz text (it is only mentioned as a note). See here section 18, note 30. I could not identify any criteria of WP:NBOOK met by this book.--Tiger Chair (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

French scholar Anne-Sophie Bentz does not review the book, that's a fact. However she makes use of it to contrast the POV of pro-Tibetan authors and that of China's official historiography. Contrary to what is claimed above, there is more than just a "short half-sentence" dedicated to the book. I have counted as many as 18 occurrences of the authors' names in the whole chapter (mostly in the notes, though) and a total of 60 lines or so of text (notes included) relating to Bentz's comparative analysis of the two viewpoints. It's not a lot but it's more than the purported "half-sentence". --Elnon (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

At least we agree on the fact that Anne-Sophie Bentz does not review the book. --Tiger Chair (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. As mentioned by several users, The Chinese view of the subject is important, but this is not what we are discussing here. This book does not meet any of the criteria under WP:NBOOK, I could not find any review, and this book apparently never had a significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") --Tiger Chair (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is a review (in Radio Free Asia) - [1]. It is also frequently mentioned as Chinese policy.Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the review by Warren W. Smith, this makes half of criteria number one met: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" (WP:BOOKCRIT). I would be happy to change my opinion if a second review is found.--Tiger Chair (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. The book is credited with having won a major Chinese award: the 1996 "Book of Excellence" award (so, that's one criterion met). It has been the subject of an in-depth review by American journalist Warren W. Smith (half a criterion met, as noted above). Although a second review is missing, the book has elicited comments of various length by Western scholars (John Powers, Thomas Laird, Anne Sophie Bentz, José Raimundo Novas, José Elias Esteve Molto). --Elnon (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Elnon (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• I would be happy to change my opinion if you can provide some verifiable source that this "Book of Excellence" award is indeed a major award as per WP:NBOOK criteria 2. I made an extensive search, and could find plenty of "Books of Excellence" awards as diverse as "American Society of Missiology Book of Excellence Award", "Book of Excellence Award from the National Academy of Sciences, Korea", but nothing related to China. There seems to be in China something like an "Excellent book" award, with many different categories, but here again not much is available to prove notability of this award (nothing either under Category:Chinese literary awards). For example, this provincial publishing house has won no less than 800 awards (out of 10'000 publications) including "Excellent Book" awards. If you can tell us more about the notability of this "major Chinese award" that you seem to know, and tell us in which category The Historical Status of China's Tibet received its awards, and give us some other major books that have received the same prize over the course of the years, this would help to revise my vote.--Tiger Chair (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep.major award, citation in lot of scholar articles, some where that's the main subject.Popolon (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Popolon (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• To whomever will close this page, please note that this is a case of WP:CANVASS, in particular WP:VOTESTACK.--Tiger Chair (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you related in some way or other to user Pseudois ? --Elnon (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Elnon's post at w:fr:Discussion utilisateur:Popolon#Conquête mongole du Tibet is an appropriate notification, as described in Wikipedia:Canvassing. As far as I can see it is the only notification of this discussion made by Elnon on English or French Wikipedia, and it does not amount to votestacking. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Verbcatcher: to my understanding of the table at Wikipedia:Canvassing, "Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret" is tagged as inappropriate, and partisan notification is described as votestacking; appropriate notification must comply with "Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open".

Elnon and Popolon have a long history of constant reciprocal support on the French Wikipedia, if you read the section where the notification is placed, Elnon asked Popolon a few hours earlier that "your opinion on the renaming is missing, there are currently three opinion in favor and one against, meaning that the other party will be able to impose its POV which is as big as a mountain". In his notification regarding this deletion page, Elnon started with "I understand you!" as a reply to Popolon's comment saying that he is not reading my comments on talk pages. I wonder how someone can take an informed decision without reading the comments. Popolon was blocked for insulting me and other contributors as a result of an ANI I filed, since then Popolon has systematically opposed any opinion I have expressed. Considering this background, it was obvious for Elnon that notifying Popolon would result in another "Keep" vote, and this does correspond in my opinion to the definition of votestacking. Or is it me who don't understand this table? Anyway, this is not large-scale votestaking, I believe we can agree on that.--Tiger Chair (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Just give one clear opinion and stop the chatting --DDupard (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• @DDupard: I interrupt this topic.I asked someone to explain any improvement, but he claimed that the book was awarded and put a KEEP in front of the statement.I don't know what happened to the French WIKI, but I'm sure it might be WP: MEAT.

PS:Hope that I do not have to explain and let you know why to ping you because the explanation will make you very embarrassing.--O1lI0 (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is that?--DDupard (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Popolon has contributed to the French page Le Statut du Tibet de Chine dans l'histoire, of which The Historical Status of China's Tibet is derived. Were it not for him, both pages would never have seen the light of day. I felt something would have been amiss if I had not let him know about this deletion discussion. --Elnon (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah great, at least I understand what you are writing.--DDupard (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Popolon has not contributed to the French page Le Statut du Tibet de Chine dans l'histoire. Popolon is the creator of an article about Nyima Gyaincain (a coauthor of the book), which Popolon edited between 4th November 2015 and 12th July 2017. His contributions are mainly additions of wrong biographical information copied from an homonym user profile on the Chinese micro-blogging site Sina Weibo (see here). According to the Weibo profile, Nyima Gyaincain is a lama at the Tibetan Buddhism Institute in Lhasa born on 5th August 1980, meaning that the boy would have been 14 -15 year old when he would have published this official history book (see here). After concerns were raised by several users regarding the reliability of the information and the admissibility of the article, Elnon deleted/replaced the Nyima Gyaincain article by renaming/transforming it into a redirection towards "Le statut du Tibet de Chine dans l'histoire" on 29 July 2017. Popolon did not add any content to the article about this book. Vote stacking is allowed on the French Wikipedia, so Elnon may simply have been unaware of the English Wikipedia usage when notifying Popolon. That doesn't change to the fact that it shall be taken into consideration when the discussion will be closed.--Tiger Chair (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong. Popolon created the French article Le statut du Tibet de Chine dans l'histoire and has made a considerable number of edits to it.[2] The English article is based on a translation of the French article. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Also created the Wikidata entry and added some elements.Popolon (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Verbcatcher, but Popolon has not created the the French article Le statut du Tibet de Chine dans l'histoire, he created on 4th November 2015 a biographic article article named "Nyima Gyaincain" and stopped editing it on 12th July 2017. Elnon later transformed the content from a biographic article into a book article, and renamed the article accordingly on 29 July 2017.--Tiger Chair (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep "considered as presenting the official position of the People's Republic of China on the subject" is sufficient for a presumption of notability, and sufficient references are provided. The article does need cleanup. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. The book is not notable. The page does not include any meaningful information about content of the book (beyond noticing that Tibet has always been a Chinese domain), probably because such information can not be reliably sourced. Not every propaganda book is notable. For example, we do not have The Secret War Against Soviet Russia? No. But at least the author of the "Secret war" was notable. Are Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain notable? I am not sure, but page Nyima Gyaincain should be deleted as well. As written, this is pure promotion. My very best wishes (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

  My very best wishes This book doesn't say the Tibet has always been China, this books claims that it's started with Mongolian ruled China, Yuan Dynasty, inside Mongolian Empire. Popolon (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep the book would be more notable in China but since it talks about Tibet, the notability may have issues but it is fair for passing general notability. D4iNa4 (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Something strange is happening here. For example, please see last paragraph of this source. It only mentioned the title of the book and it tells about the title of the book sarcastically, as "a pile" of something. Now, here is an edit telling that the New York Times reported that the Chinese Government had highlighted its diplomatic priorities by placing copies of The Historical Status of China Tibet among other official publications at a reception following the opening of celebrations. What? Is that a spin to promote the product? My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not a new addition, but the restoration of content recently deleted by My very best wishes. I have explained my revert on the talk page. My very best wishes has not responded on the talk page but has again deleted the paragraph. Meanwhile another editor has deleted another paragraph. That deletion is also unwarranted. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: Not notable enough for WP:NBOOK, a search on Google Scholar produces some citations, but not barely enough to warrant a separate article. The NY Times article only mentions the book in the passing.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. after clarification DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Paul Anderson (journalist)

Paul Anderson (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:JOURNALIST. No sources. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is about an academic. The subject does meet WP:BIO, and NPROF is more relevant than JOURNALIST. Also there are sources, did you even do a WP:BEFORE? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't see a pass of WP:Prof here. Can you be more specific with your claim? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC).

• Keep per WP:HEY this [3] article from The Spectator added to article during thie AfD by someone (not me); per having been editor of a significant publication Tribune (magazine); and per his 1997 book Safety first : the making of new Labour, which was reviewed in The Times, The Guardian, The New Statesman, The Observer... my proquest archives search on the book here: [4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Article is basically his job history. Completely inadequate sourcing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Article makes no case for WP:PROF notability, being on the editorial staff of a publication is not inherently notable, and two book reviews, one of which is of an edited volume, is not enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• He's not an academic; he's a journalist/author/editor who teaches university courses. I's not appropriate to gauge his notability under WP:NPROF (I would not have added him to that list.) He should be gauged according to WP:AUTHOR/WP:JOURNALIST, he sails past #3., and seems to pass #1., and #4. as well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• WP:HEY I fear that this article may fall fall prey to a combination of our endemic presentism and the fact that there are an awful lot of Pauls Anderson in the world: google and other searches mask notability of this political writer who was more active a decade ago, Plus his notability is drowned out by a Plethora of Pauls. I have added several reviews of his books, more exist. He passes WP:AUTHOR, because Safety First, his analysis of New Labour, would pass WP:NBOOK - it's not only widely reviewed, but discussed and cited. Also, asserting that it should be deleted cecause he was merely "on the editorial staff" (deputy editor at New Statesman,) is misleading. Deputy editor of New Statesman is a major job, and his firing in an anti-leftists "purge" was covered by The Guardian. Plus, he was Editor of Tribune (magazine), a valid claim to notability. (see list of decades of bluelinked Tribune editors through to the present.) With an author, one book that passes WP:NBOOKS puts the author over the top. The article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I want to add that in my WP:HEYMANN I merely picked for the low-hanging fruit (book reviews). Article certainly needs improvement, which could be readily done by anyone willing to invest the time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per EM Gregory, even though the exact meaning of WP:HEY still eludes me. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More time to discuss recent changes and sourcing improvements to article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep as I'm willing to accept the reviews as sufficient here. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:DICDEF applies. There is patently insufficient content to support an article and such slight content that there is, is unsourced. The only 'keep' !vote is from the creator who does not adduce any policy based arguments. The question for consideration is whether the page can be redirected to Glossary of physics. The problem is that there is no accepted definition for this term. One of the common uses is for the British company and some sources refer to the Australian company. In learned circles we have different useages, here and here. I am driven to the conclusion that producing a definition that is not misleading is not a runner leaving 'delete' as the only viable option. Just Chilling (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Radsafe

Radsafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NEOLOGISM / WP:DICDEF. Not an article. Originally prodded, prod was removed with a rude comment. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete May be relevant to a dictionary, not important/notable for Wikipedia. Abrasapuentes (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Glossary of physics, which would seem to be the most relevant available glossary. bd2412 T 00:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete There's nothing here to keep. Tony OU812 (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Almost null content. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC).
• Redirect to a glossary as suggested by BD2412. That's what they're there for. – Joe (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm the one who "wrote" this article, consisting of one sentence. I received a notice from User:GigglesnortHotel saying that I could "prevent the proposed deletion by removing the proposed deletion/dated notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page." Which is exactly what I did. My edit comment was, ""Radsafe" is not a neologism. I came across it in an article and it's in quite a few others. I want to help others to find out what it means without spending 5-10 minutes as I had to. Please find something more useful to do than deleting new articles!" That's what he calls a rude comment?? I don't see why people spend their time trying to undo little things that others do in order to help people! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:Not a dictionary Xxanthippe (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC).

Eric Kvaalen you haven't really advanced an argument for keeping the article. I don't think anybody wants to undo your work, but there are all sorts of reasons that articles on unencyclopaedic subjects are undesirable. What we're trying to do here is reach a consensus on whether this subject fits that description. We're all here to improve the encyclopaedia. – Joe (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how those who just want to delete a helpful article are trying to improve the encyclopedia. A redirect would be all right, but just deleting it would make the encyclopedia less useful. As I said, there are several articles that use this term, so there ought to be an entry telling people what it is. I don't see why people spend so much time on such a minor thing. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Eric, you've been here since 2006 and you've done quite a bit of editing, most of it good, especially to science-related topics... you should know why this contribution is not acceptable as an article. I'm seeing a number of commercial uses of Radsafe, both product names and company names, some of those companies may also be notable, so "Radsafe" could potentially mean quite a few things. If anything, Radsafe should be removed from the articles that use it and replaced with the correct and full name (if they refer to the Radiological Safety Section). GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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) 19:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Lumpy da comedian

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lumpy da comedian
• Articles for deletion/Lumpy da comedian (2nd nomination)

Lumpy da comedian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Same rationale as original XfD by Bearcat which closed as a WP:SOFTDELETE and then undeleted per a request at WP:REFUND.

