Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 February	21 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ripped (band)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article, created by User:Rippedmusic and therefore a conflict of interest, about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The closest it gets is a nomination for a local music award, which isn't close -- NMUSIC's criterion for awards requires major awards on the level of the Junos or the Grammys or the Polaris, not just any music award that exists at all. There's simply nothing here that would qualify them for an article, and no reliable source coverage to support it. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article is totally unreferenced, and with a conflict of interest, also as the article is not foreseen with getting good references in the future. — 卍・〇・卐 03:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail NMUSIC. Someone in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripped nomination said the band had two albums released on a major label but the article version at the time did not corroborate this and the account that made the comment has been inactive for over 11 years. I am unable to verify that the band has had two or more albums on a major label or, in general, find sufficient coverage in RS. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back then, people used to routinely argue that any record label at all was either a "major label" or an "important indie label" for the purposes of clearing NMUSIC #5 — and we weren't as strict about requiring a claim to actually be reliably sourced as we are now, but rather it often was enough at the time to merely say that the claim was true without actually having to prove it. But one thing we've learned since 2006 is that self-aggrandizing publicity seekers will sometimes pretend to have a stronger notability claim than they actually have in reality — overstating the actual "importance" of the label, claiming a "hit single" that was never actually a hit anywhere verifiable, etc. — so yes, it's now more clearly the depth and breadth of reliable sourcing that can be shown to verify the notability claim, not the mere assertion of a notability claim, that gets an article kept. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Jazz Plus[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about an internet radio stream; even its strongest notability claim, "frequently among the 25 most popular smooth jazz radio stations in the world according to Shoutcast" is virtually unverifiable -- while it is technically possible to arrange a Shoutcast directory by how many people are listening to each stream at that particular moment, I'm not aware of any source which maintains historical stats for verification of past popularity. And I can't find any reliable source coverage about it anywhere else, either. The only reason I'm not speedying this is because it's somehow survived for a whole decade already. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable; can't find any sources, doesn't exist on the French wikipedia, and the only article that links to it is the Smooth jazz radio article. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources confirm existence, but that's all. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Syde[edit]

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

Fails to assert any sourced notability beyond Aquarian mention. Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, only got through its first AfD since nobody but the nominator voted. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they have some introductory mentions in genre publications but few get beyond basic evidence of their existence. I can find one fairly robust mention: [1] but even that is padded with info on the scene that they came from. Not enough to establish notability for the band itself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public Disturbance (U.S. band)[edit]

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

Fails to assert any sourced notability. Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lot's of name dropping and details of what band members did after Public Disturbance, but nothing either in the article or located in a Google search that would constitute a claim of notability for the band itself. Alansohn (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Johal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Minor roles only, one award as part of an ensemble in 2005, last credit was as "Will's Friend 2" in a 2014 short film. Unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage does not rise to the level needed to show notability for an actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I only see a few minor roles in his repertoire. PK T(alk) 20:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Northam[edit]

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

Not notable; being the wife of a US governor is not a inherently notable role, and no other notability claim. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as presented. If more-than-local sources can demonstrate how she has used the role in a notable way then great, but this article is a Wiktionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no objection to recreating the article if future coverage by reliable sources warrants it. Nominator is correct that governor's spouses have no inherent claim of notability, and she has only been in that role for five weeks. All I could find were predictable passing mentions and nothing in depth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after review, spouses of the Virginia governor at least are not notable on Wikipedia unless they are otherwise notable. I would have recommended a draftify if historically governor's spouses had articles; not the case. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spouse of an American governor is not automatically notable (spouse of a President is.) And although many First Ladies and Gentlemen of American States have articles Category:First Ladies of Virginia, their notability has to be supported by WP:SIGCOV, my searches [2] show very little for coverage of Pamela Northam. See: WP:NOTINHERITED "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The spouse of a state governor might qualify for an article if she passes a notability criterion on her own steam, or if she takes on a public role that gets her enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — but she's not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because a primary source "staff" biography of her husband on the government's own website technically verifies that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not inherently notable and there's not much of a rationale for keeping after that door is closed. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2018)[edit]

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

This is an article on a topic that does not appear to be notable, has no verified information, and the topic can easily be covered in List of Nostalgia Critic episodes and Nostalgia Critic. There has been an improvement in the unencyclopaedic tone, but it#s still a concern. I originally redirected this but that was reverted/ The unref tag has been repeatedly removed too. I feel it is totally unnecessary and as it is unverified and its tone is a concern, should be nuked rather than merged. Boleyn (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless if a 'list of' for the entire series already exists, along with 'C book report'-quality writing. Nate • (chatter) 02:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the other episode lists exist for separate years, I have no idea why this specific list should be deleted. Yes, a bigger list does exist, but it doesn't include plot synopsis like the others do and if other TV shows are allowed to have this, I have no idea why one specific page of the Nostalgia Critic's episode list for 2018 should be deleted. Adamtb24 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That essentially adds up to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not a good argument for an AfD. The main article can easily have more added to withb verified information. Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet none of the actual information was transferred. How irresponsible.--Harmony944 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CHWP-FM[edit]

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

Another low-power religious station, for which I can't find any proper verification that it ever actually went on the air. Neither Recnet nor Spectrum Management has a record for any station operating on this frequency in this location, or for any station operating with this call sign anywhere else in Canada either -- and this class of LPFM stations is now exempt from having to have a CRTC license anymore, making it completely impossible for us to verify whether it's actually operating or not. This could be a station that's still in operation as an exempt LP, or it could be a station that was in operation but went defunct, or it could be a station that never actually made it to air at all and had its license expire unbuilt -- we have no reliably sourceable way of finding out, and if we can't verify it we can't keep it. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Apparently, at least in 2009 this call sign was assigned to this station. That said, Industry Canada now shows CHWP as an available call sign (and remember that stations exempt from CRTC licensing are not exempt from Industry Canada authorization, which would be reflected in its database if it were still active — CHWP-FM's present absence from there indicates, at best, a defunct station), and in any event the programming the station was licensed to broadcast is of a type (the same kinds of live broadcasts of church services and other religious ceremonies as, for instance, CFPP-FM and numerous VF stations, all of which have been brought to AfD in recent years) that, with the license exemption, ensures that the presumption of notability for licensed broadcast stations does not come into play. Of course, there's far from the sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Indeed, the complete absence of any mention of "CHWP" on the Canadian Communications Foundation's History of Canadian Broadcasting website may well be quite damning, as that site does include some of these low-power religious stations that they believe did make it on the air — which might indicate CHWP never actually launched, and unlaunched stations are another type of broadcast station with a presumption of non-notability. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Master Vishal Krishna[edit]

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

Notability concerns; I don't believe WP:ENT is met. (also page-name issues) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering he is not even 14, we should err on the side of privacy unless we have really good sourcing, which we do not at present have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the author seems to have a close connection to the subject. The article was previously deleted per A7 under Vishal Krishna (actor, born 2004). GSS (talk|c|em) 13:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. Also the author of the article based on his name seems to have an undisclosed COI. --Hagennos^Talk 04:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 18:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But tag. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BallenIsles[edit]

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

This article came to my attention because it was, ~~and still is to a lesser extent~~, highly promotional. Regardless of that, I can find no evidence of notability: the refs and ghits are to realtors and first party sources.; the article claims "some of the most famous golf courses" and "notable people" yet I can find no evidence that has translated into reliable third-party coverage. WP:GEOFEAT says: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", and I can't find any. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text struck above because the article has been significantly purged of promotional content since nomination. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. BallenIsles is one of the most well known neighborhoods in South Florida. Not sure you've looked particularly hard, if you didn't find any evidence of notability. It's hosted major/world-level tournaments for years, from the World Cup Championship, to the PGA Championship and PGA Tour [3]. It was originally created and designed by legendary Florida developer and real estate magnate John D. MacArthur. The historic, social, and architectural importance of the community are pretty well documented -- just because the majority of it is on real-estate or golf sites does not mean they do not qualify as reliable sources.

Also here, try the Palm Beach Post discussing the historical impact of MacArthur's development, including BallenIsles.)
See also here, from the city of Palm Beach Gardens.
How about awards from the US Tennis Association, in which they note it as one of the oldest clubs in South Florida?
Or here, where the East Course is ranked on the top 100 courses in the world?
Or here, covered in Florida Golf Magazine, which points out that "The design work for the renovation was done by world-renowned ASGCA Golf Course Architect, Keith Foster. Foster, has designed over 20 of the ‘Top 100 Golf Courses’ in the United States, including the famed Colonial Country Club in Fort Worth, Texas, The Baltimore CC in Baltimore, Maryland, and the venerable Knollwood Club in Lake Forest, Illinois. BallenIsles East Course is Foster’s first designed course in Florida."? It further points out the history: "The old East Course at BallenIsles had a lot of history. Jack Nicklaus and Julius Boros won the PGA tour here at BallenIsles. Bruce Fleisher originally qualified for the PGA tour here, and Lee Trevino teamed with the "Golden Bear" to help the U.S. sweep an exciting World Cup Victory here. BallenIsles has hosted the PGA Championship, the World Cup, the PGA's Senior Championship and countless other Golf Classics."
Or here, in Florida Weekly, where the author notes picking up "Executive Golfer", a "national magazine published exclusively for country club executive golfers" and notes BallenIsles entry within.

And that's not even accounting for the residents ranging from Golf and Tennis pros (Venus and Serena -- Serena Williams' recent car accident resulting in a fatality, took place at the south gate of BallenIsles) to guys like Paul Manafort. Sorry, but suggesting that BallenIsles is not notable merely because it's a residential country club and thus heavily skewed towards golf/tennis and real estate coverage is a bit ridiculous -- it's one of the most important neighborhoods in Palm Beach County, let alone South Florida as a whole. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll add the caveat that it's also desperately in need of a rewrite, as it is too advertisement/promotional oriented at the moment. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I tried to re-write this article about a year ago and gave up in frustration. It's a real place, actually a "gated community" and has many sources to support that, but the article reads like an advertisement and the GNIS entry places it in a different county, see [4]. The article needs a major copyedit and the unsourced puffery removed. I can totally see what led User:Dorsetonian to AfD this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep, meets WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG with multiples sources listed above, also this Links magazine article, although a tad promotional, gives more info about the community, including that one of the courses was a finalist in Golf Magazine 2008 Renovation of the Year award. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus against deletion; the discussion on whether or not to merge with Rick Kirby can continue elsewhere. – Joe (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: notability of the artwork has not been established by cited sources. A local newspaper discusses the artwork in one article, but this single source alone is not enough to establish notability. The other sources either do not mention the artwork, or are not independent of the artist, or are not discussing the artwork beyond a single mention in a list of works by the artist, or are a local public artworks catalogue: all cannot establish the notability of this specific sculpture. I couldn't determine one source from an architecture website, but it is a source for information not directly about the artwork. I discussed the issue on the talk page, but the notability warning kept being removed without the notability being established by the cited sources, so I believe the article should be deleted. Editør (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Note this is not the article Sutton Hoo helmet. – Editør (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article's author): It's a big artwork by an important artist (Rick Kirby) that received press coverage both when unveiled and subsequently, and that 100,000 people walk underneath every year. Editør's description above also glosses over the sculpture's published in a 2009 book on artwork in Norfolk and Suffolk, terming this a "local public artworks catalogue", when in fact the sculpture is given detailed coverage there. Pinging Serial Number 54129 and Yoninah, who have previously weighed in. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As previously explained on the talk page, a catalogue of local public artworks does not automatically establish notability of an/every artwork in the catalogue. – Editør (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no real need for this information to be in a separate article and not on Kirby's page. To demonstrate how it would fit, I merged all the relevant content from this article into the Rick Kirby article, you can examine this diff to see how it looked. Note I undid my edit since there is no current consensus for a merge. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Thieves, thanks for the suggestion. I believe that a separate article is preferable, however. The article as it stands contains parts relevant to both the Sutton Hoo article, and the Rick Kirby article; Editør's original suggestion (now apparently abandoned) was to merge it with Sutton Hoo. Yet in either article much of the information would be irrelevant. Placed in Sutton Hoo, the "Themes" section about how the sculpture fits into Kirby's oeuvre would be inappropriate, and placed in the Kirby article, much of the "Background" section would be tangential—not to mention the disproportionate weight that would be given there to a single one of his artworks. As an article by itself, it is a short, self-contained article able an important and cool sculpture. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a merge with either Rick Kirby or Sutton Hoo#Exhibition. — Editør (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a sculpture of the famous helmet and not in itself notable, the refs all relate to the actual helmet and not the sculpture. Szzuk (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szzuk, five references relate directly to the sculpture: Ipswich Star 2002, Cocke 2009, Cocke 2013, and Axle Arts 2015a/b. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ipswich star is about the museum and briefly mentions the sculpture, Cocke 2009 is nominally about the sculpture but mostly talks about other things, I can't access Cocke 2013, Axle Arts is a sales catalogue. Szzuk (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szzuk, Cocke 2009 contains two detailed pages about the helmet. I'm happy to email it to you if you send me a line. I would point out that the inspiration for the Ipswich Star article is the sculpture's arrival at the visitor centre, and that the additional detail in Cocke 2013 serves to contextualize the artwork. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree with what you've said but think the refs are weak. Szzuk (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also the discussion here: Talk:Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)#Notability. – Editør (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied that information below - it is relevant to this discussion. Szzuk (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as fulfils GNG per Usernameunique Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Editør (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've copied the discussion below from the articles talk page. The nom for this AfD has comprehensively rebutted all of the references included in the article. Szzuk (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

The notability of this artwork is not evident from the cited sources. — Editør (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editør, any reason why Cocke 2013, and the various contemporary sources about its installation, are not enough? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For each reference:

1: catalogue of all public sculptures, does not establish notability of any particular sculpture

2: catalogue of all public sculptures, does not establish notability of any particular sculpture

3: sales catalogue, not independent of the artist, does not establish notability

4: local newspaper, discusses the artwork, but alone not enough to establish notability

5: does not mention the sculpture

6: does not mention the sculpture

In general, local newspapers can vary in quality and reliability, while some are dedicated to indepentent journalism, others will directly print press releases as articles. I don't know the Ipswitch Star and looking at the source I don't immediately see any issues, but in my opinion this source alone is not enough to establish the sculpture's notability. If no additional sources that establish notability can be found, maybe the relevant content can be moved to the paragraph about the visitor center in Sutton Hoo? — Editør (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some new sources have been added, but the new sources are about (the background of) the visitor centre, not the sculpture that is the subject of this article. As such they cannot establish the notability of the sculpture. – Editør (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editør, does the new section "Themes" address your concerns? It addresses the sculpture in a way that could not be covered in the Sutton Hoo article, relating it both to the actual helmet, and to Kirby's work. Re: the first two sources you mention above (Cocke 2009/2013), I'm not sure where your statement comes from that they cover "all" public sculpture, not just that which is sufficiently notable. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Among the cited sources I see no improvement in terms of establishing the sculpture's notability:

1. Cocke 2009: catalogue of local public artworks, does not establish notability of any single artwork

2. Cocke 2013: catalogue of local public artworks, does not establish notability of any single artwork

3. Axle Arts 2015a: gallery tweet, not independent from the author

4. Ipswich Star 2002: local newspaper, discusses the artwork, but alone not enough to establish notability

5. Worsley 2003: does not mention the artwork

6. National Trust: does not mention the artwork

7. Architects' Journal 2000: published 2 years before the artwork was made

8. Dawson 2002: undetermined, because I have no access

9. Kennedy 2002: does not mention the sculpture

10. Axle Arts 2015b: gallery catalogue, not indenpendent from the author

11. Cocke 2013: see 2

12. Williams 1992: published 10 years before the artwork was made

13. Bruce-Mitford 1972: published 30 years before the artwork was made

14. Williams 1992: see 12

15. ArtParkS: mentions the artwork once in a list, but no significant coverage that can establish notability

16. Bath Contemporary: mentions the artwork once in a list, but no significant coverage that can establish notability

I am putting back the warning and I am going to nominate the article for deletion, so others can weigh in. – Editør (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have separately listed for deletion the creator of this work, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Kirby. Szzuk (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am under the impression the creator is most notable for this piece, therefore I have reinstated my previous version of the Rick Kirby article where they were merged. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been around since 2006, and now its deletion seems appropriate? We may as well keep the discussions separate—(as I see it) Kirby is notable by himself, Sutton Hoo Helmet is notable by itself—but the proposed deletion of Rick Kirby seems more like an attempt to prove a point about this sculpture than a critique of Kirby's notability. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rick Kirby. It's unclear without studying the sources more closely whether Kirby is notable, but it seems certain that if he only has one sculpture worth writing about in detail, it's unnecessary to have two articles with substantially duplicated content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colapeninsula and Prince of Thieves, I don't think that Sutton Hoo Helmet is Kirby's most notable sculpture; I'm sure that articles could be written about others (Hands, for instance: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but—as someone interested in Anglo-Saxon helmets, and as a major contributor to the Sutton Hoo helmet article—I just happened to find this one interesting. Merging Sutton Hoo Helmet into Kirby's article gives it a disproportionate weight compared to the rest of his works. Further, Colapeninsula, if you wouldn't mind taking another brief look, I don't think that much of the content is duplicated—it was, but that was only because Prince of Thieves copied over the content without waiting for a consensus to merge (in lieu of that consensus, I have reverted the edit). --Usernameunique (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. This is t not necessarily a major work, and much of the coverage seems to be about the visitor center, of which this is only a part. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cas Liber. I agree also that merging with other articles, either Kirby or Sutton Hoo, would lend it disproportionate weight, given the amount of material in the article. Ericoides (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously merging would require some copyediting first. — Editør (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — How do Cocke 2009 and Cocke 2013 establish this artwork's notability? Obviously the reasoning that any and all artworks described in a catalogue of local public artworks are notable isn't valid. And if, as I have argued, these sources cannot establish the artwork's notability, which sources are able to do so (together with the local newspaper Ipswich Star 2002)? — Editør (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument is that provided the catalogue is independent and reliable, its perfectly usable. Perhaps citing the policy which discounts this source? Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Independent and reliable means they are appropriate sources of information, but given the type of work it doesn't say anything about the notability. — Editør (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to expand on that, the clear point is that all independent reliable sources count towards notability per WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all independently catalogued artworks are automatically notable in the context of Wikipedia, which would follow from the argument that the catalogue entries establish notability this artwork (which they do not). — Editør (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that makes sense. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you look at the list of cited sources (that was pasted above), there is just not enough there to establish notability. There is one local newspaper article and that's basically all there is. Half the sources don't mention the artwork, the other half aren't independent from the artist or don't have significant coverage of the artwork. The article Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) should be deleted, after some of the content might be merged into Rick Kirby or Sutton Hoo#Exhibition. — Editør (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My prefered option is probably still to merge with Rick Kirby. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rick Kirby , not an independently notable work of art.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Reformed Church of Rwanda[edit]

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

This topic lacks WP:NOTABILITY. Google News search returns zero results for "Reformed Church of Rwanda" ("Reformed+Church+of+Rwanda"&safe=off&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUq7CcnrXZAhVmLcAKHWwKAo0Q_AUIDCgD&biw=1680&bih=954). Google Books search also returns no results ([5]). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This looks like a denomination, not a local church. We normally regard denominations as notable, even small ones. I just wonder whether google has produced nothing because it has been done in English, which is not the lingua franca there. It is of course a horrid article in its present form. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To paraphrase WP:N, no denomination is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. Evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition in multiple reliable sources. I will gladly reassess my opinion if/when reliable sources are presented. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beat receptor[edit]

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

Pure WP:OR Tesla fan page. Page creator combined 100 year old+ primary source and unrelated sources to PUSH a claim that Tesla invented a "beat receptor", claim contradicted by (and actually not even found in) the prevailing current view. More at Talk:Beat receptor. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. Every reliable source says heterodyne ("beat") reception was invented by Reginald Fessenden and doesn't mention Tesla. The term "beat receptor" was never used for this device, but for the well known beat frequency oscillator. Even if sources could be found, this obscure device does not merit a separate article; anything that needs to be said about it should go in the Heterodyne article. ----Chetvorno^TALK 20:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tesla fanwank. XOR'easter (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sutlej Reformed Church of Pakistan[edit]

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

It seams that this topic lacks WP:NOTABILITY. Google news search returns only one result, albeit with no WP:significant coverage ([6] and its Chinese version). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator is correct; there's only a single source. The subject does, however, have a strong presence on social media. This seems like yet another attempt by obscure South Asian religious groups to exploit Wikipedia as a means of promotion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This purports to be a denomination, which we normally regard as notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To paraphrase WP:N, no denomination is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. Evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition in multiple reliable sources. I will gladly reassess my opinion if/when reliable sources are presented. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Clash Day[edit]

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

Article about a "holiday" which isn't really anything of the sort; it's just a promotion that some radio stations participate in, playing music by a particular band. Something like this could get an article if it were sourceable to enough real media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but that's not what the sources here are: right across the board, they're blogs, Facebook posts and/or the primary source websites of directly participating stations, with no evidence of any coverage in sources that are independent of it. And the list of participating radio stations, further, is not linking internally to their Wikipedia articles, but is instead linkfarming an inappropriate directory of their own offsite web URLs (the reason for this, I suspect, being that some of them are non-notable Internet streams rather than real, notable OTA radio stations.) This is just completely and utterly not what a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like or how it's supposed to be referenced. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bearcat (the nominator) is on the money. It's a promotional event that has little significance of its own and actually says more about the band. The fact that the Clash has inspired the promotion can be discussed, with verifiable sources, at The Clash#Musical style, legacy and influence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Clash. As a stand alone article it is promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with comments above that it is a promotional event by radio stations, and not notable. Also it is just plain inaccurate to call it an international holiday.NerudaPoet (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There don't seem to be sources that would meet WP:GNG's definition of reliable, independent, and substantial. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My kind of holiday. Carrite (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luwanda Jenkins[edit]

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

Not notable. Candidate for political office, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sources provided fail WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON. Author de-prod'd with the explanation "Jenkins was notable before being selected as Madaleno's running mate. See the Awards section. Influential Marylanders, Maryland's Top 100 Women, etc.", but she's not notable for being a candidate's running mate, and winning local awards does not make one notable without the requisite press coverage that doesn't exist here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's a state officeholder who's served under three different governors and been involved in state politics for over 17 years, as the Washington Post article notes. --MopTop (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not an office that meets WP:POLITICIAN, and the only good sourcing about her is from the announcement of her Lt Gov candidacy, which does not establish GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The State of Maryland website is not a good source? Okay, I'll add some more sources while we wait for others to join the discussion. In the meantime, I have to ask, do you really think that when the guidelines were written, the intent was to keep us from creating articles about people like Jenkins? We have articles about fictional characters from TV sitcoms, and this is what you're itching to delete, seriously? A woman who worked for three governors and was instrumental in passing important state legislation, a serious candidate for public office whose name voters are going to be Googling in search of information. Maybe she should get butt implants like Kim Kardashian, then she'll be notable. I think adherence to the rules should be tempered by common sense. --MopTop (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To support notability, a source has to be independent of the topic whose notability is under discussion. A person does not get a Wikipedia article by having "coverage" in press releases from own employer — she has to receive media attention from sources other than her own employer. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A strong black female businesswoman/politician--why would you want to delete this?--Spaceanimal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceanimals (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. The campaign is notable, even if the candidate for Lt. Governor may not yet be. --Enos733 (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not a "state-wide office holder" she is a minor figure in a state government. She is no where near meeting notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a "serious candidate". I'll be surprised is all the coverage is not already there - it just needs finding Victuallers (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. Being the planned running mate of a person who still has not as of yet even won the primary race to be his party's candidate for governor yet is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself — but nothing else here is an WP:NPOL pass either, and the referencing isn't even within 100 miles of good enough to get her over WP:GNG — there's are just two references here that are both independent of and substantively about her, but one is just a reprint of a company's staffing announcement that she was hired for a not-inherently notable role and the other is the candidacy announcement itself. Wikipedia notability is not a value judgement — we don't deem a person notable enough for an article just because they've done something impressive, we deem a person notable enough for an article when they've received enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG for that achievement, but that's not what the sources here are showing. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. Being a candidate for LtGov in a primary doesn't meet WP:NPOL. [7] is substantial coverage separate from her campaign, but one page isn't enough to meet GNG. I do note that even if she doesn't win the primary, there's a good chance there will be enough coverage of her at some point in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018, note however that my searches found a long profile of her, Luwanda Jenkins Joins Cordish Companies in Diversity Role, that is already on the page, it ran in a regional ethnic (black) newspaper 2016, well before she was a candidate. But coverage of her activity is not sufficient to pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:POLITICIAN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable prior to her current candidacy, adequate independent coverage backed by official government sources establishing her position and her notability within her position. I disagree with the characterization that GNG means someone needs specific coverage for individual accomplishments, GNG is met by coverage of that individual, whatever it was they are doing. That said, I would agree that the article quality could be improved. Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. Not independently notable. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear that she is notable beyond her recent lawsuit, especially with the mentioned success she had forcing the change that low pressure areas are no longer only referred to using female names, thus failing the WP:BLP1E reason given by the nominator. So Why 17:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marlies Krämer[edit]

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

Google search shows that this is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E, and that the publicity is mostly being bought by Kraemer anyway. Nearly all of the Google hits (most of which are behind firewalls) are about a lawsuit that she has filed concerning the wording of forms. (The headline fails in translation because it says that she wants to be addressed as a Customer (Inhaber) rather than a Customer (Inhaberin).) Otherwise not notable. This article, like many of the German-language articles, appear oriented to publicizing her campaign about the wording of documents. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near close to meeting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E with no good sources. Agricola44 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert McClenon,

I am the creator of this very article. Are you capable to comprehend the German language?