WP:BLP of a comedian, whose claim of notability ("youngest comedian headliner") is not supported by the sources. Of the four "references" here, one is a primary source copy of a commercial he was in (not a notability-assisting source), one is a mere photograph of him and two other people on a user-generated PR site, and two are to the webpages of local TV stations' morning shows which fail to link to any actual content about the subject. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but exactly zero of the sources here right now are helping him get notable under either our notability standards for comedians or WP:GNG.

-- Dane ^talk 20:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Since I was the nominator the first time, and my nomination statement has been copied verbatim here, I'm not going to make a formal deletion argument because that feels too close to the spirit, if not the letter, of our rule against "voting" twice in a consensus discussion — but I do still want to note that this hasn't been upgraded with a stronger claim of encyclopedic notability or any improved reliable sourcing at all. It's also worth mentioning that the undeletion request at WP:REFUND didn't actually include a reason why undeletion was warranted — I'll grant that since nobody actually participated in the original discussion and thus it closed as a soft delete it wasn't unreasonable to just proceed with the request anyway, but a strong case for the article's keepability still hasn't actually been made anywhere. Also the creator is an WP:SPA who has never contributed to Wikipedia on any other topic but this, so there's the possibility of a direct conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion, by every appearance. Anmccaff (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable comedian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, the only claim to notability is unfounded. Ifnord (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Jara

Daniel Jara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem to pass our criteria for the notability of football players, plus I can't find any reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. Thus, we cannot verify the information to the standard we would like and the player is not automatically notable. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable footballer. No sources to back it up. MX (✉ • ✎) 23:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:FOOTY as per this has played for Juan Aurich in the Peruvian Primera División a Fully Professional league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per PotW above, passes subject specific notability guidelines having played 12 times in fully professional league but mainly Non-English sources ClubOranje^T 11:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Having played in the Peruvian top flight, he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete lack of sources to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 16:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Demonstrated to pass NFOOTY. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Waly Dia

Waly Dia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of article is a non-notable actor and comedian who 6 years ago finished 5th in the French version of those "America's next Standup" competition shows. Work seems non-notable and the French version of the article has even fewer sources than the English one (all of which are in French, incidentally). JesseRafe (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:NACTOR. No notable accomplishments as an actor or comedian. Comatmebro (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Not important/notable. Abrasapuentes (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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. bd2412 T 03:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

List of female justice ministers

List of female justice ministers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This looks like an example of "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" (see WP:NOTDIR). Being a justice minister and being a woman are two disconnected things, so this combination has no encyclopedic value. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. We have a whole category structure on this, Category:Women government ministers by portfolio. postdlf (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Such lists are obviously "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". The fact that someone made several of them does not mean automatically they are in accordance with the policy. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I didn't present an "argument". Don't be so damn eager to jump on someone, rather than doing your own due diligence to see what kind of relevant content we have that may represent common practice. The categories were created at different times by different editors over a span of years. Maybe some make sense to have, maybe all, maybe none, but clearly what is "obvious" to you is not so to others. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I did not "jump on you", I just gave a civilized answer to your comment. My viewpoint is that the "common practice" is recorded in our policies. WP:Policies page says: "Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices". Thus, there cannot be "common practice" that contradicts a policy, because policy is a common practice. The only question here is whether "female justice ministers" is a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization". In my opinion, being a woman and being a justice minister are two categories that have no connection with one another whatsoever. The fact that someone is a woman does not make her better or worse or more important minister. If we say that this kind of cross-categorization is acceptable, then someone may create lists of "black justice ministers", "blonde justice ministers", "gay justice ministers", "disabled justice ministers", end so on, there's not limit. I don't see encyclopedic value of such lists. Maybe someone thinks that female ministers are something so exotic that warrants a list article, but I think that such position is sexist. Having a female minister should be as normal as having a male minister. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
        • No, you jumped to shooting down an argument I hadn't made. Normally when people go out of their way to frame their comment as a "comment", it's not presented as an argument for a position but rather an observation to help frame the discussion. Responding with "OSE" even if I had advocated to keep is also a regrettably facile and dismissive response to relevant consideration of the wider impact of a nomination...particularly given that these categories are really the same content in a different format, and not even "other stuff", let alone unrelated. Legalistic invocation of policy also doesn't give us license to ignore that practice may inform us how the community actually interprets and applies it, whether we individually think those interpretations are constructive.

          We've also seen enough [demographic]-[occupation] AFDs and CFDs over the past decade and a half here to know that none of what you've said so far touches upon why such list/category intersections of sex and office have often been created and defended (protip: it never has anything to do with "shoulds" or anything starting with "in my opinion"). So I'd recommend you focus on the more fruitful avenue of why this particular intersection does not merit a list, rather than wasting everyone's time with a very abstract and ahistorical ipse dixit. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Many lists of a similar nature, these are standard topics. Demographic-occupation topic is legitimate. Montanabw^(talk) 07:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep -- most have articles, and such classification by gender, while not probably something one would think of as *especially* important, could be useful to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep standard article type. It doesn't make sense to dsrupt a stucture like this by challenging a single item. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as Montana said, Demographic-occupation lists are legitimate. Also, WP:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. should keep in mind that OSE is an essay not a writ of policy to be enforced. I think the second sentence of the the essay explains it. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Annabelle Lengronne

Annabelle Lengronne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notablity not clear, the sources aren't great and largely mention her in passing, or are just tabloid-esque red carpet photos, not actual articles about her or her films. Her film work is largely non-notable, to boot. JesseRafe (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. JesseRafe (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:NACTOR. Article and sources does not show the necessary notability needed to meet WP criteria.Comatmebro (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete fails the multiple significant roles in notable productions test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 07:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Emmanuel Buriez

Emmanuel Buriez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable filmmaker. Subject or author of several French language blog posts or non-RS media publications. Made several non-notable films and shorts over the course of 15 years. Only blue link in his career is an unsourced uncredited cameo in Peter Jackson's King Kong. Been up (and exceptionally poorly written) for three weeks and no improvements or new sources found. JesseRafe (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet notability requirements for filmmakers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Nonnotable per GNG for the en.wiki . L3X1 (distænt write) 02:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 20:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yuzhny Rabochy

Yuzhny Rabochy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is entirely copy-pasted from its main source but is ineligible for G12 as the content is licensed under GNU. However, the group has received little coverage elsewhere with nothing that confers general notability. A search for offline sources on WorldCat shows no in-depth coverage. DrStrauss talk 18:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note: PROD removed by another user with the extremely convincing rationale of Highly unlikely that a 20th-century subject will have sources online, therefore controversial. I guess that's why similar political movements like National Bolshevik Front and National_Bolshevik_Party have no online sou- oh wait... DrStrauss talk 18:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. A quick googling will reveal that there are plenty of potential references. "After the First Party Congress, with the publication in Ekater inoslav of Iuzhnyi rabochi i [Southern Worker] -- a serious competitor to Iskra [Spark] as the party's leading organ -- Ekater inoslav attracted Social Democrats from all over Russia." ([5] p. 219) --Soman (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of sources mentioned. (this particular party was formed in 1899 and continued until 1903, , considerably before the online era. The 20th century covered quite a long period. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that web sites aren't the best place to look for sources for a publication that folded in 1903, and that a Roman alphabet transliteration of a Russian title will not be likely to be the best spelling to use when looking for sources. Plenty of reliable sources in English can be found by this search and the first source cited in the Russian Wikipedia article is an entry for this in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Source given by Soman, ip seem sufficient for WP:V, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 07:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Cregmore NS

Cregmore NS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable primary school. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete No sources whatsoever and a most definite GNG fail. If it wasn't for schools being exempt from A7s, this would already be gone, personally. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 20:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails the GNG. Article makes be to guess which country it is in. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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 . Materialscientist (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Aydin Turan

Aydin Turan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Failed the Google test.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What is "the Google test"? Grappa4megrappa4u (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per A7. Person who formerly started with "216" (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: Cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources that indicate notability. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• In 2010, he founded the Dolzza Construction Company, which - as of 2017 - has been in operation for over 12 years. I don't know about you, but that right there is a heck of a claim of significance, I'm just not sure it's credible. But anyway, delete. I found literally nothing. Assuming Genel Energy actually is notable, and we haven't deleted it yet, claiming to be COO probably inches it past A7. GMG^talk 18:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete owner of an insignificant construction company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This is not the most resounding delete consensus and even among the editors arguing to delete there is acceptance that some of the sourcing for this article is solid, so I don't think we should hold any prejudice against recreation with better sources. If anyone would like this article recreated in their draft space please just ask. A Train^talk 08:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yardbird (restaurant)

Yardbird (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:N, appears to have been written entirely by someone associated with the business UniNoUta (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - It was mostly garbage, but I've taken out the trash. It's a little citation heavy now, but it's not gonna kill anybody. WSJ, NYT, Food & Wine, South China Morning Post, two years voted consecutive top 50 restaurants in all of Asia by a notable magazine. What more could we really ask for? GMG^talk 19:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Delete What more could we really ask for? Encyclopedic significance, for a start. Anmccaff (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per GreenMeansGo. The first reference is a review written by the WSJ, by our definition it is significant.Ifnord (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as promotional COI editing , Of the references, #1, the WSJ, seems to be a review about the restaurant. #2 is a mention, #3 is a mention within a group article, #4 is within a general article in the NYTimes, but it gives very considerable emphasis to this restaurant; #5 is a promotional entry in a travel guide #6 is solely about the restaurant in a respectable magazine, $7 is a mention, #8 is a general article #9 and 10 are an online restaurant guide that is not a RS. This yields 3 good sources, which might enough--the restaurant is apparently significant.

but why would any good faith editor include the bad references? Presumably, because they are editing carelessly, and haven't actually read them. The alternative is that they are not editing here in good faith, but for promotional purposes, and are therefore following the practice of most promotional editors here, and adding whatever they can find. The matter is greatly clarified by looking at the edit history: the article was written by "Yardbirdhk " and incorrectly accepted from user space , by an experienced ed. who must have realized who the contributor was, but apparently didn't check to see that that most of the references were useless. The rule about WP not being used for advertising is basic policy, and considerations of notability are a secondary guideline. I almost used G11 on this. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give Ifnord the chance to respond to DGG's response to them, as well as to give any other editors the chance to weigh in. No strong consensus at this point anyway.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Move to draft. Clearly notable; clearly spam, and a stub. Additional sources are available. It is possible that a thorough review of all the sources will return only positive things, and if so, we should not punish the reader by denying them information merely because there was nothing negative to say. However, with an entity like this, we should doublecheck all the niceties proposed in one set of sources against the findings of equally independent sources. If it is moved to draft, and the draft can not be substantially improved, then it will go the way of all abandoned drafts. bd2412 T 21:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The only way to end promotional editing, especially promotional paid editing as this is likely to be, is to remove the article. Just as with sockpupetts, nothing else will discourage them. If the subject is notable, a volunteer editor will write an article subsequently. Otherwise, we find ourselves in the position of doing the work, so the guy violating the terms of use can collect the money. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Alle-effin'-luia. Exactly. Well, one minor caveat: who says this stuff really is notable, in an encyclopedic sense? I don't remember too many restaurants in Americana, Britannica, F&W... Anmccaff (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The article's nearly a year old, so the guy (or girl) has already collected the money. So what's the point of deleting and recreating it? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per DGG. I have blocked the creator of this article for violation of WP:CORPNAME. I've also listed a draft they had in progress for another restaurant: WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yardbirdhk/sandbox. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. I've also found a Forbes article listing it among Hong Kong's "6 Must-Try Restaurants" and a Globe and Mail article about its founder. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

that Forbes article is already there, as #3. I discussed it above. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I added that Forbes source, so where exactly did you discuss it? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:DEL4 (in keeping with DGG's emphasis). Only the lead 2 sentences are non-promotional. If someone wants to create a non-promotional article about this potentially notable establishment, they should go through AfC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG.Forbes article only mentions this restaurant is not about the restaurant now every restaurant merely mentioned in Forbes cannot have an articlePharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Reflected-wave switching

Reflected-wave switching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor whose rationale reads thus: "It's not notable and also wrong in a few areas, it doesn't link to other pages and the reference given - while may cover it - is a book! An old book!" On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep or at worst merge to Conventional PCI, which the sources I found discuss it in association with, e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. IP's deletion rationale doesn't appear to have any validity. --Michig (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per the multiple in-depth sources found by Michig. The article could certainly use improvement, but the sources are out there to build a better article. --Mark viking (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• A 1993 book from a major educational publisher is one of the best sources possible, so I don't know why the fact that it is used merits exclamation marks. It's certainly far better than some random web page, which appears to be what the nominator (not Ultraexactzz) expects. Keep per that source and others found above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Good points. Just to clarify on procedure, Ultraexactzz didn't generate the nomination themselves; instead, they (as a courtesy) helped an IP editor complete the AfD registration process. This help is a standard thing and unless the helper says otherwise, they are understood to be neutral in the discussion. --Mark viking (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I pointed out that the effective nominator was not Ultraexactzz. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time, but consensus to merge to USCGC Jacob L. A. Poroo (WPC-1125) after that article is created.  Sandstein  09:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Poroo

Jacob Poroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The reference does not support the claim (While the blog is the official blog of the Coast Guard there are two comments claiming the information is incorrect). Additionally, the subject does not meet WP:GNG nor the Military Wikiproject's suggestions for notability (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People). The ship it self may warrant a standalone article however that ship is not even finished yet. CommotioCerebri (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Snow Keep Being recognized by your peers is a notability factor. The US Coast Guard agreed to an initiative from Skip Bowen, who was then its most senior enlisted member, to name all 58 cutters in its new Sentinel class after heroic enlisted Coast Guard sailors, or heroic members of its precursor services. Experienced respected individuals met and agreed on which heros were most deserving of recommendation. This is a strong notability factor.