Regards, Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Da Vinci Nanjing - My German is good enough that I can see that all of the coverage in the German news media appears to be about one campaign that is WP:BLP1E. I know what the difference is between 'Inhaber' and 'Inhaberin', or between 'Kanzler' and 'Kanzlerin', which is the same as the difference between 'actor' and 'actress', a distinction not normally preserved in English (which is nonetheless a West Germanic language like German). Do you see the banner at the top of this discussion, which says that commenting on other users is normally considered disruptive? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I´ve been an author, primarly for the german edition, but as an bilingual expat I was asked for my opinion. Right now, the old lady doesn´t look like a really important person, but she has fought a hard fight against the german gouvernment to change their point of view on the so called "generische Maskulin", a fight that has been fought in the german Wikipedia on the term "Benutzerin" for female writers instead of using "Benutzer" for male as well as femals writers. Some of the female writers/gamers/whatever tend to use "userin" instead of "user" to describe themselves online as female. I hope this helps to understand why she - since the 1990s - has been drawing a lot of attention from major german media (Der Spiegel, ZDF, ARD, BILD: not really hidden sites) - she is an activist fighting against 1000+ years of linguistic discrimination in the official and legal use of the german language. And she made it to the BGH (german supreme court) right now, fighting against the Sparkasse, one of the best known german financial institutions. Another amazing thing: She made the change in the naming of cyclones and anticyclones, since then nice weather can carry a female name. Additionally she wrote at least three books (ISBN-13: 978-3936950144 Tausend und ein Frauenleben/ ISBN 978-3-936950-32-8 Aus Liebe zur Wirklichkeit/ISBN 978-3-936950-02-1 Wirbel im Blätterwald),I think there was one more, but I would need to check on this. IMO she is notable enough for any wiki, shame on us, that we over here don´t have an article on her. I´m sure Da Vinci can use the additional information to expand the article and carve out the importance of Krämer, even if the english language doesen´t give the same reasons for a feminist to fight for a change - and maybe he´ll write one for the german wiki too... hmm? Best wishes Ivy (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here are some news items discussing Krämer (and yes, i am not fluent in non-english languages, i rely on "Shock, horror!!!, gtranslate (and commonsense) :)), Süddeutsche Zeitung - "How Marlies Krämer fights for the female salutation", les nouvelles news - "In Germany, the "neutral male" in court", Stern (magazine) - "Sparkassen customer fights BGH for female salutation", could a fluent editor please comment on whether they support her notability or not, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Robert McClenon, I don't know what banner your are talking about. To show you my view of this website I uploaded a screenshot. It will be availabe for download for 30 days. https://ufile.io/sd6lu It looks like, you lack the necessary German language skills to figure out, that Mrs. Krämer is not a WP:BLP1E, because she isn't a one time event individual. She got media coverage at least 3 times since the 1990s.

Dear User:PoisendIvy, I won't write a German language Wikipedia article for Mrs. Krämer. I'll try to stick with the English language Wikipedia. You are free to do so.

Dear User:Coolabahapple, I am a German native speaker. I suppose Ivy is a native speaker too.

Regards, Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Robert McClenon, I guess you wanna say paywall instead of firewall. I added another reliable source you can access without a paywall. The source describes her role in the 1990s renaming of low and high pressure areas. Regards, Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete For your interest: I have just written the article for the German Wikipedia about her: de:Marlies Krämer. She is notable enough for sure, not alone because of her activities in the feministic field, but also as an author who published five books. Best regards --Maimaid (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment on something User:PoisendIvy wrote:

The length of an article, does not influence it's notability.

An article deemed to short is called a stub > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub
It's like that: The article for the former POTUS Barack Obama was created in the English language Wikipedia on 18, March 2004. Back than Mr. Obama among other things happened to be a member of the Illinois Senate since 1996, made an announcement to run for a US Senate seat and achieved a landslide victory in the related primary (2 days earlier). The first version contained 5 sentences. Does this mean the article doesn't fulfill notability criteria?
No
The article in this very first version could be considered a stub, but it is very likely notable. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My first version for the article is far superior in comparison to the mentioned Barack Obama article, because the article I created includes sources. 13:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Da Vinci Nanjing (talk)

Marlies Krämer's camapigns have influenced policy in Germany and had lasting effects, which ultimately concern the use of the German language. She is also the author of several books. She didn't get much credit for her work in earlier years, but the recent coverage stresses the influence her activism has had for decades. The article cites major German media, so "no good sources" doesn't seem to apply, either. (More articles in respectatble newspapers are available online.) --Mushushu (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. on the basis of the deWP article which has additional sources to show that this is a significant matter of public interest in Germany. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per DGG Agathoclea (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Robert McClenon, I understood the Wikipedia policy, not to attack a contributor, but his arguments. I was not aware of this policy. This is the first time I am deeply involved in a deletion discussion. Next time, I'll try to do better.

Keep. In a nutshell: Mrs. Krämer is far more than a one time event induvidual. My attributed sources stress this out. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few years ago I helped rewrite the text to WP:BLP1E to underscore that for a topic to fall under that particular guideline requires threading more than one needle; there are a series of specific conditions that must all be met. It's easy to fail any one of them, in which case merely passing GNG or a subject-specific guideline is sufficient to keep a bio. Kramer was definitely not low-profile, because she made proactive efforts to attract attention and influence the public: she is an activist. Not living a private life, but working publicly for social change. That right there means BLP1E doesn't apply. But she also was someone who was an activist for gender equality on multiple fronts, not only one. More importantly, she carried out this activity over the course of several years, in multiple venues. That is not a single "event". Finally, she was not an incidental bit player. Like a regular schlub who's name was in the news because he witnessed a major disaster. She was an organizer and instigator; a leader in the work she did. So her role was not minor. BLP1E is so misunderstood. This is a textbook case of NOT BLP1E. It's clear from the sources that this is someone who drove significant social change. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Ivy and Dennis Bratland. With the new sources added, I'm sure the article could be expanded. Too late for the Women in Red project?, but better late than never. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 17:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Shelatkar[edit]

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

The subject has not attracted any substantial coverage in reliable sources, as is required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG as per nominator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wireless community network. – Joe (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People's Open Network[edit]

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

Notability concerns. While there are two references with coverage beyond trivial mentions, the coverage is just as an example of how mesh wireless community networks work. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, not seeing the necessary coverage about the company itself. The nom's point is a good one, as the articles I have seen about the article subject place most of their emphasis on the broad concept of community wireless networks and do not go into depth about People's Open Network specifically.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No 3rd party independent corporate coverage. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Addressed WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH criteria with new additional edits — which includes media coverage of the project itself from several secondary sources — to demonstrate standalone notability. Oppesu (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)oppesu (talk)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to give community time to review Oppesu's additional sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some external sources to validate the more-than-substantial existence of People's Open Network:

Mesh network offers potential for free wireless Internet in Oakland
Newly Formed Multi-Disciplinary Collective Omni Oakland Eyes Former Omni Building
Oakland's Sudo Mesh Looks to Counter Censorship and Digital Divide With a Mesh Network
Pollination Project Award: People's Open Network
Oakland’s Omni Commons space is where it’s at
Proposed FCC rule threatens Oakland mesh network, Wi-Fi projects
Wireless Mesh Network Aims To Bridge Digital Divide
Mozilla WINS Challenge Honorable Mention - People's Open Network

Do you still need something more in-depth? And if so, can you clarify what "in-depth" means in the context of recognition of a project's existence for over 5 years? How about a Github organization actively spanning that duration? Thank you, Tunabananas (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Wireless community network. I'm not convinced any of the sources cited here establish WP:N. They're largely not WP:RS, and the ones that are RS, are very local in scope. I found this PC Magazine article which mentions PON, but it's really just a mention. On the other hand, Wireless community network would benefit from a listing of major examples. Much of what's mentioned in People's Open Network is generic to the Wireless community network concept. I wouldn't bring over everything, just cherry-pick the generic text for the most significant things that make sense to preserve, and a couple of sentences about this particular example, along with the best sources as references. In fact, I would look over Special:WhatLinksHere/Wireless_community_network; I suspect many of the incoming links there are similar examples of WCNs which are not, by themselves, notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wireless community network per RoySmith. I agree that the few mentions of the project don't constitute significant coverage sufficient to establish notability for a stand-alone article, however, the subject seems to be sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the target article. Regards So Why 17:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wray Davis[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Sources are limited/not good. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - plenty of mentions, but little in the way of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Foster the People. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Foster (musician)[edit]

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

Not notable enough; notable only in relation to the band Foster the People, which adequately covers him. (Possibly should be made into redirect to Foster the People page?) Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per WP:NBAND - members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases, or if the musician has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Once he has released notable solo works, or achieved notability separate from the band for other activities, or joined another notable band, then he can have his own article. Hzh (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foster the People because he has done little outside of that band. As the founder of that band, his basic life story leading up to the band's formation can be discussed there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foster the People. There's barely anything here that isn't already in that article, but potentially a few bits can be merged and then the article redirected. --Michig (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect Merge anything that could be merged/isn't already in Foster the People to that page and redirect article there as well. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting comments and !votes from sockpuppets. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Monday[edit]

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

Promotional page for non-notable actor. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR, and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, a good start but needs more prominent roles to pass WP:NACTOR and to generate coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was notified of this page nomination for deletion, as I was the first editor in the page's history. I created a redirect for "John Monday" to Jon Monday. Please redirect, if this page is deleted.Ellis408 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and restore redirect as it fails GNG and is nothing more than spammy garbage created by several SPAs and is basically just an article hijack. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Speedied it per A7 and G11, let's see if an admin agrees. Jdcomix (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of junk sourcing does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page should not be considered for deletion, because Google Inc. has recently added an "about/credit" to. If you google the name: John Monday, information arises about John Monday who is in the film "Kalifornia." Upon further research, this individual John Monday who is an actor as well as a musician appears to have an IMDb age as well as a website. On his IMDb, he was on the notable television show: Modern Family. While I agree that the information currently on this wikipedia page is not up to wikipedia's standards (from phrasing to enough content), I feel that this individual, as recognized by a Google Inc. Profile in the a generic search result, should have an a proper wikipedia page and it appears, upon research, that there is sufficient information to add to this page to bring it up to wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.180.234.18 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent sources to demonstrate notability. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Today I created a wikipedia account because I became interested in learning how wikipedia works. As a first time noob here, I came across this page when I clicked "random article to edit." While I am not too familiar with wikipedia standards because this is my first day, I did my best to do as much research as I could find to update Monday's wikipedia page to bring it to a more "notable" standard. I am not sure whether or not it meets wiki's standards, but I hope that the information that I added is sufficient to perhaps keep the article since I worked hard and this is my first one...Wikifulwonderment (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Wikifulwonderment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. While doing research on John Monday and updating his article to improve its existence... while I was on his imdb page (imdb.me/johnmonday) I found another person with a wikipedia page. Her name isAlexis Wilkins. It appears that this person's wikipedia page is very similar to Monday's with content and notability.Wikifulwonderment (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wikifulwonderment: Thank you for the tip. There is now a separate discussion for that article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Wilkins. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome query. If the article is deleted, is there enough worthwhile material to move it to draft space instead to continue incubation? —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that would be helpful to the encyclopedia - if he is not notable, a draft can't become a mainspace article. It would probably be more discouraging than not for any editors who chose to work on the draft, if it were never moved to mainspace. --bonadea contributions talk 23:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet the relevant notability guidelines for actors or musicians. --bonadea contributions talk 23:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome query. This article has over 30 references, over 10 of which link to things other than Monday's personal online social media/website accounts etc. While it is not sufficient to compare this article to another one that is allowed on wikipedia, it appears that there is much information of substance with references backing it up. If this article is deleted, might it be worth saving this information in a draft space to continue gathering more information? It seems likely due to Monday's impressive accomplishments, that he might reach the nobility standards on wikipedia in the near future. Plus, Monday has over 20k followers on Instagram. Would be a shame for this well written article to be completed deleted. Asking for the possibility for a draft if deletion were to the route to be taken.Wikifulwonderment (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep (for now)~~ (striking !vote by confirmed sockpuppet RA0808 ^talk _contribs 14:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)) This article has a sufficient number of references and includes substantial information with valid sources. Plus, there is a lot more you can be included in this article.Aliburgeden124928 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC) — Aliburgeden124928 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - There is now an SPI investigation regarding virtually all of the editors who are !voting keep (Aliburgeden is to be added shortly). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thejohnmonday. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pietrusko[edit]

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

Sources don't show that this person is notable. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low level executive at a non-notable company. Several orders below notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 17:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corner Bar Pictures[edit]

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

Does not show relevance. Poor sources. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There's no meaningful sourcing in the article. A Google search didn't find anything to support notability and https://www.cornerbarpictures.com/press didn't have anything in depth about the company. If someone can find the needed sourcing, I am willing to reconsider. Alansohn (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - sources are not really independent and of low quality. The company doesn't seem to have done anything substantial. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The editor added substantial international references. A Google search found the company as the first result. The editor added additional notability. My two cents - indie companies on the rise warrant the same respect as major studios. Youralamo (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Youralamo: - Would it be fair to say that your account is a Corner Bar Pictures WP:SPA? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment Smallbones (smalltalk) I've read through the SPA page. I does appear that the content I am providing can be considered SPA. I've created entries for indie movies and indie music, which is my passion. However, I will broaden my entries. Thank you for the advice. Youralamo

@Youralamo: on my talk page you said "the page I created for Corner Bar Pictures" - you are the editor you are referencing in your comment, I presume? Please be forthright in discussions; it makes it a lot easier. You may need to look at WP:COI. (Also, for the record, I think the writing of the article, since you asked about it on my talk page, is for the most part fine, the problem is the subject just isn't really notable.) --Nerd1a4i (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment Nerd1a4i (talk) You are correct, sir. I am the editor of the page in question. I read the entire COI page. I'm sorry if I was not forthright. I'm a newbie. Thank you for complimenting the writing of the article. I will work harder on the notability aspect. This company warrants an encyclopedia entry. I suppose did not effectively establish that yet. I appreciate the push to improve the page. Once I pass muster with this entry, I would like to add more indie film companies and indie music companies. Youralamo

~~Keep~~Comment Nerd1a4i (talk) Hi Nerd1a4i. I just added substantial notability and relevance to the entry and inserted more independent and higher quality sourcing and in-depth content. After reading through the Wikipedia Articles of deletion page, I found these 3 points, and responded to them for your consideration: 1). Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. 2). If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. 3). If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. Please have a look at your earliest convenience. I cited 16 reliable, reputable outside sources, such as EMMY nomination and IRISH FILM AND TELEVISION AWARD winning articles to establish notability. Both domestic and international press coverage of this company is now cited and of the highest caliber. Thank you sir. Please consider withdrawing the deletion notice and I will make you proud. Youralamo —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Youralamo: please stop saying "keep" over and over again. I don't think this company is notable enough to warrant an article. It has nothing to do with "making me proud", it's just wikipedia policy. It is up to the community; I won't retract my nomination. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have struck out duplicate "keeps" and change them to "comments, hi Youralamo, i find this section of WP:AFD really useful, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just read through the section you linked Coolabahapple. Thanks for sending. I appreciate the help. I suppose this newbie will bow out and let fate take over. I thought I had a really good first entry, especially after substantially beefing up the notability. Oh well, maybe next time. Nerd1a4i, if you can suggest a Disambiguation, Redirect, Merge or anything I missed instead of deletion, I am all ears. Thank you! Youralamo (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)youralamo[reply]

no probs Youralamo, you might like to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film, it has some great info/links, also as they have over 150,000!! film related articles i'm sure the film project editors would appreciate any help regarding editing/cleaning up articles etc that you could do, happy editing:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Che Wilson (politician)[edit]

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

Contested PROD; rationale was: "Probably fails WP:BIO (he's had some media coverage but I couldn't find anything in-depth) but certainly in the article's current state." A couple of refs have been added, but they represent routine reporting and nothing in-depth about the subject himself. Schwede 66 17:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable party functonarry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being president of a political party can get a person into Wikipedia if they can be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage about them to clear WP:GNG for it — but it is not a role that automatically guarantees them an article just because they can be nominally verified as existing. But the sources here are all just blurbs and cursory verifications that he holds the role, not one of which supports the addition of even one word of content about Wilson beyond "is president of a political party, the end". No prejudice against recreation if and when somebody can do better than this — given that he was only just elected to the role five days ago, it may just be WP:TOOSOON for a person who possibly will eventually have enough coverage to justify an article. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considered contribution, Bearcat. I doubt that the Māori Party will make it back into Parliament; I'd expect them to go under to be honest (ok, that's WP:CRYSTAL). Hence, I don't think it's just a matter of TOOSOON, but I very much doubt he'll ever get there. Time will tell. Schwede 66 23:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say, and I'm certainly no expert in New Zealand politics — but if there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's never say never. I've had to live under a mayor who looked unelectable just weeks before he won, and 330 million of my neighbours are currently living under a president who looked unelectable as late as a few hours before he won, and there was a point less than 10 years ago when the party that's currently governing my country looked much likelier to die off completely than to recover to the degree that they actually have. So I've reworded my comment to clarify that it's a possibility rather than a certainty, but I'm not prepared to say it's entirely impossible that the Maori Party could recover some presence in the NZ Parliament in the future. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As we see from Radio New Zealand and NZ Herald coverage showing in the footnotes, passes GNG. In addition, I would like to opine that I favor keeping all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, regardless of the size or ideology of the party in question. This is the sort of information that our readers have a reason to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What we see in the article from Radio New Zealand is a 66-word blurb that nominally verifies his election as party chair, but fails to be substantively about him for the purposes of helping him pass WP:GNG for it, and what we see from the NZ Herald is an article about the overall party convention that briefly namechecks Wilson's existence, but still fails to be substantively about him for the purposes of helping him pass GNG. Passing GNG is not just a matter of eyeballing the names of the sourcing providers — it is a matter of evaluating in detail whether the actual content of the source links is or isn't substantively about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Bearcat. Which is why I said the following: "A couple of refs have been added, but they represent routine reporting and nothing in-depth about the subject himself." Schwede 66 21:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helping Angels[edit]

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

poorly referenced. May well no longer exist. Substantial overlap with article on Poesy Liang Rathfelder (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no in-line references but the "Sources" section doesn't seem too great either. i. and iii. are broken links. ii. seems like a personal site. iv. Young Leadership International is not a reputable source. v. Sk-II Nona interview is broken as well and I couldn't find them on Google, but I only looked briefly. vi. and vii. are personal sites. viii. The Star interview is broken as well. In fact, none of the links are working. There is just no evidence of WP:Notability. Wqwt (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melouky[edit]

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

The article at current state, did not shown WP:notability. There is no but only one external source (primary source / official site), may due to language barrier of source, searching Melouky in Google, there is no result that related to the company; unable to determine ملوكي‎ and its google search outcome. Matthew_hk t c 15:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 15:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. Article is promotional and is nothing more than a rewording of their home page. Based on that the article, arguably, should be speedy deleted as an advert. Jbh ^Talk 16:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is promotional and appears to be written by a member of the same family who own the company and is already involved in other controversial contributions on numerous business articles. Further, it fails reliable sources and Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. This is advertising pure and simple and should be subject to speedy deletion. David J Johnson (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to quickly point out that I am in no way related to the people who own this business nor have I accepted any for of payment to make this page. We share the same last name because everybody in my town has the same last name and this company is based where I live. I do understand it is not well sourced and no more constructive information can be added at the moment. Maybe in the future when they are more relevant can new information be published. KarimKoueider (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, why did you originate the article?? David J Johnson (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because I thought it would gain more traction from independent Egyptian Editors to add more reliable information, It has not. KarimKoueider (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the related WP:ANI. Matthew_hk t c 02:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or speedy deleted as an advert. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. KarimKoueider (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to quickly point out that I am in no way related to the people who own this business nor have I accepted any for of payment to make this page. We share the same last name because everybody in my town has the same last name and this company is based where I live. I do understand it is not well sourced and no more constructive information can be added at the moment. Maybe in the future when they are more relevant can new information be published. A quick google search of Koueider will bring you a lot of companies and families with a similar name (e.g. Abdel Rahim Koueider, Mandarine Koueider etc.) Its a popular name where im from KarimKoueider (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To point out that this is just a duplicate of the comment from this user above. It also does not explain why they are now proposing deletion when they wrote the original article? Any admin should also check KarimKoueider talk for other editors concerns over this user. David J Johnson (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confectionery supplier that does not meet WP:NCORP criteria for notability. Mentions in regional sources are not adequate.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Prather[edit]

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

Basically BLP1E. The PublishAmerica coverage is about that company with one or two quotes from Prather about that company, this doesn't make her association with that company notable. Otherwise, the only thing she's known for is the hoax. I've tried to figure out how to make this article about the hoax and not a biography, but I haven't been able to. As it stands, it violates BLP1E. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly such hoaxes are far too common to be worth individual articles in all except a few highly publicized cases. On the other hand, at times the line between actual hoaxes and use of inflamatory language to make a point is a complex. Books have been written about racist and other bias related hoaxes, going on for a long time, full of example after example of people who did things like write language insulting them on their race/religion/ethnicity etc on a board outside their dorm room, claimed they were victims of a "hate crime", and it was later determined they had perpetrated the whole thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Buxted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nan Tuck's ghost[edit]

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

Not notable. This is a "ghost story" which was covered just once by a local paper in a puff piece back in 2009. A Google News search finds nothing in the news since. This article has been tagged for Notability since 2010 with no challenge and nothing to address that problem. There is nothing worthy of encyclopedia coverage here, and it falls well short of GNG. Gronk Oz (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Buxted. It's an obscure local legend [8], [9] and better belongs as a mention at the Buxted article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for reasons above, obscure ghost story for a small town. Alex (Talk) 17:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Buxted is not a town, it is a village. It has some interesting historical connections (mentioned in the article), but never had a large population. Dimadick (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Local ghost. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus but discussion on a repurposing needed. Complex discussion, so I'll need to write a little:

As framed, the question is essentially whether the software is notable on its own, or whether it's its use in cryptocurrency hacking that is notable, or whether it's not notable in either form. Headcount is 10 delete versus 13 keep. The keep camp advocates on the basis of there being substantial sources, but the delete camp has rebutted that most of such sources appear to pertain to the hacking incident more than the software itself which is mentioned in passing (as GNG notes the sources need to discuss the topic directly and in detail) and that the only sources about the software are questionable (RoySmith, Hut 8.5 and Masem), and I don't see this argument being contested very well: Some keep !voters are trying to contest this on the grounds that the software is widely used but I don't see any guideline that would establish that this makes a software notable (WP:NSOFTWARE). There are some bare assertions that the sources satisfy GNG either on their own or in combination (the question being: is a very large amount of short/not very significant mentions sufficient to establish GNG notability?) and one barely discussed award (Pigsonthewing).
A third option proposed by some (e.g Masem and Alfie) is to repurpose the article into being about the hack or about cryptomining in general. Only a few people have disputed this option, mainly on NOTNEWS grounds (Nyttend, Hut 8.5), most of the keep camp hasn't addressed it in detail and of the delete camp other than the aforementioned NOTNEWS point there is little opposition either. As framed the NOTNEWS point really only applies to repurposing the article into being about the hack; it doesn't apply to repurposing it into being about cryptomining but it is not as simple as a move. And to be fair, NOTNEWS seldom carries the day at AfD or so it seems to me, given that it's a very broad policy and difficult to apply to a specific deletion discussion.
There is also a separate NPOV question as raised by Only in death and Szzuk. As for the NPOV dispute, it seems like a disagreement about how much of the article should cover which aspect, thus an editorial dispute rather than a matter for deletion.

Based on my reading, the delete argument is somewhat more compelling than the keep one but it ain't a slam dunk owing to the little discussed award (NSOFTWARE mentions such as a keep argument, although it's an essay so not a very weighty argument) and the fact that it's not clear if all the sources about the software are unusable (see Icewhiz and Masem). For repurposing, a straightforward repurposing of the article into an article about the hack is problematic owing to the NOTNEWS policy, while repurposing the article into being about cryptomining has been discussed only a little and I don't see any substantial opposition argument. My sense is that we don't have consensus for deleting this altogether but also not for plain keeping without substantial repurposing work, and it's not clear what form that work should take. So I shall close this as no consensus with a recommendation to have a repurposing discussion where NOTNEWS points and such can be hashed out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BrowseAloud[edit]

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

Procedural nomination as (early)-closing admin of this car crash of a DRV discussion. The question is whether the subject as it stand now has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources for notability. KTC (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only has there been a massive amount of international press coverage in the last week or so - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=BrowseAloud&tbm=nws - but in rewriting the article to include some of it, I added a source showing that the award won in 2004 was presented by the New Statesman, a significant national publication, which itself confers notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 19 reliable sources so far, more will likely become available given the recent developments. I assume if this is kept it will get nominated again.... John Cummings (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at the DRV: All the recent news items are related to its use a vector in recent cryptocurrency malware, despite Andy's denials at DRV that an update wouldnt be focused on that, the entire article after his 'improvements' now consists of a description of what it does, followed by almost all the body of the text being about its use as bitmining malware. Great article there chief! I'm glad you included all those updates NOT related to it being used in malware. THE ARTICLE IS CLEARLY FULL OF THEM. Its essentially now an attack page on an otherwise userful piece of accessibility software. Wonderful. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "despite Andy's denials at DRV that an update wouldnt [sic] be focused on that" You alleged "at best an updating of the article would include 'used in 2017 to mine bitcoins'" and I - quite correctly - replied "No, an update would not "at best include an updating of the article 'used in 2017 to mine bitcoins'". Your assertion has no substance.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yet your update focused almost entirely on that. So any more bullshit you want to peddle? -edit- Oh I see what you mean, I said in a 'best case' it would have a one line update regarding its use in malware, whereas what you *actually* did was at the other end of the scale and bloat a stub article on non-notable software by expanding an otherwise completely non-notable event to dominate it and turn it into an orgy of an undue attack piece. Sorry I wont suggest in future you might take the best case option. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attack page. Once attacks are removed it is NN software. Also see my comments at DRV. Szzuk (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the references are primarily about the event, not the software. This is an article titled as being about software, but is really about an event that would almost certainly fail NOTNEWS if covered in its own right. While not a BLP, it's a classic example of coat racking and single event coverage. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of the references suggest why BrowseAloud is notable in and of itself, just a bunch of passing references to it as one of the many pieces of software used as a vector for malware. The references are reliable, but they aren't about the subject of this article. Fish+Karate 16:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is not about the software, it's about cryptojacking. 13 out of 19 references are about the cryptojacking incident, including the very first reference in the lede. Most (80% or so) of the article text is about that incident as well. Of the other sources:
- AVSM: a page about accessible websites in general, which mentions BrowseAloud as an example. Has some limited value as supporting material, but doesn't do anything for WP:NSOFT#Inclusion.
- Morpeth Herald: More about how NHS is using assistive technology. Yes, it's about Browsealoud too. This isn't a bad source, but not enough to establish WP:N per WP:NSOFT#Inclusion.
- New Media Awards: some dumb low-budget award. Meaningless as far as WP:N goes.
- Paul Liversidge: A mailing list posting???
- Karl Groves: Some blog post / self-advert by a tech consusltant. Worthless.