  Note: The first sentence of CC's nomination seems to me to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the wikipedia's deletion policy. Nominator SEEMS to be calling for this article's deletion simply because they believe the article contains an unspecified inaccuracy.

  Of course when a topic measures up to our inclusion standards, a nominator's concern with the article's accuracy are not grounds for deletion. Articles on notable topics that are genuinely inaccurate are supposed to be brought up to date, or otherwise corrected, or, at least, marked for update or correction. Geo Swan (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect/merge into new article No indications from the sources that this person is independently notable, and the suggested criteria at WP:SOLDIER are also not met. The usual way of treating instances where an otherwise non-notable person has a ship named after them is to cover them as part of the article on the ship, which I'd suggest is the solution here. As the ship appears to have been completed and will soon commission, it clearly justifies an article. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • When a ship has human namesake, the reason they were chosen is highly significant.

    Most ships don't have a human namesake. Some civilian shipping firms do have a tradition to name some or all of their tugboats or freighters after family members, and those family members usually don't have significant notability.

    When an individual is chosen to be the namesake for vessel built for a public institution, like a Navy, a Coast Guard, a Fire Department, an Environmental or Fishery Ministry, that choice itself conveys considerable notability.

    Some of our special purpose notability guidelines explicitly recognize peer recognition as proof of notability in that field. WP:ACADEMIC, for instance, says that when an academic has an issue of a Journal, or a book, or a conference, where each paper is about their work, or follow-ons to their work, this establishes tha individual's notability. We respect that the experts in a field know who should really be considered notable in that field. When it comes to Coast Guard work, the committee process where senior respected Coast Guardmen, and respected outsiders, picked men and women they thought merited recognition is that peer review. I suggest it establishes their notability.

    It could be argued that to discount the expert opinion of experienced Coast Guardmen, to argue that they don't know who are those who are notable, in their own field, is editorializing, and a lapse from compliance with the policies that remind us that we are not experts in the fields we cover, that we rely on the opinions of actual experts in those fields. Let's not second guess them. Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge: per Nick, the individual doesn't appear to be independently notable from the ship, but is IMO a valid search term. As such, it would be best to create an article on the ship, and then use the individual's name as a redirect to the ship, where details of the namesake could be included. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • G'day, in response to the query below, for me if significant coverage exists that covers all aspects of the subject's life, it would probably be a keep. At this stage, though, the article doesn't demonstrate this as key details such as date of birth, and the subject's early life and full service details are not covered. What is there appears to be focused on the incident that led to the award, and then the naming of the ship. The award alone doesn't confer notability, IMO, as it is a relatively low grade (equivalent of the Soldier's Medal or Airman's Medal) in terms of military decorations. As such, in its current form, the subject's notability is primarily in the context of the ship, so it seems like a topic easily covered on the same page as the vessel with a redirect being a good way to ensure readers find what they are looking for. Nevertheless, if multiple reliable sources exist that cover the Poroo in a manner that enables a full biography to be written, I feel it could be kept as a stand alone article. I note, that this very situation has also occurred in relation to some Navy Cross recipients whose name was memorialized with a ship. The treatment for these hasn't always been consistent, for instance Sam Davis Presley (redirect), and Rogers Blood (currently stand alone article), so I suspect there is a wide variance of opinions in this field. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Coast Guard Medal in peacetime possibly is highest possible. Having a ship named after you is an indication of notability - and will generate coverage of the namesake regardless.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Question... for Nick-D and AustralianRupert ... If I understand you, you both asserted Jacob Poroo doesn't currently measure up to our inclusion criteria.

  The cutter named after him is the 25th such vessel. Generally, when these cutters are commissioned, or when they arrive at their home port, newspapers publish profiles of the namesakes.

  If one of more newspapers in Florida, or Louisiana, or elsewhere, publish a celebration of his life, which includes interviews with his relatives, or other people who knew him, would you agree our inclusion criteria are met? What if those profile(s) contain new details, because those reporters did a better job of searching for records about Poroo? What if those profiles only paraphrase the references we have already found? Does additional coverage of the details we already know establish notabilty?

  I continue to believe that experts in Poroo's field recommending recognizing his heroism by naming a $50 million vessel after them, is a strong peer recognition, and thus a strong notability factor. But, if the consensus is that Poroo is not currently notable I think it would be highly useful if you went on record as to what, in addition, you think would establish his notability, to your satisfaction. Geo Swan (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• In 2014, when the article on Richard Dixon (USCG), the namesake for the 13th cutter, was nominated for deletion, I checked all the articles on USCG cutters. At that time I found only one cutter named after an individual, where the namesake did not have a standalone article -- the USCGC Midgett (WHEC-726). I considered than an oversight, which I corrected, by starting John Allen Midgett Jr.. Geo Swan (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• I am going to quote part of In ictu oculi insightful comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Dixon (USCG), which I think is equally applicable here:

Let's be realistic here, en.wp's perceptions of who is "notable" are at best second-or-third-hand, inherited from what other bodies (governments, media, the Oscars, medieval scribes choosing the winners of history) thought was notable. Perhaps the USCG may be a better judge of notability of coastguards than a group of people with coffees-stained keyboards (i.e. you and me). If the USCG internal process for USCG:NOTABLE leads them to throw a boat at Bernard C. Webber, Richard Etheridge, William Flores, Robert Yered, Margaret Norvell, Paul Clark, Charles David, Charles Sexton, Kathleen Moore, Joseph Napier, William Trump, Isaac Mayo, Richard Dixon, Heriberto Hernandez then they can establish (expensively) notability just as surely as Simon Cowell.

Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

As you should know very well from countless AfDs and ANI discussions of biographies you've created, notability is determined by the criteria at WP:BIO. Not some other subjective measure of how important you reckon someone is. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification please Nick-D. You point to WP:BIO. You seem to be asserting your delete, in this AFD, is a reflection of BIO. But doesn't BIO's subsection WP:ANYBIO say: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor..."

So, is it your position that when the US Coast Guard honors Poroo's heroism by naming a $50,000,000 cutter after him, this is not a "significant award or honor"? If that IS your position, perhaps you could explain WHY honoring someone by naming a $50,000,000 vessel after them is not a "significant honor". Geo Swan (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day, definitely it is an honour and certainly noteworthy (i.e. could be mentioned on the encyclopedia), IMO, but it isn't necessarily something that should equate to a stand alone article of itself. That said, if coverage in the article could be expanded to illustrate all aspects of the subject's life, it would be a keep for me per WP:GNG. But coverage isn't demonstrated yet, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert, you are not the only contributor I've seen who has argued BLP should be deleted when they don't cover the mundane milestones of a life. Earlier this year, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Vladeck, DGG, one of our most respected contributors, said, in part: "Of course biographic detail is nice, but unnecessary--a notable person is notable because of the work they do, not by virtue of being born. Even under the GNG do not need in depth coverage of the person's personal life, just of the aspects of his life that bring forth notability."

  I'd be very interested in what you think after considering the suggestion that the notable people we cover are notable for what RS wrote about what they did or said, or the impact of what they did or said -- not who they married, or where they were born, where they went to school.

  Consider the spouses of celebrities, or spouses of members of the UK Royal Family, or the extended Kennedy clan. These are individuals for whom we do know all the mundane milestones, but, most of the time, we don't start articles on spouses, children, parents. The exceptions, where we start and keep a BLP who is related to someone who is more notable than they are, have nevertheless had enough coverage in RS, of notable things they themselves did or said, or the impact of what they did or said. I point this out as further establish that it is not the mundane milestones that make an individual measure up to our inclusion criteria. It is the notable coverage of what they did or said, or the impact thereof. Geo Swan (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment You ask " WHY honoring someone by naming a $50,000,000 vessel after them is not a "significant honor"". Another way of looking at this would be that a branch of a country's armed forces named 58 pieces of equipment after 58 members of that branch, basically self-promotion contrary to WP:SPIP. We need third-party demonstration of notability. Also the monetary value is irrelevant - if the subjected had enlisted in a poorer nation would they have been less notable? --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I stand by the other comments. When you get a multi-million dollar vessel named after you, a medal etc. that makes you notable. Genuinely encyclopaedicly notable. More notable than a cricketer who played one match for Warwickshire in 1911, or someone with x-zillion Youtube likes. The sources from 1960s obviously exist, but are on microfilm in libraries not online. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete There isn't significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. The article only talks about his death, there is nothing about him as a person, presumably because no sources can be found which discuss him in detail. To test this, consider that the contents of this article could belong equally well in an article about the ship named after him USCGC Jacob L. A. Poroo (WPC-1125).--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify I'm not asking for intimate details of his private life, but a biography or other profile published by someone other than his employer would be nice.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete there is no significant coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Considering the fact that there is a ship named after this person, they are almost certain to exist. Plus, they have a page on a high-quality source like Military Times. Although there could be more, I'm pretty sure that we can verify the article's claims. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect - where is the WP:SIGCOV? Subject seems to fail WP:GNG and all the other arguments here attempting to rationalise why it should be considered notable anyway given the subject's worthiness (which is not in question) don't seem to hold any basis in policy. Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge into the ship article after the ship has been commissioned; otherwise, not seeing notability enough for separate article. Kierzek (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment/question - would anyone be opposed to redirecting this to Sentinel-class cutter and then merging from article history and retargeting once USCGC Jacob L. A. Poroo (WPC-1125) is created? ansh666 07:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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) LibStar (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Seychelles Natural History Museum

Seychelles Natural History Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

museums are not inherently notable, despite the usual suspect recycling the invalid WP:INHERIT argument. 1 gnews hit, and this article lists the non reliable tripadvisor as a source. fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Let's see if the usual suspect "finds" this AfD. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge with Victoria, Seychelles - no reason we can't include a bit about the museum there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The Natural History Museum is listed in numerous guidebooks and tourist board materials, of course, among them a mention in a National Geographic website that it is the "town's best museum".[11] A 2010 article in The Guardian about the museums of Victoria is mostly about the National Museum of History but has several paragraphs about this museum and its gigantic coco de mer specimen. [12] If nothing else the available sources could be used to help improve the article for Victoria, Seychelles.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep this from the Guardian is a reliable source. Combined with the other sources mentioned by Arxiloxos this is enough to justify keeping this article.--TM 00:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep The Guardian article (above) lists several items on display that merit inclusion in this article. This would make the our article adequately sourced and have enough content to merit is retention. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Additional reliable sources, albeit with limited content:
  • Bonnelame, Betymie (22 June 2017). "5 museums in Seychelles to learn about islanders history and culture". Seychelles News Agency.
  • Ernesta, Sharon; Bonnelame, Betymie (9 January 2016). "Sharks on display at Seychelles' museum". Seychelles News Agency.

Verbcatcher (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 07:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Brian Rose (media)

Brian Rose (media) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No real notability or wide-spread coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete another run-of-the-mill positive ideas writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Goodsell Amplifiers

Goodsell Amplifiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable product. It's not hard to find reviews, but I don't think these inherently establish notability; I'm looking for in-depth coverage of the unique design, features, construction, etc. The article provides no such references, and I'm not having much success finding any. Almost all the viable links and references in the article are self-sourced, so it reads like an advertisement. Mikeblas (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Regretfully. Right now this is just a list of products with very little information about the company itself, and little or no information that I can see which is reliably sourced. That's basically a reflection of the sources available from what I can tell. There's plenty of stuff about the stuff they make, but not about them, which is what is required if we are going write an encyclopedia article rather than a product listing. GMG^talk 19:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- just a product brochure. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion. No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Akhu Chingangbam

Akhu Chingangbam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of independent notability outside of the band per WP:MUSICBIO. He is mentioned in several WP:RS, but always in the context of his leadership of the band, including for the commendable charity work he does, the latter of which only appears to be newsworthy because of his leadership of the notable band. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Keep There does appear to be independent notability outside of the band. http://rollingstoneindia.com/the-imphal-music-project-lends-voice-to-shahbag-protests/ is about the subject and http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/watch/ballads-for-the-homeland/article7685672.ece directly discusses him. http://www.news18.com/blogs/author/akhu-chingangbam-11526.html is a series of articles he wrote, but it is a borderline case. It could just be that the media isn't reflecting his Anglicized name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep A news search seems to bring back promising hits. At the very least, since his name is a legitimate search term, it should be merged or redirected, not deleted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep has enough significant coverage for his music and his charity work to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - meets GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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 Anna Fiorentini Theatre and Film School. ansh666 07:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Stage & the City

Stage & the City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

After a thorough search, I am unable to find any substantive RS referencing "Stage & the City." This may be a case of TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to the parent company Anna Fiorentini Theatre and Film School for the time being. There's actually plenty of info on Stage & the City; it gets 88,000 Google hits. But may take some time (or else targeted searching website by website, which I don't have time to do) before sufficient notable RS sources review it substantially. Softlavender (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge a core mention, but not the detail that is not independently sourced, to Anna Fiorentini Theatre and Film School. Fails WP:ORG and I am not particularly confident about the notability of the target. However, whilst we have a page on the parent organisation, this is a pragmatic solution and may, also, help boost the notability of the target. Just Chilling (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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 Nothing More. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Save You/Save Me

Save You/Save Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable album. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Nothing More. I couldn't find any reliable sources that could confirm notability, but I found sources that confirm that it exists at least, and it's a name that's a plausible search term, so its best as a redirect to the band article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Article not justified, but a plausible search term. --Michig (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect as above and support speedy close. Redirecting non-notable albums to artists is pretty standard. Next time WP:BEBOLD. GMG^talk 20:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nothing More. Been uncited/poorly cited since 2015. Continues to be changed from the redirect. Nothing in searches to show it passes WP:GNG, therefore, as per WP:NSONG, redirect to album. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Reply - I would be absolutely OK with a redirect. BTW, is anyone going to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bebe & Bassy Tour and fix the icons that are showing up blank? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seems to be fairly even disagreement whether WP:BLP1E (and other issues) apply or not. ansh666 07:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Kimberly Corban

Kimberly Corban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD (after it expired, but before it was deleted with no rationale). The concern for PRODing this is that it meets WP:BLP1E conditions 1) Reliable sources only cover her in the context of challenging Obama on Gun control 2) She has remained, and is likely to remain a low-profile individual, and 3) the event was not significant. menaechmi (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Was a BEFORE performed prior to nom? I see a number of book references - [13] [14] [15]. Beyond the copious initial 2016 references, this continues through 2016-2017 - [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Yes - lots of right-wing less-reliable outlets (but they still demonstrate reliablitynotability. Seems she's become a rape-surviving pro-gun poster-girl for the NRA - and it doesn't look like that's going away.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Modified significant typo (with strikethrough).Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was, thank you. Of those book mentions, one is part of a link (included in a book, why would you do that?) to the Washington Post article on her, and both the second and third are again about her interaction with Obama. Passing mentions in articles that say "She'll be joining us later on the show"[23], a name-check in an article about the women's march [24], "8 NRA Twitter accounts to follow in 2017" [25], and an article to tell people to watch the video [26] aren't claims of notability. The three interview with her about her sexual assault are primary and don't count towards notability, and would be an awful article to have to write. menaechmi (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete one-event notice, not sustained notability. If for some reason the article is kept it needs to be serverly revisied to remove the POV-pushing "brave decision" and other unecyclopedic language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, prominent public figure. Covered in many RS. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The entire article was a COPYVIO of the subject's website. I cleaned up the unencyclopedic breathless style and added references. No opinion on whether the topic is notable. BTW, it's quicker to edit the article than to discuss it. Rhadow (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly a subject of extensive third-party sources, the subject is far more than a mere BIO1E, having created a larger role in public discourse. More refs and work still needed, but article quality is not the same as notability. Montanabw^(talk) 02:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Third party sources exists. She is a prominent public figure.BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- WP:BIO1E and WP:ADVOCACY for the subject's position. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus WP:NPASR. ansh666 07:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Condemned 84

Condemned 84 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no sources apart from their own website. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Week keep I've found coverage from 1992 in the Washington Post and a more recent review in a German magazine: [27]. There are a lot of mentions in google book searches too, most of which can't be previewed, but demonstrate that this band has had a lasting influence. By no means brilliant sourcing, but also by no means completely obscure. SmartSE (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. They had both a single and an album on the UK Independent Chart in 1986 - no. 21 and no. 26 respectively (from Barry Lazell's book Indie Hits). It seems likely that print coverage exists from the mid-80s, but none of my books on punk have anything in them about this band. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim Hazel

Jim Hazel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable, if successful, businessman. All references are run of the mill mentions for such a person. Barring the self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded the article and added some newspaper reference to strengthen a case for notability of this subject. --Danimations (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure and unadulterated promotion (like much of the writers output). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 07:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Christian Vit

Christian Vit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable bit part actor. Only sources available are passing mentions or tabloid journalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete a collection of bit parts do not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete agree per nom. Shaded0 (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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 Celebrity Big Brother 10 (UK)#Rhian Sugden. As a compromise between those who want this article topic gone and those who think some material can be salvaged. "Other articles would have to be deleted too" is not a reason for keeping anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Rhian Sugden

Rhian Sugden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable model, only sources available are passing mentions in local newspapers or tabloids. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Merge with Celebrity_Big_Brother_10_(UK)#Rhian_Sugden - This appears, at this time, to be a borderline GNG-pass case, so a merge of any relevant info/citations should probably be made to the appropiate Celebrity Big Brother article for now. Guy1890 (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete fail all WP:BIO, a non-notable model Samat lib (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails NMODEL, not notable. Montanabw^(talk) 02:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Retain, otherwise the articles on all the Kardashian daughters, every "Real Housewife of" and hundreds of other nonentities will have to be deleted too. Astronomy Explained (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I personally wouldn't complain about that; feel free to send them all to AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 10 (UK)#Rhian_Sugden - doesn't seem to be notable but there is enough for a mention somewhere, and that somewhere is there. ansh666 07:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh666 07:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Luigi Rocca

Luigi Rocca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable musician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC XFhumu^Talk 09:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Warners Solicitors

Warners Solicitors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This firm does not seem notable to me. There is nothing in the article to suggest that it is. Tacyarg (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for business listings. Fails WP:NOT and WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't find any media coverage suggesting any notability, beyond just being a normal law firm that has been around for a long time. There is an out of print book apparently about the firm [[28]], but again, nothing that suggests the firm has done anything more than generate local interest. Fails WP:CORP. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Arudra (2017 film)

Arudra (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability per WP:NFILM: began production some time this year, can't find any mention of a planned release date, and I can't find significant coverage online (in English at least) from WP:RS. There's a short Times of India article cited, but it and the blog reference cited are about the female lead Meghali, with only a passing mention of the film itself. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Pure WP:CRYSTAL-gazing. Wait until release. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Eden Lost

Eden Lost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability, lack of. The article on Spanish Wikipedia from which this has been creared has (unlike this article) a load of sources, but not a single one that I founfd in any way convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I too checked the Spanish article and thought that the massive number of refs there would help yield something useful. It didn't. The problem with the name is that it's ferquently used in a biblical or narrative sense, and there was a television series by that name. https://www.discogs.com/artist/3942515-Eden-Lost shows three recordings, but there's no AllMusic bio (http://www.allmusic.com/artist/eden-lost-mn0001531242) There are a few book mentions, but we need significant coverage. That does happen, but it's in fan websites and blogs, which are not reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 07:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

IFE Worldwide

IFE Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Few of the claims made in the article can be referenced with independent, reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:NCORP and is full of weasel words e.g. high-profile, brand new event etc. A7 declined on the grounds that while it may fail WP:NCORP a WP:CCS is given. DrStrauss talk 14:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Question--perhaps it would be a good idea to expand "few of the claims" Which of the claims can be reliably sourced and which not? DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands; entirely promotional & no 3rd party references. There may be a notable topic here somewhere (of which I'm not yet convinced), but this article ain't it. Borders on G11 and no value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh666 07:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Idesktop.tv

Idesktop.tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A7 and G11 speedy declined Courtesy ping: Alex Shih. Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG due to lack of independent coverage either referenced or that I can find. DrStrauss talk 14:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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) Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Keturah Sorrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A retired singer with Intimate Opera Company who went on to be an uncredited extra for TV shows. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Please honour WP:BEFORE, not just what's in the article. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keturah-sorrell-2sztpm7qxqb and many other print articles and references found with a Google search. Google books has many references and discussions about the subject. I admit it is harder to find references for performers who meet MUSICBIO but were at their peak well before the age of the Internet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as per Google news sources including The Times article, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep – an obit in The Times isn't written for non-notable people. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of entries on imdb (both credited and verified as well as uncredited)

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, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yan Gorshtenin

Yan Gorshtenin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable teenager trying to promote himself by paying for a Wikipedia article (in accordance with the TOU by an editor who has declared that status). Nothing here remotely comes close to notability: the sourcing is either all non-RS blogs or interviews with trade pubs, which are both primary sourcing, so not counting towards GNG, or are pushing the border of what we consider RS. Article has been G11ed in the past, but the language is neutral enough this time around that it should be evaluated at AfD. This fails both points of WP:N, not enough RS coverage and as promotion excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N, and sources (which rely on user-generated information and interviews with the article subject) fail WP:VER. This is a primary sourcing issue, as the only claims of significance in the subject article come from answers given by the article subject. Note that the last time this article subject appeared on Wikipedia, the article creator was most likely the article subject. While the creator of the current article has disclosed that he/she has been paid, I find this to be unsavory.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment While writing the article I was unaware that primary sourcing could extend to material supposedly provided by the subject (i.e. interviews in this case) even though it has been included and published by sources completely independent of the subject. Perhaps more clarification should be provided in WP:VER in that regard. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Primary sources can in some circumstances be used to meet WP:V. They do not, however, satisfy WP:GNG, which requires coverage in reliable secondary sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete fail all WP:BIO, however NOT Anough significant coverage on wikipedia multiple sources , i mean Reliably sources. Samat lib (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 07:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Opadchyi Ihor Mykhailovych

Opadchyi Ihor Mykhailovych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG PROD was removed without edit summary improvement or discussion. Domdeparis (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Kiev is obviously a large and important enough city that politicians at the municipal level would be accepted as notable if they could be properly sourced — this, however, is referenced not to media coverage about him but to media coverage of other things written by him, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get him a Wikipedia article, and it's written remarkably like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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} 03:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Debris documentar

Debris documentar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This film does not appear to be notable (WP:GNG). I read German and looked for German sources as well. All coverage is either passing mentions or in self-published sources such as blogs. The one cited source, heise.de, does not even mention the film. Because the content is not verifiable in reliable sources, a merger to the director also seems inappropriate.  Sandstein  12:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I translated it from the German equivalent Wiki, so, obviously, they did not have a problem vis-à-vis notability/importance over there, plus, my article was approved here by another editor via the articles for creation apparatus. I cited two sources in my article (not including five external links to film databases), not one, including this book which discusses the film at length. If it must be deleted and merged, may I suggest it be merged with Melancholie der Engel, the film which it comments on?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This article was previously speedy deleted for using "incredibly graphic detail of cannibalistic corpse rape". After a deletion review which established this was not grounds for deletion, the article was restored. I don't think arguing that it is on another wiki has any great validity, or arguing it has no sources has any validity. It has two sources, and the de-wiki's notability guidelines are different. User:Aguyintobooks 13:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per Sandstein. If he was unable to find sourcing in either language that meets RS standards. WP:DEL7 applies. I can't find English sourcing to meet our inclusion standards myself, and I'll take his word on the German. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Once again, please note the book I referenced above, cited in the article. I do not understand why people here continue to ignore the fact that I cited it, even though I mentioned it several times now. Another editor made it more clear now.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