And, my own searching found nothing better. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've hacked the Controversies section down to a small fraction of it's original bloat. Some of this was simple tightening up of fluffy and verbose writing, but I also eliminated most of the trivia. Nobody needs to know, for example, that a server hacking was malicious, or that running computationally intensive code reduces your battery life. With that crap gone, the Controversies section is still two thirds of the article text. I left all the references in, but I can't guarantee that the correlation between stated facts and the sources to back them up still makes a lot of sense. If we ended up keeping this, it would be worth another pass to prune the carpet-bomb of sources down to the best ones. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, for reasons that elude me, User:Pigsonthewing has put all that bloat back. Whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they elude you, you haven't really looked very hard. I gave my reasons in my edit summary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit comment said, Restore cited content and remove uncited false assumption. I don't see how that explains why you think your version is better. Yes, it has more content, but more is not better. Also, I don't know what uncited false assumption I made. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a quandry here. On the one hand, I still feel that my analysis above argues for deletion. Icewhiz (below) found more sources, but I agree with Masem that they don't establish WP:N. On the other hand, working my way out from Screen reader, I see we've got articles on similar programs, namely JAWS, Window-Eyes, and ZoomText. I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is a bad argument, but there is value in uniformity.

I was slowly working my way towards thinking keep, and that's where I was heading with my recent edits. But, we're back to having all the cryptohacking trivia, so maybe just rename this BrowsAloud Cryptojacking incident and move on? Then, at least, the title would match the content. No, I'm not really serious about that.

The real issue here is that there's nothing about this hack that's in specific to this piece of software. Well, there sort of are a few things, but it's more about the the fact that this software is aimed at people with a disability. The audience is small, which means it tends to not get much testing and maintenance. And, since it addresses a specific need, governments which have a mandate to support citizens with disabilities have an incentive to use it. Perhaps with less testing than they might do otherwise. To be fair, I just made most of that up, but I suspect following up on it might lead to an interesting encyclopedia article. But, about this piece of software in particular, I don't see much that can be said beyond, Screen readers are useful, most services these days are delivered via web browsers, so javascript-based screen readers exist, and this is one of them. Beyond that, and the accident that it happened to be one that got hacked, there's nothing special about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)

A spot check of those three other programs show the same notability issues. JAWS is nearly all sourced to the vendor, with only a link to accessibility standards; the other two have similar non-secondary coverage. They should all be deleted, though a list of recognized (by independent third-party) screenreaders in Screen reader would be reasonable. --Masem (t) 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While many of the references to BrowseAloud are passing or brief (paragraph to a few) - it is mentioned as an accessibility option in coverage spanning well over a decade in a great multitude of sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Seraphimblade has this one exactly right. It's an article about an event, not actually the software, and if it was presented as an article about an event it would not pass WP:NOTNEWS. Reyk _YO! 16:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How many bureaucratic discussions are we going to have about the same article when there are ample RS-compliant references? The Guardian, Forbes, etc. establish notability. Remember when we used to write articles here? Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir, you don't alone get to decide what is the benchmark of notability.So, yeah, we are going to have this bureaucratic discussion.And, AFAIK, we used to and still write articles about notable encyclopedic topics.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who said I did? Don't tag me again and waste my time with this nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may need to re-read your !vote.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know how you get "I am the sole arbiter of notability" from "We need to pay attention to RS-complaint sources as per Wikipedia policy and practice". Gamaliel (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Put an exclamation mark after word 13. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The remedy for nonideal prose is not to indiscriminately wield the deletion hammer. It was notable enough in 2010 when it was kept, and the recent press only adds to the notability. In the end the usefulness of Wikipedia is to be of service the global public. BrowseAloud has been in the news. A lot. In a major way. People turn to Wikipedia to find out about it, and if the bias of the above deletionists wins out, then we have failed to serve the sum of all human knowledge to the public. And little by little, Wikipedia becomes less relevant and useful because things heavily in the news and on social media can no longer be found here. We are slowly slipping into Britannica/Nupedia territory. And others will start filling that void. Is that what we want? Remove the offending prose and pare it back to what is relevant. The arguments above in support of deleting rather than fixing are incredibly poor. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, It was notable enough in 2010 when it was kept, I assume you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud? Our standards have evolved. That AfD had two arguments for keeping. One consisted of, good or bad, there are sources covering it, with a (currently broken) link to a google search. The other was the single word, Sourced. Given today's standards, that AfD would have been closed as delete in a heartbeat.

I wouldnt read too much into the last AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud (2nd nomination) either with one opposed comment from an editor who in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud expressed a commercial connection to sale of alternative software and had vote delete in every nomination and one vote for delete besides the nomination. Gnan garra 18:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud (2nd nomination) was also a crappy discussion. So, let's have a good one here where we examine the sourcing. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do we really have to have another DRV when this is thrown in the bin? Suggest the closer disallows this as we've already been there. Szzuk (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gamaliel & John Cummings I see multiple sources from 2004-2018, from reliable sources . As I stated in the DRV there are additional sources from Africa, US, Europe and New Zealand. Its not one event given the software was given an award in 2004 and involved in a controversy in 2018. Gnan garra 18:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes there are sources, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on it. All the good sources cover the recent incident where the plugin was hacked, which means this article is essentially a WP:COATRACK for an article about the hack. We can't have an article on the hack because of WP:NOTNEWS. Of the non-hack sources [10] is a dead link, [11] is a local newspaper (in the UK these are generally not reliable), [12] an insignificant award which doesn't count for much, [13] a newsgroup post (useless as a source), [14] some guy's blog. That just leaves [15], an explanation of what it does on the website of an organisation which uses it and [16] which is the site of an company/organisation offering to make your website more accessible. I don't think those are collectively enough to establish notability. Hut 8.5 18:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have taken "WP:NOTNEWS" and interpreted it in a personal way that is inconsistent with our policy. It doesn't say Wikipedia shouldn't contain news. It says that we shouldn't be original reporting or news reporting. Just because something is in the news doesn't disqualify it from being 1) included in an article or 2) used to establish notability. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS says that we consider the enduring notability of events and that most events in the news do not qualify for inclusion. This hack has no enduring notability, it is unlikely that it will still be covered a few months from now, let alone a few years. The existence of news coverage about the hack therefore does not mean we should have an article on it. Furthermore even if the hack was an appropriate encyclopedic topic then we should have an article about the hack instead of pretending it's an article about a software product. Hut 8.5 22:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am persuaded by Hut's argument that if this one incident becomes the defining difference between article and no article, then it is basically a coatrack. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No amount of news reporting matters: news reports are primary sources for historical events, as you will learn in your basic college historiography class. Reliable sources for this topic are peer-reviewed secondary publications, neither of which is true of news reports, as we're all well aware of news reports routinely making errors — they're experts in producing something fast, not experts in producing comprehensive, well-researched documentation of something. And salt, given the demonstrated propensity of people to recreate this. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:RoySmith and User:Hut 8.5. There may be a case for an article on the hijacking, and it may be appropriate for this title to redirect to that article. But none of the sources provided thus far actually talk in depth about this software outside of the context of its being hijacked by malware. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Beyond the recent news reporting (which does not detract from notability, if only adds), this software was notable per continued coverage and reviews over many years - [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. Scholar articles are hard to find since you need to filter lots of crud from academic sites that use BrowseAloud which show up. There is also quite a bit of news coverage prior to 2018, including in non-English (e.g. Russian). [31][32][33]. Whether the article should focus on the recent hacking or long-term coverage of this product is a content issue to be had on the page, not via AfD. At the very least recent events and editing have actually alleviated COI concerns which were present in the past - e.g. in the last AfD in 2017 - version as of Nov 2017.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those provide significant coverage in a secondary manner. They identify the plugin as a means of text-to-speech for accessibility, but do not discuss the software further beyond that. So prior to this most recent bit in the news, there still is a lack of secondary sources for the plugin itself. --Masem (t) 14:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of them are longer. But yes - much of the coverage of this plugin is passing or brief. However there are great number of such references for over a decade.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - How many mentions equate to one RS? Szzuk (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content to an article about "cryptomining" The notable issue here is that a popular piece of software was found to be engaging in cryptomining without user's knowledge; it is not the first, it won't be the last. We actually do not have a good article on this (we have "mining" in the cryptocurrency article, but its just a small section. Cryptomining - how it's done, its side effects (video cards prices shot through the roof), and security issues and the like easily have legs as a enduring notable topic. Once that is made, the relevant parts of this software's piece in that can be put in there, as an example of a security-related mining incident. But the software itself has no notability beyond that, so we should not have a standalone on it. --Masem (t) 14:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm as big a deletionist as anyone but at some point wikipedia shoild cover things that get regilar me tioms in the popular press and specialty publications. Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just put your comment through google text to speech. It was a completely faithful reproduction, before long BrowseAloud will be just a footnote in history - on wikipedia or not. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's good reasons to delete this, but surely the fact that better software will eventually replace it isn't one of them. WP:NOTTEMPORARY. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I was going off topic contemplating how awesome speech and text recognition software will be in the near future. Szzuk (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a section in a new article on cryptocurrency-mining malware (Cryptojacking currently redirects to Monero (cryptocurrency) which IMO is a bad redirect). WP:1E applies here, in my opinion, despite this software not being a living person. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 00:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason to delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The $24 hack is not notable in itself and does not infer notability, but the resulting sources reveal that this software is used by the UK's Information Commissioner, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the Australian state governments of Victoria and Queensland, in addition to the previously known examples of local governments and the National Health Service. Along with the numerous reliable sources, the widespread (though questionable) governmental use of the software makes it a notable topic. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be a significant event in (a yet to be written history of) computer security and would be fine under this title. The alternative would be to have it more specifically to cover the incident as many of the delete voters mention but in that case it should just have been a move request at best. Shyamal (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- While an AFD cannot be used for anything else but for the nominator to request deletion (eg an AFD as a move request is unallowed), !votes and consensus can result in a different action like a move, redirection, or any number of results. So if some !votes are suggesting a move now, that's fully valid. --Masem (t) 14:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are adequate sources to show WP:GNG. The recent compromise only adds notability, it does not take it away or make the article an attack. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The software is running on thousands of websites, including those of many government agencies, making it notable. [[34]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for all three articles. There is consensus that the subjects of these articles do not currently meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. If that changes in the future, recreation of articles about these subjects can be reconsidered. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Altman[edit]

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

Non-notable person. I cannot find any substantial coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. A brief mention here was the best I could find so WP:BIO is not met. I have also looked to see whether WP:PROF is met, but cannot find any indication of a substantial impact in academia. SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Christopher Altman. I've also looked through sources in the course of editing the first bit of the article and also have found no significant non-primary sources. No record of substantial academic publications: if notable it would be for the 'commercial astronaut' and 'project manager' roles. The co-nominated articles seem to be in the same style regarding references but I give no opinion either way as I haven't looked in depth. Cyrej (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These folk are the first generation of private astronauts, and are likely by definition to be notable. Curious thing it is too. I suspect this Afd may be a wee bit premature, but understand the depth of feeling.scope_creep (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Scope creep: Does doing a little bit of training qualify you as an astronaut? Don't you actually have to like... go into space maybe? Regardless, we need secondary coverage showing it is important, which I do not think exists. SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say going into space would be must and obviously secondary coverage is important, particulalry in this instance. But I think it is certain, that all these private astronauts will be feted, if they go up. The plan is now on to get back to the moon, this year, and get some landing in 2 years. For Mars, the time period is 4-6 years, and 8 years I think for landing. scope_creep (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with SmartSE. No coverage at the moment to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with SmartSE. Wqwt (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Informative, well-referenced. --Davidcpearce (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davidcpearce, trust me, it is not well referenced. It may have many references, but it is not well refed. The number of refs have been reduced from 168 down to 82, and the only reason I stopped removed the junk, when it was COI flagged, and an WP:AFD tag put on it. If I had continued, another 1/3 of the references would be removed (and the article no doubt, probably more), if it is kept. They are non-RS. Totally rank, and of no use to man nor beast. Look at ref 79. It is a Forbes sites subdomain site, where anybody and their dog can write on it. It is non RS. Ref 1 is worth a look, since it is nothing do with Altman, it is the work of completely different dude, who happens to work at Starlab, and that was part of the branding in the articles, that has now been removed. A common technique of these paid for articles, is too stuff them with references which are only tangentially linked, and give creedence to some other aspect and provide a kind of veneer of respectability, which doesnt really exist. So it is not well referenced. scope_creep (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Scope creep is on target. Spot checking of references found sourcing so bad that everything I saw needed to be removed (sources by rather than about Altman, or worse, sources that have nothing to do with Altman). The piles of bad referencing make any notability impossible to ascertain and cleaning them up will take WP:TNT. And the other two articles have similar issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all they don't have significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear lack of indepth coverage for GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, fails the criteria for notability. Also, I came here because of the AfD notice on Association of Spaceflight Professionals but it redirects here. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skyservice destinations[edit]