See the analysis below as to the reliability of the sourcing. This is still in WP:DEL7 territory. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge Marginally notable. In passing, I note that the German Wikipedia is more stringent on sourcing than the English Wikipedia. In any event, the content can (and should) survive in the director's and/or the other film's article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

79.183.203.120 As a matter of formatting, you added the article as "Further reading." I put it in as a source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I thank you for that, as, maybe, now, some people will actually notice that I cited two sources, not one, and, that one of them is a book discussing the film at length.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete fail to meet (WP:GNG) Samat lib (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen the book I mentioned earlier? I changed the link at the article now to Google Books so that people could see for themselves.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The book has two pages dedicated to it, but I have no idea what it says. the other source is awkward because it does not seem to mention the film by the title of the article, autotranslate makes the article incomprehensible. I basically have no clue what it say either. User:Aguyintobooks 19:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Plus two more pages about Reise nach Agatis (remember, the article deals with it, too) and a few briefer mentions elsewhere. I cited the German article not because it deals with the film (it does not) but, rather, to have a reference for the fact that Dora worked as an assistant for Lommel. I do not speak French and added the book only because I found it and, given that the publisher has a page on the French Wiki, thought it was a notable/reliable source: a French speaker can, surely, come and assist.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. The book source Les dossiers Sadique-master Dissection du cinéma underground extrême mentioned above seems like borderline self-published. Obscure author, selling on Amazon as an e-book or a paperback for nearly US$100 isn't something I'd consider "mainstream reliable", and the problem with books is that the author can write anything desired without fact checking or accuracy, and still be published. So I'd say this is a very weak source in comparison to something in periodically published media. The article source mentioned above doesn't deal with the film, either. Just because something exists on another language Wikipedia doesn't mean it meets the inclusion criteria of the English Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  Best thing I can say, again, is that the publisher has a page on the French Wiki, so, it is probably not self-published (also, Amazon.fr sells the paperback for EUR 32,00 and the Kindle for EUR 16,00, the equivalents of c. 38 and 19 USD, respectively, according to XE.com, and, this is also the price at the publisher's site, so, I am not sure how you got to the $100 figure). Again, if it must be deleted, consider merging it, as I suggested above, with the MdE article: I am willing to accept that as a solution, given how the forming consensus here seems to support deletion. FWIW, let me add, again, that the article passed AfC.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  I got the $100 figure from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XQHG8SR/ (it's $92 now, I recall it was higher earlier). Also I'm not opposed to a merge or redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as no evidence of notability, fails FILM as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  By the way, I would, as a way to salvage the article, encourage people, also, to look for sources dealing with Reise nach Agatis, though, I have not found any, except for the book (and, film databases, commercial sites, blogs, etc., not normally cited).--79.183.203.120 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  I have searched for "Debris documentar" as well as "Reise nach Agatis" and have obviously found nothing,

  "I have not found any, except for the book (and, film databases, commercial sites, blogs, etc., not normally cited)" - If you haven't found any reliable sources yourself then in short you're wasting your time here replying to everyone. –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  I did not say I have not found any sources: I think the book is good enough, I simply meant I have not found any good sources except for that one. People here either ignore the fact I cited the book (and, continue to claim I cited nothing), or, claim it is not good enough, a claim I contested earlier. Worth seeing if there might be something under Voyage to Agatis, the film's official English title.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete one book source does not meet GNG; the German article also has no sources to support this one's notability. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  I should like to add that this editor posted extremely hostile comments about me wrt another issue. I have seen plenty of articles here, on a wide variety of issues, with only one book source (plus, many with barely any sources at all). Nevertheless, seeing as I have no way of convincing you and you do not find any of this convincing, feel free to delete the article.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Per WP:WHYN you need at a bare minimum 2 significant references, three is preferred, I can't see this swinging to keep at this point. However merging most the content into Melancholie der Engel is reasonable. You could boldly do this, but don't take over the article! Dysklyver 23:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Hoping they will at least allow this to stay. You can delete the article now. PS: I have a dynamic IP.--109.65.93.6 (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  I am assuming this will be deleted tomorrow?--109.65.93.6 (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hafiz Hamidun

Hafiz Hamidun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod removed without improvement, edit summary, or message on the article's talk page. So next step is Afd. Poorly written article fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, could use some clean up but passes WP:GNG Utusan Malaysia[29], Sinar Harian[30], Astro[31], mStar[32]. These are from the article. — Zawl 16:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The sources are mostly articles about his mariage and not in-depth. Domdeparis (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

All the articles are about the subject. Why would they even write about his wedding if he isn't notable? The first ref is about him as a singer, the second is about his career and the third and fourth are about his wedding with some details about him. These are only from the article, more can be found by searching. — Zawl 13:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable singer , lack evidence of notability on those sources provided at the moment . Samat lib (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable singer fails gng and nmusic.182.65.88.95 (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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 Ill Bill. Redirects ARE cheap. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

God Is an Atheist

God Is an Atheist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Entirely fails WP:NSONG: no in-depth reviews, no chart listing, and a total lack of secondary coverage. The lone "source" is a link to discogs, a user-edited website. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Ill Bill as it's a valid search term. And like I've always said, there's nothing an agnostic can't do if he doesn't know whether he believes in it or not Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- the song is too obscure to be a valid search term, so a redirect is not necessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Good thing redirects are cheap then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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} 01:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Matthias Manasi

Matthias Manasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Autobiographical self-promotional article written entirely by SPAs (who are all clearly socks/meats of each other; listed below). Voceditenore has gamely given it a massive cleanup, but it still doesn't have any notability, even with her searching for more info. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO; the only significant coverage seems to be five sentences here: [33]. (The Nickel City Opera bio is not at all reliable or independent.) See also discussion here: WT:WikiProject Opera#Need eyes on two articles.

• Added article Matthias Daniel Manasi to the list of articles to be included in the AfD. It was created by one of the alleged Socks listed below. reddogsix (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• This new one should be speedily deleted per WP:A10 (recently created duplicate of an existing topic). The text is identical to this version of Matthias Manasi. Voceditenore (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I have been unable, despite extensive searches, to find a single article about this German conductor/pianist or a single review of his work. Note that the link cited above with the five sentences about him [34] is not an independent source. It is a blurb on the website of the orchestra for whom he was conducting part of a concert. The subject fails WP:GNG and also fails the alternative criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. There is no significant recording career. The one listed in the article (where he plays the harpsichord on an opera recording, but was not the conductor), is the only one I could find. He has won no prizes (significant or otherwise). Voceditenore (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Comprehensively fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, as pointed out above.Smerus (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• It may just be too early for an article, but for now Delete. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: Given the absurd persistence of the COI SPA sockfarm, both article titles should probably be salted if this AfD results in deletion. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• I concur on the salting. Note also that given the latest shenanigans, I have started an SPI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArtistForum. Voceditenore (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete (and salt). Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as expired WP:PROD. ansh666 07:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Friends at the End

Friends at the End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. The best reference I can find are obituaries to its founder [35] and passing mention of its support for a failed bill in the Scottish Parliament. Other than that it mainly directory type listings and notes in related websites about meetings.

Note: this article has been the subject of recent reversions by User:MelissaIndigo who doesn't seem aware of how Wikipedia works and doesn't leave edit summaries or engage in Talk. Possibly has an interest in the organization and possibly also a sockpuppet of User:Melissathebarber who edited the article back in 2010 along with other articles on related topics. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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} 01:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Gaia Power Technologies

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Gaia Power Technologies
• Articles for deletion/Gaia Power Technologies (2nd nomination)

Gaia Power Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The sources provided are only passing mentions, failing corporation depth standards. A source search shows little in the way of significant coverage that suggests corporate notability. DrStrauss talk 10:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete – Source searches are not providing significant coverage; does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Should have been deleted in 2009. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH and doesn't approach WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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} 01:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Filiph Sandström

Filiph Sandström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Autobiography, mostly primary sources with no indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Sole claim to notability is being "one of the first software developers to develop a fully featured application for the Nintendo 3DS homebrew scene". No significant coverage from WP:Reliable sources. Speedy declined in 2015, so taking it to AFD. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete a run-of-the-mill software developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per the nom's concerns and my own evaluation for sources. --Izno (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence whatsoever for notability. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete No real claim to notability. I can't find any sources in Swedish or English to show that he is notable. --bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails the WP:GNG, someone who unofficially develops games for a console (ie not professional or employed) isn't exactly a likely path to Wikipedia's definition of notability anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 07:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Cypriot Young Scientists

Cypriot Young Scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Ineligible for PROD due to de-PROD in 2006.

Despite searching I can't find any independent, reliable sources, in Greek or in English. To be fair I don't speak Greek but I can't even see anything on Google with the Greek name that's a news or otherwise reliable source. In English, all the books that mention them are published by or in partnership with the group, so aren't RS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notabilty. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 07:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Bangladesh–Turkmenistan relations

Bangladesh–Turkmenistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG. this article uses WP:SYNTH to invent notable relations when there really isn't any. 4 of the 6 sources refer to a one off statement in 2013 that didn't result in anything. the other 2 is a pipeline interest that didn't result in anything. no embassies, no agreements, no leader or minister visits. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Unless someone finds evidence of embassies, meetings. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ansh666 07:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

MC SKULE

MC SKULE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability per WP: MUSICBIO or WP:ACADEMIC, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS, just some local coverage from the student newspaper of his alma mater. He worked briefly with a notable producer, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for starting this discussion to improve the article. A couple sources that aren't his alma mater's newspaper have been added. Searching for more national coverage to see if notability can be established. Found a few video news story but they are YouTube uploads - would this be considered credible? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tihg6sQFmtk — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesBluth (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

YouTube can be a reliable source in some circumstances, such as a clip of a broadcast from a notable concert, an interview from a reliable news source, etc. Please feel free to ask at my talk page if I can be of any assistance. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I added the YouTube link mentioned by CharlesBluth, and found an additional post of the same video by the Channel itself rather than someone's own upload of the news clip. -Jayden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.81.74 (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep This article seems to have improved drastically since its original creation, likely due to this discussion. Sources from beyond just a student newspaper have been added, to the point where notability seems to have been established from credible news stations, not just imdb and the high viewcount on a verified facebook. 47.19.88.20 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC) — 47.19.88.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Although the article has been reworked, it has not been improved per the quality of references. In addition to school news, social media and user download sources like you tube, there is a first person promotional interview with an inspirational wordpress blog and a clip from a soft news segment on local television. The only source that might be third party is The Ann Arbor News, but the article—a standard piece on a local business— is largely the subject talking about himself. Simply not enough to merit wikipedia notability. Also worth noting that claims of working with a Grammy winning producer can’t be verified; the Grammys data base does not list this producer as having ever been nominated, let alone a winner. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep (Disclaimer: Article Creator) I'd like to formally first of all apologize for creating the article in a hurry and inadequately citing and relying on Facebook primariliy as evidence rather than references in the first draft. The article now seems to be a lot more rigorous than my original creation, and while I do think that having a verified facebook page with viewcounts in the millions should serve as some evidence of "notability" (and therefore that it would be of general interest to see an objective, trust-worthy informational piece on the subject on Wikipedia), I understand that many external sources are needed to justify this. I think that those seem to have been added by others. So, I think that this version of the article should be kept and that the writing is not at all promotional or biased, and simply objectively states fact about an educator with some notability (I wouldn't consider this person a "musician" per se since his primary occupation is teaching). CharlesBluth (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: CharlesBluth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