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

(1) This unreferenced article fails WP:V. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing reliable.
(2) The main article Skyservice describes the operation as primarily charter, therefore a list of destinations is not meaningful, unless a list of destinations to which it offered tickets is proffered. Rhadow (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge without prejudice. The only destination article I can find for this defunct airline is here, and that's after some searching: [35] It does appear as if it offered tickets to Belgrade, though. If better historical sources are available, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing this article recreated, but I doubt that will happen. Probably best included in the airline's main article as prose. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Charter airlines do not offer a significant enough level of service to partiuclar destinations to justify an article like this. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G11 by User:RHaworth SmartSE (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CHAK89[edit]

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

Promotional article. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11, very few sources, and one of the mere 6 sources used is primary. Jdcomix (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article creator was also blocked as a sockpuppet of Stoubora, who had conflict of interest warnings on his talk page, so this is also eligible for G5. Jdcomix (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jdcomix: G5 only applies when a master has been blocked prior to page creation by a sock. That wasn't the case here. IMO it should apply in cases like this, but that's another story and there have been several failed proposals to implement it. SmartSE (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajaz Ahmed[edit]

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

Nothing special about the claim, not recognized. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable, MT Train^Discuss 12:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is self-proclaimed tallest man in the world as per this story. So basically he has got some press coverage but nothing in-depth. --Saqib (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as failing WP:GNG. His claim is unverified, and I imagine that if the claim were true, it would have been verified and he would have received WP:SIGCOV for it, but he hasn't. Marquardtika (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time Wikipedia clear out many of our articles on trivially obscure people who have claims to nothing of note. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of fluffy biographies on people with trivial claims. To the extent we need to cover claims like this at all, they will be much better covered in lists than in free standing articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mobashar Qureshi[edit]

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

WP is not for profiling purposes. Clear failure of WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cilaan[edit]

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

This one is an interesting case study in how questionable articles get created: the original stub was laid down by a user with a history of mass-creating stubs, and then Anomie-bot swooped in a grabbed coordinates through GNS-enwiki, and that's basically where things have stood since, modulo some prettification. In the present, geonames acknowledges three places with this name (and a fourth similar), but not this one. Only one of the three is tagged as a "populated place" and I can't verify it, though the aerial suggests there might have been something there at one time. Mangoe (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with MT Train - while there are places which have this name, I can't find any support for this particular one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also couldn't find anything on this. London Hall (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of a highly dubious stub article. It's certainly not a town. With this name in Somalia there are; two water features, a locality (not real) and this um... slightly trampled bit of ground? However I do see this real village called Dhur Cilaan. Really nothing about anything shows up for me on google searches for Cilaan. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Redirect with the page recreated as a redirect to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Although the nomination was created initially without any clear policy-based reason for deletion, subsequent deletion arguments quickly established WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BIO1E as the primary basis. (It should be noted, too, that BLP1E is relevant here because WP:BLP policy includes recently deceased persons.) The primary reason given to keep the article was that significant coverage of this individual meets the GNG guideline on notability, especially when considering the combination of his death, receipt of the ROTC medal and posthumous college admission. However, there were an equal number of participants who disputed that GNG was met and, additionally, some commented that it is yet too soon to determine whether there will be enough continued significant coverage which might override BIO1E. I noted that the most common and consistent comment (including from some "keep" votes) was for redirecting and merging relevant information in the main article. As expected from a deletion discussion that concerns such a tragic loss, there were strong feelings and emotions in some of the comments. However, little or no weight can or was given to any comments based on emotional appeal, or arguments based on other WP articles, or from SPA accounts. Given these results, there was a clear consensus to delete and redirect to the main article.. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wang (cadet)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Other people have had their articles deleted on the basis that they are not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. These people were arguably more notable than the subject of this article, see this discussion for an example. ~~On that reasoning I propose delete.~~ Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck through my previous evaluation due to it heavily relying on WP:OSE. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOTMEMORIAL, BLP1E exist for this type of thing. Blow the impact alarum. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- People need to stop citing WP:NOTMEMORIAL in this discussion, or at least not on its own. NOTMEMORIAL reads "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.", meaning that it's already been determined that the subject is not notable. Citing NOTMEMORIAL is disingenuous and begging the question when the discussion is about whether the subject is notable or not. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 21:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~If it isn't already there, I would merge the part about the petition into the article on the shooting and redirect there.~~ Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC) See below in light of continuing coverage.[reply]
Delete NOTMEMORIAL, BLP1E/BIO1E. Possible redirect (though as we have a notable Peter Wang - doing this with the (cadet) tacked on would not make too much sense) to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, where most of the relevant contents from this article are already in (so not much to merge). Should he (unlikely BALL warning) receive the congressional medal of honor we could re-discuss.Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be a little sadder to see it redirect, since this one contains 94% less unjustifiable loss of promising young life, but I'll take comfort in knowing his bio's not alone with his other 16 schoolmates' (who had soul but were not soldiers), all glossed over equally in the article about the one event none of them wanted, helped create or will ever have anything to do with again. Maybe "comfort" is the wrong word, but Delete is the right choice. There are better ways to feel happy online than pretending to remember someone you just heard about as one aspect of who they were. You could get to know a living person and help them remember a positive aspect they'd forgotten about their own lives, like #BeccaToldMeTo a few hours ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:47, February 20, 2018 (UTC)
Comment I would just like to clarify that the choice to propose the deletion was only taken after lengthy consideration and is in no way intended to tarnish the memory of the victims of such a horrific act. Yes what he did was heroic, but unfortunately I cannot see any reason which justifies him as noteworthy enough to have an article. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of vision is not a reason to delete an article on a subject whose coverage satisfies GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, along with the other reasons.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others. Wang is a hero, but at this point in time does not deserve an article separate from the article about the shooting itself. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid. No individual notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article didn't exist before shooting. Speed74 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would just also like to point out that if this article is deleted, the page Peter Wang (student) also needs to be deleted as it redirects to this article. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No lasting or significant impact outside of this event that would warrant an independent article. -- Veggies (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In light of the USMA accepting him into their class, the receipt of a very important medal, and the governor's direct order to the state national guard to distinctly honor this man, I'm changing my position on this. This is no longer just another victim. -- Veggies (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Veggies: That award isn't unique here as it was given to two of the other shooting victims as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds like an other stuff doesn't exist argument to me. If there are in-depth sources going over their accomplishments and accolades as well, those other two would merit their own articles. -- Veggies (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – as the creator of the article, I am neutral about deletion. I do support merging some of the information into the main article, however. CookieMonster755 ✉ 18:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Natureium (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Redirect to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting) Fails WP:VICTIM and WP:ANYBIO and WP:MILPEOPLE. Maybe later it will, but not yet. See WP:CRYSTAL. ~~Looks like we have a WP:SNOW situation here and this should be closed quick. The author of the article does not oppose a redirect.~~ Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer. This is a split from Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Splitting an article requires consensus, so to my mind if there seems to be no consensus, the article should be converted to a redirect. However I am quite willing to be wrong about that. It has never really been clear to me. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think his heroic acts make him a notable enough person for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.66.52 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC) — 18.189.66.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Above IP has not edited before. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the posthumous acceptance to West Point convey enough notability? What about if he is buried with full military honors? I think these events would be important enough to grant a stand alone article for this person. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-examination needed I agree. This AfD should be re-examined by everyone who took a position in light of this new and very unusual turn of events. -- Veggies (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. If this proves to be the case, we just re-create the article. It just takes a few keystrokes. But for now, he does not meet the criteria. Perhaps if he were to be the youngest to receive a posthumous honor of some sort, but not until he does. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie. Nope. Some, and a lot more than "saving lifes during a crisis", but not enough. lets try SUSTAINEd and come back in June or July After the academic year ends and see if he is notable. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over a thousand people are prehumously accepted into West Point each year then actually attend, many graduating into lifelong distinguished careers, sometimes saving thousands of (or countless) lives. All this extra work isn't enough for the vast majority to get Wikipedia articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

^^^^ Word. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, let's not be in a WP:RUSH to delete/recreate articles. Wikipedia does not have a time limit. If this article is delete, well, it is deleted. In that event, we can reexamine notability guidelines and recreate the article as needed, or leave it as a redirect if consensus is that he is not notable in the future. We are not a crystal ball. CookieMonster755 ✉ 03:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a crystal ball, which an excellent reason to wait for the notability, along with stuff like editor time spent in mainspace, editor time spent at AFD, and so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about "work". It's about notability conveyed by playing a significant role in a major event and later publicly recognized through less-than-ordinary accolades. And all of this documented by multiple reliable sources. That satisfies the notability requirements for me. -- Veggies (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was it significant? He gave his life to contribute to the death toll, like the others did, then may have stopped it from going higher. Even if he actually did, and 21 (or so) people died instead, the overall event article wouldn't be significantly different. A "significant role", as I understand it, is one that majorly alters the event. The shooters themselves get rightly considered, by that ONEVENT clause, though even they (who made it happen) are usually denied articles after the arguments. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting#Victims. Wang is a hero who saved many lives during the shooting, but he unfortunately does not meet notability requirements. I would recommend redirecting back to the victims section of the shooting article, which contains some information on Wang. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Peter Wang saved lives and is rightly being honoured. He is now a household name. All the delete voters here should show up when we try to delete pages on pageant queens who get routine coverage for one event. Wikipedia is screwed up in it's priorities when we keep pages on people who manage to win a looks based contest and delete pages on heros that saved who knows how many lives. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And 3 months from now, he will still be remenbered? The systemic bias here is different, we have had terrorist attacks of this caliber in Asia and Africa come up to AfD (usually passsing). In this shooting - we have a few different spinoff articles - with a chance of survival at AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have had killings of 10 times as many people in Nigeria not only not get an article in Wikipedia, but get virtually no attention in the press in even much of Nigeria. Actually what we need to combat is the notion that someone who plays for 5 minutes in one game in a 3rd-rate "fully professional" football league is somehow default notable. There are people who ruled over large swaths of India in the 15th century who we lack articles on, and we lack articles on many current members of Ghana's national legislature, and the only reason we have an article on the highest ranking judge in Edo State is because she is a Mormon and I picked up mention of her in a Mormon publication. I would be surprised if any of the other roughly 30 states in Nigeria have articles on their most highest ranking judge, and I do not believe we have an article on even the predeccessor of Esohe Frances Ikponmwen. I have probably nominated more articles on beauty queens for deletion than anyone else, but just because policies that the general notability guideline are ignored and misapplied by a cabal that abvocates Wikipedia follow the coverage of the vapid class in parts of the media with a full level of geneflecture has won in some places, does not mean we should abandon actual guidelines on inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is now a household name. Citation needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching Google or watching the news. 1000% more press coverage than the winner of Miss USA this year. Legacypac (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in my fairly well-informed family knew the name until I asked them about it, so I guess they're in the wrong households. They probably heard it on the news, but who has the memory capacity to remember every name that gets mentioned on the news? Not I. Similarly, Google hits are not a measure of household-nameness. Donalds Trump and Duck are household names. Let's just say you were using the term imprecisely and hyperbolically, and leave it there. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Being a Westpoint graduate is not a sign of notability, so being accepted into West Point in a hallow honor to a dead person, is not at all the sort of honor that conveys notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's not notable because he's been accepted to West Point. He's notable for playing a significant role in a major event and being publicly recognized at the some of the highest levels of both the federal and state governments for his efforts. And this acknowledgement of what he did is presented in ways that are not ordinary. How many people are posthumously accepted into West Point? I don't know but it's certainly fewer than those that are while alive for ordinary academic or athletic accomplishments. -- Veggies (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veggies, I am happy to agree with you on this one, and I am puzzled that John Pack Lambert would miss such an obvious point. John Pack Lambert, maybe you think this event was significant? Drmies (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the other above Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This turn of events changes nothing, I participated in an AfD on an article about an author who published a single book, his article was deleted. People trying to pull the 'guilt strings' to get people to change their opinions won't sway people from the guidelines of this encyclopedia, my vote and opinion still stands as above. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind you that your comment above can be taken as an attack on other users and should not be used as an argument against deletion. I would recommend that you are cautious in how you word your comments when they are directed at other users. Lepricavark (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Legacypac: I would like to remind this user that his comments above can be taken as an attack on other users and should not be used as an argument against deletion. I would recommend that you are cautious in how you word your comments when they are directed at other users. Wikipedia has tons of articles, we cannot curate them all but what is important is that we follow guidelines when we can. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really?? - I'm noting that there is a very uneven application of notability guidelines. I did not even vote to keep this page but I will be citing this deletion discussion in the future when discussing some far less notaboe people. ie Person X received far less press coverage than Peter Wang who had their article deleted as a ONEEVENT. Legacypac (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is, frankly, disgraceful. There is no serious argument that the subject's extensive coverage falls short of basic GNG requirements. The nominator gave no policy or guideline-based reason for deletion, just a hopelessly vague "not notable enough" and the limp cognate equivalent of WP:OSE. Most of the delete !votes aren't actually based in the guidelines they invoke -- for example, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not a ban on articles on people notable in part for the manner of their death, and citing it without further analysis is just handwaving, deserving no more weight than just-not-notable statements. I have no idea why so many editors have such enthusiasm for expunging coverage of a person who has actually done something admirable and received significant coverage for it -- certainly more than the average commenter here will accomplish over their entire lifetime -- while having no qualms about devoting significant space to Khloe Kardashian and Mrs Eric Trump. This is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and will likely result in justifiably negative media coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to shame, very nice. Where's the policy basis for that argument? Where's the policy that says our content decisions should consider how they might be seen by the media? "Not notable enough" is a policy-based reason for deletion and it needs no further explanation for experienced editors. The nominator can hardly be expected to prove the absence of notability (you can't link to insufficient RS coverage), the onus is on you to prove its existence. And finally, your interpretation of NOTMEMORIAL is not supported by NOTMEMORIAL. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Where in NOTMEMORIAL does it say anything like "no one can be notable based in part on the manner of their death"? You;re just making that up out of whole cloth. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Khloe Kardashian and Mrs Eric Trump are both important figures. Mrs Trump is a TV producer who also regularly attends whitehouse events and Ms Kardashian is a famous model and TV personality, who is known around the world. I'm wondering whether you are following Wikipedia guidelines on impartiality. Furthermore, are you an editor who upholds the guidelines of this encyclopedia, or an editor who repeatedly clashes with administrators when they don't get their own way? I suspect the latter based on your signature. Media will not cover this, they very rarely give a damn about what happens on Wikipedia. If an article on an author who has published media and books has had their article deleted, what grounds can you possibly keep this article on. Wikipedia follows a policy of consensus and it will not be affected by your own personal agenda whatever that may be. Good Day to you sir. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Icewhiz and others. Main article already contains an 85-word paragraph almost completely dedicated to Wang's memory—that's 37% of the prose in a Victims section about 17 dead and 14 wounded/injured—and I feel that's enough per weight and balance. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
85 words on Peter Wang. 6000 words on Khloe Kardashian. That's appropriate wight and balance? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of 6000 words on Khloe Kardashian, and I am not going to alter my arguments to conform with whatever case you cherry-pick as a "but what about X?" argument. There is ALWAYS something one can point to in that manner, which is why you will NEVER see me do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep it, he was a hero that saved many lives, ~~although you mericans don't care about gun deaths since you have so many mass shootings, that doesn't mean this Chinese person Peter Wang doesn't care,~~ his selfless actions during the shooting saved many lives, as said in the BBC news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.157.125 (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't a Chinese person. He was born in Brooklyn and grew up in Florida. But thanks for your policy-free comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I started the AfD and voted delete, I'm not American so don't make wide sweeping judgements. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mandrus I know you have a lot of time just hanging out here, ready to write a rebuttal for every comment posted on this page, because I see you are trying your very best to get Peter Wang's page deleted. Perhaps you should find something else to do with your time, like watch Star Trek or Star Wars or swing around your replica lightsaber while making some buzzing noises from your mouth. You already made your point multiple times that you want this article deleted for no good reason, other people here do get tired you camping out here posting ASAP and having to read your negative comments over and over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.157.125 (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

We invite you to learn something about Wikipedia policy and guidelines, both content- and behavior-related, before commenting further. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I have warned the user about their attacks against others over on their talk page and also warned them about assuming bad faith. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned them a bit stronger. I have no patience with IPs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close A large portion of this AfD discussion has become a minority of users attacking other users for their opinions and forcing those users to defend themselves. I propose this discussion ends quickly in order to prevent this escalating. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who's posted the most overt personal attacks here is you. Now that editors have begun resisting your dreadful proposal, you want to short-circuit discussion even as the evidence for notability -- for example, the piece in today's New York Times -- continues to grown. In light of your brief edit history, youyr facility with Wikipedia procedures and tropes, and your apparent lack of veracity, I think it's fair to infer that you're a returning sockpuppeteer-troll who should be dismissed out of hand. This certainly isn't auitable for speedy closure. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the above user about his attacks and accusations yet he has failed to stop so I have messaged an administrator to discuss his conduct. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if you do a search for the name mandrus on this page, you will see it highlighted many times, it proves that he is a problem (maybe they are the same user?) that is causing the bickering among us people who are having a rational conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.157.125 (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, sad as it is, NOTMEMORIAL, ~~BLP1E~~. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: It wont make a difference here, but the policy WP:BLP1E applies to those who are living. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BDP BLP policy actually still applies to recently deceased individuals, including BLP1E - and in any event we have the parallel WP:BIO1E.Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What bothers me most is the fact that this article was moved out of redirect at 06:01, 20 February 2018‎, and placed up for AfD at 12:07, 20 February 2018. I don't expect anything meaningful to come out within a 6 hour timeframe which is why AfD should be held off until these big events cool down. That being said, yes the subject fails per WP:TOOSOON and possibly WP:BIO1E. I was going to go with "Weak Keep" until I saw that he was one of three who was awarded the ROTC Medal for Heroism posthumously. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per unique notability combination of his role in saving lives, posthumous acceptance to West Point, awarding of the Army Medal of Heroism, and general media coverage. I'm seeing some parallel in this to Cassie Bernall. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an ROTC medal, not a US Army medal. Rather different thing. Note that per WP:SOLDIER we don't have articles even on most adults awarded medals; only those who receive their country's highest gallantry award or multiple lower awards. Someone awarded the US Army equivalent, the Soldier's Medal, wouldn't be anywhere near the required standard for inherent notability. The coverage is typical for someone who's just died and who did something courageous. No more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that my vote specifically listed the combination of those things, not specifically one. Additionally, the article ROTC Medal for Heroism specifically states that the medal is awarded by the US Army. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not just "an ROTC medal", nor is it "not a US Army medal". It's, in fact, the highest Army (yes, Army!) medal awarded exclusively to ROTC candidates. Add to this the unusual circumstances that it was awarded for and the range of reliable sources that have covered this award as well as personal recognition by a state governor and it's more than enough to justify notability for a standalone article. -- Veggies (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - ROTC Medal for Heroism would not confer notability for WP:SOLDIER(1). It isn't close to being " their nation's highest award for valour". It is a service specific medal, and is roughly equivalent to Soldier's Medal which is not even close to the Medal of Honor. ROTC medals may be fairly rare - mainly since ROTC members for the most part are not involved in action.Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a proper site for a memorial. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given these recent developments (the West Point admission, the Army's Medal of Heroism), on top of the notability of the event and the noteworthines of the individual actions, keep, with a big thank you to Veggies. In fact, "keep per Veggies". Drmies (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Drmies I made some of those points first so I would also like to be thanked ;). But thanks to Veggies for continuing to push it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. Thanks Mr. Ernie! Drmies (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:1E, redirect to the shooting article. Minor role in a larger, notable event. Sorry, but it is worth a sentence or two at the parent article at most. ValarianB (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL seem pretty clearly applicable here. He deserves a paragraph in the main article for sure, especially in light of the honours he's been given, but since he died he's pretty much never going to be notable for any other event. No other mass shooting article has spawned spin-off articles for its victims. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your last point is not true. See Cassie Bernall for starters. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking, right? Jamie Bishop, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, Kevin Granata, Liviu Librescu, G. V. Loganathan, Cassie Bernall, and Victoria Leigh Soto are all examples that can be found with just a cursory examination. -- Veggies (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone proposes deleting those, put me down for a Delete in all but Librescu (prehumously distinguished) and Bernall (posthumously central to a spin-off story studied on its own merits). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

User Veggies makes an excellent point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.157.125 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1E, NOTMEMORIAL (yes, I just re-read it), etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and cover him at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. All this fresh news coverage in the past week is WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and we need secondary coverage over time to show that he is truly notable. If high quality secondary coverage emerges in the months to come, this biography can be rewritten at that time. Participants in this debate on both sides should avoid squabbling and attacking those who disagree. It is unseemly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the shooting article, where he is already sufficiently covered. Lepricavark (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My 92-year-old mom !votes Keep, saying we could "be a little generous". That's as good as some of the arguments here, if the closer wants to count it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a joke, right? Natureium (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Mandruss' mom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even with the action taken by West Point. Still not notable enough to deserve his own article separate from the shooting page itself. He deserves to have a section on that page, though. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would think a section for him would be appropriate if it is decided to merge the article. CookieMonster755 ✉ 19:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Partial Merge I propose that a new section is created on the article about the shooting itself about the subject of this article wherein we include a re-wording of "Death and Funeral" and include the text from the "Legacy" section. I cannot justify this remaining as an independent article however as it does not satisfy notability guidelines due to Notability not being temporary Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-evaluated my view once more now that coverage has died down. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict × a bunch) per Drmies and Veggies and (sweet meatballs I'm agreeing with them) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not a guideline forbidding writing about people who died, and as for WP:BIO1E here are a whole series of articles we have on individuals notable only for having played a [insert value judgement here] role in a terrorism incident in which they died: Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, Cassie Bernall, Orio Palmer, LeRoy Homer Jr., Robert Stevens (photo editor), David Gunn (doctor), Melissa Doi, Eamon McEneaney, Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller (shooting victim), Sandra Lee Scheuer, William Knox Schroeder, Victoria Leigh Soto; it's not difficult to find others, just look at Victims of the September 11 attacks (for example; there are many more of these categories). And before anyone cries WP:OSE, that is the entirety of the nominator's argument, that more notable people don't have articles so this person shouldn't either. Is the fact that this individual's notability (or any of these individuals' notability) derives from the manner of their death tragic and regrettable? Absolutely it is, but that makes no difference to the writing of an encyclopedia. The subject meets GNG as indicated by detailed, focused secondary source coverage, and that is the only criterion that matters. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, you truly make some great points with lots of evidence to back it up. I like that. And, if the Peter Wang page gets deleted then so should every article linked above (and more should be found out) be hunted down and marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.157.125 (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, IP editor, you are wrong. Each of those other biographies should be evaluated on its own merits and I agree that some of them should be deleted or merged. However, the chance that Todd Beamer will be deleted is nil. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those articles he cited were evaluated on their merits by AfD discussions (some more than once) and found to be valid. -- Veggies (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I'd just like to clarify that someone else wanted the AfD discussion and I just happened to nominate it before them. You have provided some excellent evidence to back up your view however my opinion will stand as a merge. Just out of interest however, this one article, seems like it would also be worth an AfD discussion, the various other articles you listed however are much more extensive than this particular article. However I am unlikely to get into another AfD discussion so soon after this one. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to AFD all the Kent State victims in that case. I think you'd have a hard time getting any of them deleted, given the significant impact that their untimely deaths had in the USA. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've actually hit the nail on the head there sir, you are right in saying the Kent State Victims had a significant impact, however individual impact and group impact are different. The victims of this shooting collectively have a large and notable impact which this one individual does not. One of the victims does not tell the whole story or influence a country to change, it is their collective group which makes the difference if that makes sense. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the scenario referring to the Kent State Victims, I would actually merge information into a larger main article called Kent State Victims and redirect, that way all the relevant information is preserved. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:CCC apply to site-wide unwritten community consensuses, such as how we interpret and apply a necessarily vague content policy such as BLP1E? If it does, I submit that rationales such as yours kill CCC for such consensuses. You can't have both that kind of CCC and site-wide consistency—they are entirely incompatible because we could never implement consensus changes site-wide overnight. You have to choose the lesser evil, and I choose inconsistency and evolution over consistency and stagnation. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's probably pointless me saying this, and I acknowledge I am equally as culpable as many of you, but can we please just have our opinions without everyone going 'you mericans don't understand this' or 'my mom says this', we're here to get a consensus and not argue like kids on a playground. I know we all have different views but we're all going to get more angry if we start targeting each other (again myself included). I regret if I myself have caused any hurt feelings over the issues raised in this article. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
limited merge to the main shooting article as all his notability revolves around the incident. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. He's undeniably a hero, but unfortunately he is not independently notable to have his own article. Maybe if he becomes individually notable like other school shooting victims (Rachel Scott, for instance), then he should have an article, but as of now, redirecting seems fine. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Poorly articulated reason for deletion, article subject easily clears WP:N and WP:RS on the weight of its own citations, let alone the article which is fairly well fleshed out. Proceeding commentators should be aware that Wikipedia not being a memorial would be a reason for this article to be deleted IF it had no coverage. This one does. Does ill-thought-out consensus override policy? 184.167.60.170 (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just more editors falling for the recentism trap -- as usual for news. None of these secondary arguments -- West Point or the posthumous award -- actually escape WP:BLP1E. Those are both biproducts of one event he unfortunately is going to be remembered for, but they can/should easily be explained in the main article. Yes I understand he is a hero but no one is doing this boy any justice with an article focused mainly on his death.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should write an essay detailing when a BLP1E is and isn't acceptable. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it's a policy, this advises it should be followed "normally". So, any time there's no common sense excuse for abnormality. When sense is perhaps not common, we argue, then accept what is. Is that specific enough? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, February 21, 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E applies to living people only. Wang is dead. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See? Common sense excuse. Now we say we meant WP:ONEVENT, and things proceed "normally". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