• Keep I think that this educator stub should be kept - while there aren't tons of references, I think that there are enough high quality third party references to at least merit a stub with this succinct, basic information that can be verified. Having collaborated with a notable producer and notable bollywood director shouldn't mean the notability is inherited, but having media coverage from that is what makes it notable. While two of the "third party" references are a student newspaper, we should consider that (according to its own wikipedia page) that student news paper has hundreds of thousands of visitors per month, and covers news beyond just the university. Additionally, the video clip from the Channel 4 news also seems notable (even though it's a YouTube upload) because it is an NBC affiliated station representing Detroit, which is one of the largest cities in the US - I'd imagine fairly competitive to get coverage on, and would certainly count as a "third party". The Ann Arbor News is similarly a third party reference, and all of these references cover this educator for his doing something creative with education itself - not just a teacher who got news coverage for his video game collection, for example. If this were about a musician, notability would be questionable, but other wikipedia articles on notable educators seem to have a similar level of references counting as sufficient for educator notability - coverage in a few large (not necessarily national) third party sources for that educator's work within education. This seems to be met. The only reference that was very weak was that someone above me mentioned, the "Inspirational Souls" blog where the subject did an interview talking about his work, and since it isn't clear how notable this "Inspirational Souls" blog is or whether it's a third party, I removed that reference and the information from it. So, I see no reason to delete this article because as someone else above said there is no promotional, fluff, or controversial sentences, and no detailed information (such as family or personal history) that wouldn't be of general interest, and the information about this educator's notability is well cited with third party references, in addition to the facebook links which add to the article by letting us reference the exact view counts that are stated, without relying on Facebook as the primary source. The only reason I think that the facebook links do add value to the article is because the page linked is verified, and from what I understand one cannot "request" verification, so Facebook must have determined that the page was notable enough to merit verification - again, that alone shouldn't be used to establish Wikipedia notability, but it helps to have those as additional references to verify viewcounts mentioned in the news articles. Ashleyreynolds (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC) — Ashleyreynolds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment the article creator, the anonymous editor and the new account created five hours after the article was nominated for deletion have all claimed that his Facebook view count is evidence of notability, but this is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Per ShelbyMarion above, so far there's insufficient evidence of significant coverage from WP:SECONDARY, WP:Reliable sources showing notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. Regarding the comparison with other articles on educators, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• comment to Mr. MacTidy - I came to this article from the AfD articles about Michigan, of which there are only a handful, and since I'm new to wikipedia (as you pointed out, timing coincidence) I wasn't aware that FB shouldn't be used. Also, I've edited much more than this article in the week that i've been on wikipedia so far, trying to stay within my areas of specialty/Michigan as you can see. I have no conflict of interest or personal stake on whether this stub is deleted or not, just thought I'd put my two cents in since it's about a(in my opinion notable) viral teacher in the state i live in. Ashleyreynolds (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• I would like to point out that the "anonymous editor" actually stated the opposite; that facebook and imdb should NOT be used. After reading that comment I actually deleted one imdb link and later one FB link. I did mention FB as indication of notability, and Ashleyreynolds did second that statement, but they also agreed with certain statements made by the editor who voted to delete, and as such they removed one of the sources I originally put with explanation. Either way, none of this will matter since the closing admin won't look at the headcount, but rather just the collective arguments on both sides. In general, this has been a very civil discussion on both sides, so I thank everyone for that. :) CharlesBluth (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Courtesy the impressive puppetry....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Local-only news coverage and view counts are not enough to persuade me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NMUSIC.All refrences are local newspapers and lack indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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 and move to Wellington College of Education. Sources provided and article improved. ansh666 07:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Faculty of Education of Victoria University of Wellington

Faculty of Education of Victoria University of Wellington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged since April 2012. Steve Quinn moved the article to the draft namespace twice even though the article has existed since 2003 and GB fan recommended an AfD. I also did a further move from Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Education to the above title. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete nothing to suggest standalone notability to meet WP:ORG. oppose redirect as an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Individual faculties within universities are generally not notable unless there are a range of independent sources providing this, none of which can be found. Ajf773 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Often we discover that individual segments of a University lack independent coverage in reliable sources, and this seems to be the case. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep the problem here is that the article is incomplete and misses a significant amount of background history. The faculty, as mentioned in the article was formerly a completely independent body called the Wellington College of Education, whose primary role was to train school teachers. Had information and background on the College been included it would be sufficient in itself to meet WP:GNG and other guidelines. In essence the article needs work and expansion relating to the faculties history. Had it just been a faculty in the University I would agree with the delete. NealeFamily (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep on the grounds that it once was the Wellington College of Education, which is easy enough to find historical sources about (a sampling, quickly arrived at: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]). XOR'easter (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as No-notable , however the article requires a reliable sources from at least 4 to 5 reliable publishers . not just from one source Samat lib (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have added the six sources I listed in my !vote above to the article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per NealeFamily and XOR'easter. As a "faculty of education" it does not sound notable, but it is the current embodiment of an institution with a 137-year history -- it is older than the university itself! The references added by XOR'easter address the complaints that there were no reliable sources cited. -- Gpc62 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Stubify to focus in previous separate institution because that trivially meets Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education. I'm happy to do the stubifying if pinged by the closing admin. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Note: I have a conflict of interest with this institution. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Note: The IP edit that triggered the move that triggered this AfD was made from with the institutions' public IP address range. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep and move article to ‘Wellington College of Education’, as that’s where the notability lies. What has become of the school can then be mentioned. Schwede66 16:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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. A merge, which won some support, can be discussed at the talk page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sutil Island

Sutil Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:GEOLAND is the guideline covering notability of islands. It says "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." So far it doesn't look like there are enough sources to build a real article (including from a cursory Google search), but maybe some new ones could be found. Otherwise, it should be merged into Santa Barbara Island. Kaldari (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. It's a small (12 acre) and rocky island, but there are sufficient natural history and other sources to source a small article. Even if not, however, outright deletion is inappropriate, as merger with Santa Barbara Island or Channel Islands (California) would be appropriate. Neutrality^talk 05:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep there are enough sources covering it in sufficient detail for a geographic feature e.g. 1, 2.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Yeah, there's enough present for a brief article. A merge, however, would not be inappropriate. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the actual sourcing status of this article, but only refer to a supposed consensus for keeping all secondary schools. All who have followed the RfCs and discussions about this topic know that this is precisely an issue on which the community has no consensus. The "keep" opinions must therefore be discounted as weakly argued.  Sandstein  09:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Dawn School

Dawn School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article's sole source is to the school itself, and the text proper is promotional. Google News turns up only the school's Facebook page with quotes, and irrelevant news stories without. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Delete. per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  09:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC) My original vote was based on my (clearly incorrect) assumption this was a primary school. Dysklyver 08:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NORG and WP:NOTPROMO. Pburka (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• You mean the longstanding precedent and consensus that was explicitly rejected back in February? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• <Sigh> No, it wasn't! The RfC was completely inconclusive and does not override existing consensus. This has been discussed endlessly since and still almost no secondary school articles have been deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Is that because few have been taken to AfD or because you keep citing-not-citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and not pointing people to the RfC? At this point you're about to be put in the same class of editors as Flagged Revisions supporters to me. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano ('Jeremy'), I'll repeat Necrothesp's comment in case you missed it: The RfC was completely inconclusive and does not override existing consensus. This has been discussed endlessly since and still almost no secondary school articles have been deleted. If there is any consensus, it is the one that that RfC didn't have one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Not buying it. The first line in the summarisation of the close is: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. The closer also makes note that any argument on that ground essentially boils down to appeal to tradition circular reasoning, as opposed to the arguments agaimnst it whiich actually pointed to relevant Wikipedia policies. In other words, your "per longstanding precedent and consensus" argument was in fact explicitly rejected in the RfC, no matter how you try to spin it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Yes, the RfC did not override existing consensus on the notability of secondary schools. It did however, effectively override existing consensus by making these such AfDs such heavily participated that both the consensus' you pointed out are being overruled as people are actually reading the closure. please read this: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, which was actually the consensus, making all of this extremely hard to understand. Unless I missed something, in which case it would go completely bollocks. :) J947^{( c ) (m)} 20:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete due to a lack of reliable, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if it was inconclusive, the summary of the RfC on secondary school notability identified above includes the following:

Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media.

The article should not be deleted without a thorough search for reliable sources, which should ideally include local print-only newspapers and sources in languages other than English. I know that this will not be feasible for most editors. This is particularly important for schools outside first world countries where web coverage, English-language sources and Wikpedia editors are less common, because of the risk of systemic bias. The article does not appear to be a hoax, and school's website suggests that the school is large enough to be notable. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Verbcatcher, I have searched the 462 Indian sources archived by LexisNexis, and not found any coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Cordless Larry thank you. However, the LexisNexis website says that are for "seeking legal solutions, news & business insights", which does not indicate a focus on this area. Their 462 Indian sources is not impressive in the context of Media of India which says that India has more than 70,000 newspapers. Does it cover the sources listed in Media in Chennai, particularly the Tamil language newspapers and the local newspapers? Verbcatcher (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• It includes many newspapers, but not in Tamil and more focused on the national and regional level than the local. However, I would argue that without any independent sources available to us, there is nothing to base on article on at present. If local coverage is found at a later date, then perhaps the article could be recreated based on that coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Larry, for what it's worth. Once we start seeing usable independent sources, I have no objection to re-creating the article, but with the sources we can find right now nothing doing. The language barrier is going to be a significant issue here, especially as more and more schools from the Subcontinent are going to be looking at Wikipedia as free Google ranking. I just wish automated translation of those languages didn't return broken English at best. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete--Local media gives nothing relevant or significant.(I mean the state dailies et al)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If it is not kept then it should be merged into Nolambur, where the school is located, with a redirect. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do you have any independent sources, Kudpung? My understanding of the consensus (whether it still remains or not is debatable) is that it involved keeping articles only when independent sources existed. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Per the RFC from February 2017 that states (among others) Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Fails WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a medium to promote a school. The Banner talk 14:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That RfC also states: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.. In fact as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus is nothing more than [[WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES] but than without mentioning WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and so circular reasoning. The Banner talk 14:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School, another school in India, where the same issues apply. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Regretful redirect (or smerge) (in)to Nolambur per longstanding precedent for schools not kept at AfDs – Upon reading through the closure of [the February RFCI have found that the closure is confusing and inconclusive, but from my understanding the result was 'no consensus, defaulting to status quo. However—rather surprisingly, in fact—I have found not a single reliable source that is independent of the subject. If some editor can find some, I will change my !vote to weak keep (second choice, per this being in a third-world area with limited news coverage) per the outcome of the RfC. Also, Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist was the status quo back then; existence has to be verified by a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. I believe though, that the correct interpretation would of been reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Now though, school AfDs have become much further scrutinised because of the RfC, and I feel that is a slightly negative aspect. I cannot find any mentions of the school, which is probably because the school was made only in 2008. As a further note, promotional language is a content issue and ought to be discussed at the article's talk page, not here. J947^{( c ) (m)} 20:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - unconvinced by the argument that sources might exist but we can't find them; they might not and even if they do, until they are found, they can't be used. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Note: Pinkbeast, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, Jéské Couriano, J947, Cordless Larry, reasons for not deleting this article are clearly laid out at WP:ATD-R (Alternatives to deletion) - a policy, not an essay or a guideline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's one of the reasons why my !vote was redirect. J947^{( c ) (m)} 02:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Rakib Mosabbir

Rakib Mosabbir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

References are not from reliable source. All of the references are from unreliable, Non-notable news media. Mar11 (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The deletion rationale needs further explanation. The New Nation, The Daily Observer, Janakantha, Banglanews24.com, Amar Desh, and Risingbd.com are all major Bangladeshi newspapers and media outlets, reliable for the sort of information for which news organizations are usually reliable. Two don't have Wikipedia articles yet, but that doesn't mean that they aren't notable. Besides which, sources need not be notable to be reliable. The only questionable source is the subject's blog. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak keep we may need help from some Bengali speakers but subject seems notable, for now I am voting weak keep because I am yet to see more policy based discussions. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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 Cross-Strait relations#Public opinion. Selectively. This is a compromise outcome, but we do have a consensus here that this does not merit a full article.  Sandstein  09:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

2016 Chinese memes war on Facebook

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2016 Chinese memes war on Facebook
• Articles for deletion/2016 Chinese memes war on Facebook (2nd nomination)

2016 Chinese memes war on Facebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article still reads like a propaganda piece. Recommend deletion as the article was not rewritten to meet quality standards before repost. Lasersharp (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Have already been waiting for your 2nd nomination. Now it is time to have this debate, in order to check out whether it is a propaganda or not. If not, then it requires to check why this vandalizing nomination exists. --Yejianfei (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think there exists any propaganda. --Yejianfei (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Trim extensively and merge into Cross-Strait relations#Public opinion. It doesn't read like a propaganda piece, but there are definite problems, including POV, trivia, and the fact that no other article links to it. I'm rather astonished it passes WP:N, but I think it does. That said, the article could easily be condensed to a paragraph without losing much if any notable information. Here's a suggestion:

2016 meme war

In January 2016, the leader of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party, Tsai Ing-wen, was elected to the presidency of the Republic of China. On 20 January thousands of mainland Chinese internet users, primarily from the forum "Li Yi Tieba" (李毅貼吧), bypassed the Great Firewall of China to flood with messages and stickers the Facebook pages of the president-elect, Taiwanese news agencies Apple Daily and SET News, and other individuals to protest the idea of Taiwanese independence.

Not sure exactly which sources I'd pick to support that condensation, and it could use a copy-edit, but I think it gets across the salient points without getting into trivial detail. Snuge purveyor (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Excuse me, but it is just an event. Is it a taboo to write an article completely about an event, just like 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting or 2017 Catalonia attacks? Why should it be merged into an opinion article? Should the article 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting be merged into the article LGBT#Public opinion? No, because it is just an article on an event. So why is it so difficult to regard this article as an event? --Yejianfei (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it would also be appropriate as a paragraph on the Tsai Ing-wen article. It doesn't necessarily need to be trimmed as drastically as I did above, but I do not believe the event requires as much detail as is in the article, and would characterise the sections "Use of stickers and memes" and "Opinions" as consisting entirely of trivia. My third option would be a weak delete, as the event is not likely to have any enduring legacy. The article even claims that one view is that it was a "fun normal incident". I understand you feel protective of your work, but comparing this incident to terror attacks which killed dozens of humans is not only distasteful but a category error. Power~enwiki hits nearer the mark in comparing it to a 4chan raid. Snuge purveyor (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

(1) It was an internet riot in which a specific group of people protested against another specific group of people, rather than Tsai Ing-wen. Actually, it is just like May 1998 riots of Indonesia, in which it is not suitable to say it is an incident on only one person. As a result, it is strange to ask for merging it into either Tsai Ing-wen or Chou Tzu-yu. (2) Isn't it suitable to make a separate article to talk about the 4chan raid? It is also a notable event. Why shouldn't it have a separate article? --Yejianfei (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Your repeated comparisons of this mutual message flood to actual violence are not helping your case. Over a thousand people were killed in those riots you just linked, a government fell, and a country was born. So far, the consequences of this facebook raid are: …? The only reason I believe it passes our guideline for the notability of an event is because it was a mass circumvention of the Great Firewall. Outside of that the whole episode reads like a "reaction to" (success of the DPP in Taiwan / some kid with a flag on tv) article, which the community hates. That is why I suggested merging the content.

4chan performs many raids and to my knowledge, none of them have been notable enough to warrant their own article. That is the point of Power~enwiki's comparison below. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's talk about WP:EVENT

(1)Lasting effects: An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Passed, people still care about it in 2017.

(2)Geographical scope: Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. Passed, the population relevant to this event is 100000.

(3) An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. (3) Depth of coverage: An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. Passed, there are enough links in the "references" section.

(4) Duration of coverage: Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. Passed, the links are from 2016 to 2017, long enough.

(5) Diversity of sources: Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. Passed, there are news from various website, including BBC, CNN News, Reuters, the Wall Street Joural, SET News, Liberty Times, etc. --Yejianfei (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I still think this "war" is mostly POV promotion and puffery. Some Chinese people posted something on Facebook. The breathless narrative hides the fact that this is akin to a 4chan raid. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment "War" is just an euphemism for "mutual message flood", but it is more concise. Moreover, if the more accurate name "mutual message flood" is used in the title, it will seem to be an "original name" which breaks WP:NOR. --Yejianfei (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per reasons provided by Yejianfei. If there is problem with title then we can do a page move request later. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Selective merge into Cross-Strait relations#Public opinion per Snuge purveyor. While a single event can be notable, it isn't always, and this is clearly the kind of event that makes more sense to read about in context. Remember, the existence of sources doesn't guarantee a standalone article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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} 01:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

James-J Walsh

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/James-J Walsh
• Articles for deletion/James-J Walsh (2nd nomination)

James-J Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable. A Labour Cllr who works for a students' union. Danielle1238 (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. He is in the "top 10 most influential LGBT people in the UK by The Independent newspaper's Pink List". Meets WP:GNG and since WP:NPOL does not supersede GNG, this is an obvious keep. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  07:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Meets GNG. Donald1659 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

How so? DrStrauss talk 13:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:GNG is a measure of an article's sourceability, not of anything that the article says in its text. Of the nine sources here, six are primary or unreliable sources that cannot assist notability at all, and he isn't the subject of any of the three remaining reliable sources — two of them just glancingly namecheck his existence a single time in coverage of something else, and he's the bylined author, not the subject, of the third. This is not how a person gets over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete being on one of the meriads of "top x number y people in z" lists does not make someone notable, especially since these are usually annaul lists. His actual level as a politician also does not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - at a superficial first glance this looks like an obvious keep. However, a deeper analysis has led me to opt for delete.

The article lists nine sources. Let's evaluate each of them in terms of how they satisfy notability guidelines.

1. ...is from the BBC, which is a reliable source. However, it only mentions Walsh in passing and does not indicate his contributions to the LGBT community which led to him receiving this accolade - if you can call it that.
2. ...is similarly just a passing mention that just states he is on the list.
3. ...is an affiliated source which confers no notability whatsoever. Notability is established by independent, reliable sources.
4. ...is inaccessible.
5. ...gives him the most coverage of all of the sources but is still woefully short of establishing notability and merely quotes Walsh on a certain topic and then carries on.
6. ...is LinkedIn which does not give any notability.
7. ...is a two-word quote on a blog from Walsh on a standalone issue.
8. ...was written by Walsh himself, again failing the independent source clause.
9. ...is inaccessible.

His inclusion on a list which has gained media attention does not mean he inherits notability from the list.

For what it's worth, it could be argued that this is a one-event case as all the coverage came around the time of legalisation of gay marriage - an argument I myself would not consider to be particularly pressing given the extended source rebuttal I have provided.

Furthermore, his political position alone is a failure of politician notability guidelines so inclusion on that criterion is out as well.

DrStrauss talk 12:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Per the compelling arguments of DrStrauss and Bearcat. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete not only as per DrStrauss and Bearcat, but also because with political activists and minor politicians, I like to see at least one profile in an independent source, preferably by a journalist in a widely recognized publication; here, however, the closest we get to an article about him is his linked-in profile and a post on teh organization of a political activism organization. Although it may merely be WP:TOOSOON, Walsh's notability is not validated by WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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 Saina Nehwal. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Untitled Saina Nehwal Biopic

Untitled Saina Nehwal Biopic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A quick google search says that there is a film that has been confirmed but they haven't given it a name. Its too soon to create a page with the name, 'untitled film_name'. μTalk 07:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Saina Nehwal, where a succinct sentence can be added to the effect of "a film based on Nehwal's life is in development". Per WP:NFF, films that have not begun primary filming should not have their own articles. See for instance Gambit (upcoming film).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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) J947^{( c ) (m)} 19:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Georges-Albert Puyou de Pouvourville

Georges-Albert Puyou de Pouvourville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBIO, though I am less certain about GNG.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete total and complete lack of any context to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep -- Speedy keep actually, as there is quite enough information and references on the frWP page to show notability and to write an article. Johnpacklambert, Mr. Guye. were you not aware of that page--it's listed in the sidebar. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I now added a translation of the French WP text, including the references. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, then consider this AfD withdrawn if Johnpacklambert changes his !vote to a "keep". — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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 Everlife#EP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What's Beautiful

What's Beautiful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Rather self-evident: it's a track listing with no significant coverage. A WP:BEFORE search only confirms my belief that this is an absolute failure for WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Everlife § EP per WP:ATD-R. Source searches are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above; release by a notable band makes it a plausible search term, but I'm not seeing coverage for this EP to warrant an individual article.  gongshow  talk  17:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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} 01:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Al-Azhar University – Doha

Al-Azhar University – Doha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have been unable to find any sources that confirm that this university exists, other than those that appear to be derived from Wikipedia. Should not be confused with Al-Azhar University in Cairo or Al-Azhar University – Gaza. The external link in the article appears to refer to the University in Cairo (based on Google Translate, also it has the .eg top-level domain for Egypt). The university is not mentioned in Doha or in Education in Qatar, and there are no significant incoming links. A Google translation of the corresponding Arabic Wikipedia article[42] indicates that this has essentially the same text and has no additional sources. I found nothing useful with a normal Google search, nor with Google News, Google News Archive, Google Books or Google Scholar. There has been no response to my note on the talk page for nearly eight months. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - I tried a thorough search of google, google news and google books for any references to an Al-Azhar University in Doha, Qatar. That search only turned up duplicate copies of the Wikipedia article, multiple references to the Al-Azhar Universities in Cairo and Gaza and not much else. It would appear that this may indeed be a candidate for G3 hoax deletion. The only reference ever entered into the article specifies, at least by my reading, the Cairo Univeristy; The student of the Faculty of Medicine of Al-Azhar for Boys won the first place in the competition of the social gathering of social researches at the level of the Egyptian universities on the subject of human rights associations and its role in the advancement of society and the student received a financial award and certificate of appreciation and shield of participation which would be a reference to Al-Azhar University-Faculty of Medicine for Boys in Cairo. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete we lack any evidence that this project has actually come into being.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons mentioned above. There's no evidence we know of which proves that this university exists, and the only reference cited in the article doesn't mention Qatar or Doha anywhere. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete if existence of this institution can not be confirmed. Ping me if that changes. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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} 01:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ammar Borančić

Ammar Borančić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an exemplary case of self-promotion by a non-notable person trying to promote themselves through Wikipedia. The person is as marginal as it gets, and fails to fulfill the notability criteria. Sideshow Bob 06:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Also, please take note that this article was created by User:Libero2211, obviously closely acquainted to this person (or quite probably, the person himself), who created or edited only four articles, all related to the Liberal Party of Montenegro, as the username (Libero) suggests. Sideshow Bob 13:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: The subject's main role is confirmed by a brief summary of a recent conference which is reproduced in various media, one of which I have added as a reference. However, being quoted in-role for a party youth organisation is not in itself substantial evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Nor are the subject's other affiliations, including am-dram activity, evidence of notability: fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Being president of a political party's youth chapter is not an WP:NPOL pass. It can be enough for an article if the person can be reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage about him to clear WP:GNG — but it in no way hands him an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, and this isn't showing anything even approaching the lower bound of enough media coverage about him to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Before renominating, consider merging to HOT article. SoWhy 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Tal Granot Goldstein

Tal Granot Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Keep CEO of HOT, one of Israel's leading telecom companies (cable tv, data, land lines, and cellular). She has lots of coverage in Hebrew [43]. HOT is no longer public, but when it was a few years ago it had a market cap of around a billion USD. It is currently worth more (possibly as high as 3, probably around 1.5.Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, article needs sourcing, but sources exist for this CEO os a major corporation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: it would be useful if you could list a couple of specific sources which you consider meeting WP:BIO. Then people could evaluate those. And, I suggest this be relisted (yes, a third time), to allow another week for this to happen.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- The coverage offered above is routine, as in:

• "Hal Granot Goldstein, CEO of the HOT Group, said: "Alongside the expansion of HOT's core product and the launch of HOT [something], and soon Netflix integration into the product..." Etc.

Source: "The competition for viewers continues: HOT launches Rami Levy's television". This is just the subject promoting the company; it's not a source about her.

Such coverage does not establish notability independent of the company, and notability is not inherited from it. A $1bln company is not large enough for its CEO to be presumed notable. If there are better sources available, I'd be happy to look at them. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:Run-of-the-mill executive. The RS mentions are brief and routine, subject doesn't seem to have attracted in-depth coverage sufficient to establish notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep and more Edit subject is notable but the references should be more improved Leodikap (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

— Leodikap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Non-notable CEO with limited depth of coverage beyond press releases. Per PohranicniStraze, WP:MILL applies as the subject did not accomplish anything that would make her stand out from other CEOs in the industry, and thus should not be considered of encyclopedic value. Note that her primary achievement (CEO of HOT) should not convey undue notability on her per WP:NOTINHERITED.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment as far as her title, I'm unsure of the relationship between HOT and Altice; [44] suggests they were merged as of 2016, but Altice suggests the merger hasn't happened yet. I've added the inter-wiki link to her page on the Hebrew wikipedia, which does have more references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• My understanding is that HOT is fully owned by Altice. Patrick Drahi bought control of HOT, a few years ago, and when they went private (buying out all or most of the other shareholders, and redeeming issued bonds) - it was placed under the Altice structure. The company is however an Israeli company (and I believe it is required to be so). Granot Goldstein is one of the youngest (male or female) CEOs of a major Israeli company (which HOT is - a market cap of over a billion USD is considered big in Israel). The name of HOT may change in the future to Altice, or Altice Israel (they are discussing this, hasn't been finalized yet).Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Regarding a full merger (and not a subsidiary wholly owned by Altice, possibly with the Altice brand (not yet)) - I believe this is not possible in the regulatory framework - which requires an Israeli company for several of HOT's operations.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus leans towards this being WP:TOOSOON. Her single major role doesn't push her into WP:NACTOR, and the coverage isn't at WP:GNG territory. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Gus Birney

Gus Birney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Her parents won awards, but notability is not inherited. Probably just WP:TOOSOON, but at the moment doesn't meet the criteria. Boleyn (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep She has a starring role in The Mist (TV series) and is described as "starring" in the upcoming Best Day of My Life (film) with Sarah Jessica Parker, Jacqueline Bisset, and Renée Zellweger, which began filming in July. Thus she satisfies WP:ENT, "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". She also has the eponymous starring role in a completed independent film Darcy, but I'm sceptical if the film itself is notable enough. Edwardx (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete she has not yet had multiple significant roles in notable films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete An alleged starring role in an unfinished film means she is not yet notable. WP:TOOSOON JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Sources are mostly web-cruft. The Variety one might help, but name is only trivially mentioned in a long list of the cast. Keep !vote is couched in CRYSTAL. This is way TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep She had a starring role in The Mist (TV series). She also appeared in an episode of Chicago Med and a starring role in the independent film Darcy. What more is needed? There are plenty of actors that have pages on Wikipedia with less credentials.Donaldd23 (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

WAX has no part here. This is a BLP, so it can't stay unless RS is added. I'm glad to change my position if such can be found. Testimony is not enough. Agricola44 (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't really find anything...guess you couldn't either. Agricola44 (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not up on all the Wikipedia acronyms, can you translate for a lay person? What does "WAX has no part here" mean? I am assuming BLP is "Biography of a Living Person", but I also have not idea what "...unless RS is added." Thanks in advance for clarifying for me. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, this piece explains WAX and "RS" means realiable sources. RS is the crux here. Because this is a living person, the sourcing requirements are very strict. Is there coverage in a mainstream news source (e.g. New York Times), in books from reputable publishers, or the like that discuss the subject specifically and in detail? That's the kind of thing that is needed here. I could not readily find anything like that. What is considered unreliable are web-cruft (Twitter/FaceBook/YouTube etc), IMDB, pamphlets, etc. Hope that's helpful...and I'm glad to change my position if you do find some reliable sources. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Would citing this article in the page meet the criteria you seek? http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/gus-birney/ Donaldd23 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding WP:ENT, "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", I just added that she was Marisa Tomei's daughter in a Williamstown Theater Festival production of The Rose Tattoo, and gets mentioned in the NYT review. Edwardx (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment. You've mostly added a lot more web cruft. The NYT you refer to talks about Tomei. Birney is is mentioned incidentally, Rosa, played a little too shrilly by Ms. Birney, has recently met a young sailor at a school dance..., i.e. what we call a "trivial mention". Is there anything substantive (not web cruft) that talks about Birney specifically? Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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. Alex Shih^Talk 08:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Longest-reigning emperors in China

Longest-reigning emperors in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is already a "List of rulers of China" page. In the wiki to explore who is the longest is an original study, unless there are several academic studies. O1lI0 (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nothing worth saving here. Timmyshin (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - fails, WP:NOT, in particular, #3 of WP:NOTSTATS - "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics". Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:CFORK. Not only is there a List of rulers of China, but there is also a List of longest-reigning monarchs, which includes some Chinese emperors. Therefore, I believe that this article is redundant. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 03:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Soft delete with the possibility of accepting a later more useful version of the article if one is proposed. As it is, what there is of this list is not useful, but it is possible that a useful list may be created. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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) 19:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Abhijit Pawar

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Abhijit Pawar
• Articles for deletion/Abhijit Pawar (2nd nomination)

Abhijit Pawar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure promotion and/or spam.Barely evades G11.Zero independent notability.Delete and redirect to Sakal Media Group. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete The person is not notable beyond his association with the Sakal media group. This should be redirected there. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: as Godric on Leave says, it's almost a G11 call. It requires both a fundamental rewrite for promotionalism and needs to establish independent notability, neither of which, as far as I can see, would result in a valuable encyclopedia article. DrStrauss talk 12:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Andaz (hotel)

Andaz (hotel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Don't believe qualifies for own page, is only notable because brought by Hyatt WP:ORGSIG. I think page should be merged into Hyatt. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 04:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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. czar 17:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Garden City Football Field

Garden City Football Field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's a high school football field. The same editor also created an article for the high school gym and the high school football team, which were both deleted by prod. This was PROD'd too, but the PROD was reverted by the article's creator. No claim is made to notability; there are no references on the page, and unless the Detroit Lions held supersecret practices there that were not widely covered, there is no reason to think that notability could be found. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• • And since Wikipedia requires verifiability, supersecret practices would not add towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Be True to Your School, but come on. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete not seeing sources necessary for supporting notability. High school football fields can be notable, I just see no reason that this one is. Would change my position if such information were provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete high school football fields are almost never indepedently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nothing to indicate notability found. Verifiable info on field could be put into Garden City High School, but I would not recommend merge, most of this is unreferenced cruft. ClubOranje^T 11:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and the "Be True to Your School, but come on" principle cited by Clarityfiend. Cbl62 (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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 16 Martyrs of Japan#Martyred Laity. Consensus was to either delete or Merge/redirect. Will merge any info into target article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Marina de Omura

Marina de Omura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Random woman who lived in Japan and was burned alive for being a Catholic. The sum total of what is in the article (both this and the Italian) is what's online (i.e. there ain't more to say), and quite frankly they're not all stellar sources. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak delete - it appears she was canonized, not beatified, by John Paul II in 1987, according to this book. I would expect Catholic saints to usually be notable, but there simply is too little reliably sourced information about her except "brief hagiographic accounts" (compare p. 419 in the same book). My understanding is that Marina was one of the "companions" of Lorenzo Ruiz, was killed along with him and canonized along with him. All this is very hazy, though; Catholic Online only lists her as blessed, not canonized. Huon (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to 16 Martyrs of Japan. The little bit of information in the instant article can easily fit in the target article. By the way, all sixteen in the group were canonized at the same time (October 1987), as announced by the Vatican here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

from the it wikipedia: Marina di Omura was beatified with 15 other Dominican martyrs including Lorenzo Ruiz , Pope John Paul II on 18 February 1981 in Manila, Philippines . It was later canonized in Rome on October 18, 1987 still by John Paul II. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 07:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I went ahead and merged a basic description of the subject into the target article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect Not enough content for a standalone article. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 07:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to 16 Martyrs of Japan. Companions/minor figures from the list of national martyrs don't always get their own article, especially if they are from countries where English-language sourcing would not be ideal compared to a joint article. If/when we get more sources on the individual martyrs in this case, the redirect can be converted into an article. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • FWIW, there do appear to be enough non-English sources where an article could be justified if we had someone to translate: [45]. If someone wants to take a crack at it before the AfD is up, ping me. Otherwise, the best thing for the reader is to redirect to the main article for the grouping. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect -- This sounds a good solution. I expect the information on any one of a group of martyrs is too limited to merit a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. It looks to me as if this article could be considerably expanded in line with the articles and sources in the French, Italian and Polish versions.--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to 16_Martyrs_of_Japan#Martyred_Laity where the subject is mentioned. Not enough material even for a stub at this time. If anyone wants to research the subject and source it at a later point, then great. For now, the redict works better as it provides the necessary context. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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. czar 17:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Bangladesh–the Gambia relations

Bangladesh–the Gambia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Six references must mean it's notable, right? Upon examination, no. On the occasion of the Gambia's non-resident ambassador presenting his credentials in 2012, the Bangladesh president's office and foreign ministry issued press releases. The state-owned news agency (BSS) and various national newspapers dutifully regurgitated the story. That accounts for five of the sources - reliable, but counted as one source per footnote #3 of WP:SIGCOV, and not independent of the government.

The remaining source covers the sole element of relations that is not routine, a 2014 business delegation from the Gambia, led by their Minister of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration and Employment. Searches of the usual types found two other sources that cover the same event.[46][47] (The whole visit is less improbable when you realize that the minister and ambassador were in India the week before doing substantive deals.) The Atlas of Economic Complexity shows no 2015 bilateral trade. It shows 2014 bilateral exports from Bangladesh at $12,900 (0.00004% of total).[48] One has to go back to 2011 to find bilateral exports from the Gambia, at $5,806 (0.003% of total).[49]

Relations are the same as Bangladesh has with most countries: no resident ambassadors, no state visits, no bilateral agreements, and negligible economic ties. One non-routine event in 40 years (an event which, moreover, has yet to bear any tangible fruit) does not a notable bilateral relationship make. The topic can be and is covered in Foreign relations of Bangladesh and Foreign relations of the Gambia, where such minor relations should be covered rather than in a puffed up stand-alone article. Fails WP:GNG Worldbruce (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Compelling argument for deletion, and my own research corroborates what Worldbruce has found. The five sources all were published within a few days of each other, and all contained significant common language, which would indicate that they all originally came from the same source. It would appear that the trade delegation in 2014 likely cost more than the entirety of combined bilateral exports generated by the trip. I could not find any notability policy specifically on inter-country relations (just individual politicians and diplomats), but I would not think that they would be inherently notable (otherwise we would have 43,472 articles on bilateral diplomacy running around). CThomas³ (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• delete excellent analysis by Worldbruce. a spike of coverage in 2014 but neither country can bother having a state visit or a bilateral agreement in 40 years of relations. this is part of an ongoing spree of Bangladesh minor relations articles. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• delete I'm convinced by the nominator's argument. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is to quickly keeping all for now; individual stations may be redirected by discretion Alex Shih^Talk 06:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Gōtsu Honmachi Station

Gōtsu Honmachi Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an omnibus deletion. The following articles are also being listed for deletion:

Chigane Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kawahira Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kawado Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tazu Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iwami Kawagoe Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shikaga Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Inbara Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iwami Kawamoto Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kirohara Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Take Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Onbara Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iwami Yanaze Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Akatsuka Station (Shimane) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kasubuchi Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hamahara Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sawadani Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ushio Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iwami Matsubara Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iwami Tsuga Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Uzui Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ikawashi Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kuchiba Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gōbira Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sakugiguchi Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kōyodo Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shikijiki Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nobuki Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tokorogi Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Funasa Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nagatani Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Awaya Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ozekiyama Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of the above are stations on the soon-to-be-closed Sankō Line, connecting the towns of Miyoshi and Gotsu. Whereas the termini stations are notable owing to their connections and affiliated sources, the stations inbetween are not. Most consist of a simple infobox, an image and a rather tautological sentence detailing nothing more than where in Japan it is. Most of these have not been kept up to date (except by the housekeeping bots), and none of them reference the line's impending closure.

TL:DR - None of these articles meet WP:GNGs. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 00:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• If they're all unique names can't they just be redirected to Sanko Line? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sankō Line. Just being out of date is not in itself a viable reason for deletion, and it would be more beneficial to tag such articles with the {{update}} template instead. If any of the articles in the list do actually fail the WP:GNG criteria, they should be redirected to the parent Sankō Line article, as they will continue to be feasible search terms. --DAJF (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. We generally keep all railway stations, open or closed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep all, Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, we don't generally delete articles of notable places that have closed. We generally consider railway stations to be notable whether or not they are still currently in use. In any case the railway line isn't due to close till next year, so why the unholy rush?! Sionk (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep all - notability is not temporary. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep all: pardon the pun, but this AfD is probably a trainwreck. Some of the stations meet both general notability guidelines and building notability guidelines. While the GNG does supersede specific notability guidelines (except academics for some reason), the AfD precedent is that train stations are generally notable. None of the articles are poorly sourced and all seem to warrant their own article. DrStrauss talk 09:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Keep all Yes, every single one of them is notable. Although usage of rural railways in Japan is declining, it was previously used by many passengers for decades. The stations served as an important part in the life of the local community. Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia and a repository of historical knowledge should keep these information for posterity. The railway line itself seems to be very notable based on the amount of coverage I can find. Based on this, I can assume the stations would have coverage, perhaps in Japanese. Please do not delete this.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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 Samworth Brothers. Also, not sure what a "non-notable source" is supposed to be; sources are the things that can establish notability of another topic, the notability of a source itself is a wholly different topic and none of these things implies the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Tamar Foods

Tamar Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to only reference non-notable sources (as good as Pig World magazine is) or simply has passing mentions. WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge with Samworth Brothers. No indications that Tamar Foods is independently notable, fails WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to Samworth Brothers. But keep Ginsters separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Aside Since when was The Grocer a " non-notable source"? (reliable source?) This is the premier trade journal of the food trade. Just where else is a better source for food industry coverage? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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.