Nope - see WP:BDP - BLP policy applies to recently deceased. We have WP:BIO1E for dead people in any event.Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wang's actions have established his own notability, along with the honors he received afterwards. Keep the page as is and let's discuss this AfD again in two weeks. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; nonsensical debate. Subject fulfills WP:GNG easily, which is enough for Wikipedia. Moreover, subject also satisfies WP:ANYBIO easily since that policy establishes that a person is likely to be notable if he "has received a well-known and significant award or honor." Wang satisfies those conditions since he has received two significant honors: (1) the ROTC Medal for Heroism, the highest medal awarded by the Army ROTC, and (2) a posthumous admittance to West Point, which according to The Washington Post and many other sources, is "very rare." Furthermore, Wang also satisfies WP:BIO1E because "media coverage of both the event and the individual's role" has "grown larger." Even more so, the event is "highly significant and the individual's role within it is a large one" since Wang can be easily singled out in contrast to others involved in the event. In addition, he also satisfies WP:VICTIM since, as a victim, Wang had "a large role within a well-documented historic event." His "role" is considered "large" because his actions have obtained significant exclusive coverage and because within the context of the event itself Wang's actions had a significant impact (by saving several lives). The event is also a "well-documented historic event" because according to The New York Times it was "one of the deadliest the shooting in modern American history." Finally, contributors are reminded that WP:TOOSOON is an essay and thus not policy, that WP:SOLDIER is a failed proposal and thus not policy, and that WP:BLP1E is for biographies of living people which does not apply to Wang because he is dead. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His role has "large" coverage, if you look at it as a standalone thing. But relative to the coverage the whole shooting or its main player have, it's just rather larger than Meadow Pollack's. With or without either (or both and one more), it'd still be the deadliest one. Wang could only be the star if Cruz was never around and if Cruz wasn't around, Wang would just be an obscure Florida kid (for now, at least). They're intertwined, historically, so there's no escaping this relative smallness. He'll only get smaller the longer Cruz lives to gain headlines. It's not a happy ending, but it's the correct one. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Some parts can be merged with Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, but Wang is not independently notable. PvOberstein (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we gave a Wikipedia article for everyone who had attained a military honour (i.e. medal) we should all rush to create articles on every World War Veteran who obtained a medal for their bravery and courage. I acknowledge that this is a tragedy, but would this article have ever been created if it wasn't for this tragic incident itself? I don't believe this is simply a discussion of delete or keep, but rather a discussion of what information should be kept. I wonder whether there is enough information to create a new article that specifically covers the victims and their impact rather than focusing on articles for individuals. The football coach for example shielded students from bullets and died, yet he has not received an article just for this. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've raised several strawmen in your post. To answer your question would this article have ever been created if it wasn't for this tragic incident itself, well, of course not, and neither would many of our articles that cover tragic events exist had those events not occurred. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the war veterans comparison is good, there is a colossal number of them and one expects some war veterans to be highly decorated but there aren't many teenagers who risked and lost their lives to protect others in something like the worst high school shooting in US history. Had the shooting not happened he wouldn't have been notable but the main article wouldn't have been created either so I think of it as pointless whatifism. Some other editor pointed out similar articles on people whose sole claim to fame is being murder victims, some did heroic stuff in their last time some did not so it seems to me that we don't follow WPs consistently and some objections aren't even WPs but essays. I think your idea of an article on victims is terrific and fresh but the most notable ones certainly could or should get their own article. I mean, we have a superfluous number of articles on reactions from other countries when tragedies happen like terrorist attacks and that is pure thoughts and prayers ad neauseam of no to little encyclopedic worth whatsoever! --Killuminator (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As some other guy pointed out, there's plenty of articles on people whose sole claim to fame is being murder victims. There's also a lot of somewhat obscure articles on people who committed suicide and kidnapping victims. They were very notable news stories when they happened but IMHO some should have been deleted. I think we need to adress some of those as well. Now having said all this, I'm in favor of keep but accent is on weak. --Killuminator (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. Only known for his actions and death in the Parkland Massacre with no prior notability. Anything pertinent in this article can be merged into the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This kid deserves a wikipedia page he was accepted into westpoint and now he cant go because of a sick f.ck (excuse my language) or there should be a page for all the victims and about them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topkekin (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – he may "deserve" a Wikipedia page, but articles are based on policy. CookieMonster755 ✉ 22:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – while not policy, consider that the page got 17,000 views in one day. CookieMonster755 ✉ 23:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just above you mention that "articles are based on policy" yet you throw out this statistic which is utterly meaningless in determining whether this article meets said policies. Of course something that happens a week ago will get page views but the encyclopedia is not a popularity contest.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read my comment. Thank you! CookieMonster755 ✉ 05:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The special pleadings to save this article are ridiculous. Awards that would not make the living notable do not in any way add to the dead being notable. This whole article is a violation of the principals of not news and not memorial. Wikipedia does not exist to memorialize people. It also is not meant to be an Amero-centric project, something that an awful lot of commentors here forget. This so clearly violates the policies on one event notability, I am shocked this discussion has lasted so long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Limited Merge This poor lad's notability is due to the incident that caused his untimely death, and, while I am sympathetic to those who would have his page kept, under WP:BIO1E, I'm afraid it doesn't pass muster. Javert2113 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially per Johnpacklambert. No conceivable notability except for his death; but his death also was not individually notable, but only as part of the event. There's pthing worth merging except the name/. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient notability in my view from the combination of coverage of his actions leading to his death and the unusual honors accorded posthumously. The honors themselves wouldn't be notable as many receive them but them being awarded posthumously to a JROTC high school freshman is undoubtably so. The combination of these is unique and broadly covered, worth inclusion. I'm not sure if the article disambiguation title is the most appropriate but don't have a better suggestion to offer currently. 73.228.65.56 (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — 73.228.65.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – please note that the above IP's only edit has been to this page. Canvassing is not allowed. CookieMonster755 ✉ 05:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the event - Per most of the delete/redirect comments above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – to the article about the event. Does not seem to be interdependently notable from any of the other victims of the tragedy. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - WP:TOOSOON. Unless this kid becomes a national martyr for his actions during the shooting (or some sort of notability), I think we should hold off on having a separate article for him. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a disgrace to the trategy. This boy is a hero and a medal of honor medailist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.152.30.80 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — 62.152.30.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Please note that Peter Wang HAS NOT been awarded the Medal of Honor.Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge We obviously don't need a stand-alone article here. He became known as a heroic figure during the shooting. Keep the important stuff and merge them with the article about the shooting. Keivan.f^Talk 20:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Clearly fails WP:1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page is being bombarded by canvassing IP addresses, I feel that canvassing IP addresses should be warned about their activities. Additionally it would be most helpful if users followed the template for tagging canvassing users than replying saying that they have made no prior edits. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is canvassing or just due to the current high traffic of the subject's page? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: It's always called Canvassing if an IP address contributes to an AfD as their first/only edit. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, canvassing is a user recruiting other users to support their position in a discussion, and if you're going to accuse users of having been canvassed you should come up with some evidence before someone points out that it's a personal attack to do so otherwise. Oh, oops. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you do have evidence, then the user doing the canvassing will be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: What I meant to say was Single Purpose Accounts, not Canvassed account. Apologies for the confusion. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Are you kidding me? Fails every notability guideline that exists on Wikipedia. Most assuredly WP:BLP1E.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge and Redirect to Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting#Victims. Clearly worthy of coverage, the question is "how much" and "where". So many delete !voters above appear oblivious to the fact that failing notability does not mean deletion if there is a merge target. BLP does not apply, not that there are any BLP issues apparent. There is a rush of coverage at the moment, the coverage has not settled, it may take a year, the decision can wait that long. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no "rush of coverage at the moment". There has been nothing new about Wang for four days. The news cycle has moved on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. How many people listed in Wikipedia risked their own lives to save many others at the tender age of 15? This remarkable heroism deserves its own place in history. It is especially important to highlight Peter Wang's heroism to help combat the bias in the society against Asian American boys and men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jianhelenyang (talk • contribs) 00:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge and Redirect Peter Wang's notoriety is increasing by the day, along with all the victims and survivors, but especially him, in light of his personal story and reported actions during the incident. May I suggest that this decision would benefit from a little more time than usual? Say, at least 90-120 days? There is a growing constituency among the public who wish to learn about Mr Wang and other victims with a particularly noteworthy story. I suggest some of the calls to delete this entry are politically biased. More details about the law enforcement response to the shooting have emerged, making the actions of victims who may have saved lives more significant in this context. In a free open society important matters, however difficult, are discussed without fear or favor. Wikipedia has a role in providing encyclopedic information to assist. EvidenceFairy (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BLP1E, and WP:NSOLDIER. Chetsford (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments already presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hogg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Gonzalez and per examples of other such names submitted above by Ivanvector. Subject has significant media coverage (as of this writing, there are 24 inline cites under "References") and certainly meets the criteria for inclusion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. I think WP:BLP1E provides the strongest argument for deletion, but arguably Peter is notable not just for his actions during the shooting but also for the honors received afterward. Obviously the distinction between one or two events can be subjective, but I don't see the harm in erring on the side of keep in this case. You can't really objectively put everyone on a linear scale of notability, so saying that some "more notable" people got deleted is useless because you can easily find people "less notable" who didn't get deleted. Each article should be judged on its own merits. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 20:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the alleged "canvassing" is by the nom who slapped an AFD tag at the top of a high traffic article. People come to the page to learn more, see the AfD tag, and voice their displeasure at the idea of deleting something they sought out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I have invited the above user to clarify their comment, however, they started a tirade of inappropriate conduct, therefore I have decided the best option is for to to clarify here, that I did not add the canvassing template and additionally, I was referring to SPAs not canvassers, if the above user would like to clarify their comments (which they have used on other AfD discussions), then I invite them to do so with the correct conduct. Until this time however, I will not communicate with the above user. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ChieftanTartarus, Legacypac did not start any tirade. You started the whole thing by removing the comment and calling it a personal attack when it does not attack you. Your comment above saying they started a tirade of inappropriate conduct is a personal attack and should be removed. ~ GB fan 13:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His tirade is referring to his conduct on his talk page which you haven't bothered to read. I'm at the end of my patience with this issue. If the user does not want to clarify as I have invited them to do so above (which is apparently called a personal attack, which I find frankly laughable), then they can stop communicating with me and you can also leave me alone. Your claim that I have committed a personal attack is an attack and should be removed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:SIGCOV. Other arguments are subsidiary, since significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption that a subject merits its own article. XavierItzm (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The standard for inclusion is coverage in secondary sources, and this article has that, just as the articles on the Victims of the September 11 attacks who died on 9/11 do. Nightscream (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the 'keep' opinions have been appeals to emotion and/or WP:OSE. That's no way to run an encyclopedia. -Jordgette [talk] 23:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect and Merge as with the arguments above, I am not opposed to merging the page with Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Though undoubtedly he actions were heroic, I think a page might be too early. I would merge/redirect, as the main article already has a paragraph regarding him and the other two ROTC students. Perhaps if his story becomes as notable as Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott's, we can revisit, but for now I think a simple merge or redirect is fine. However, if the argument comes to a decision of stay, I am not opposed to it.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: To those saying BLP1E, he is not a BLP. _{Vermont | reply here} 01:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, and BLP1E, apply to the recently-deceased as well as the living. It's explicitly noted on the page both in the lead, and in the later BLP1E section. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

♠PMC is right. Recently deceased people are still included in the BLP policy. CookieMonster755 ✉ 04:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Is this seriously a discussion? There are plenty of notable sources on him. He is all over the news and is clearly notable. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But we aren't the news...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting#Victims per WP:BIO1E. I don't believe that the AfDs of other students, such as Emma Gonzalez, are applicable here. The latter is much better known for her activism, vs being a victim. If 6 months down the road there are sources showing sustain coverage than the article could be restored. Right now it's basically a WP:MEMORIAL. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments regarding the person's notability. Kou Dou 13:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability execpt the shooting event and that makes a fail per WP:GNG. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect while the loss of life is tragic, I totally support K.e.coffman's statement. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of info about him in the news recently so it is good to have a page that consolidates that information 216.221.38.221 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment was this user's first ever edit. Speed74 (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments regarding notability, especially regarding WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Nick012000 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cssiitcic (talk • contribs) 02:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect He is a clear hero, and there are countless ways to honor him for being one. However, this is a clear case of notability around one event that would be better served redirecting to the larger story. As we are an encyclopedia, we are meant to consider the long term notability of subjects. Should this be more long term, we can always reassess and recreate down the line.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaksar (talk • contribs) 6:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BLP1E, which is policy. This ("otherwise low-profile") individual's role in the event was "substantial as indicated by persistent coverage". (Moreover, such coverage can justifiably be expected to keep persisting, because politics.) Keep also per WP:GNG policy: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC) 06:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Partial Merge per WP:BLP1E, having re-read the policy, and sources relating to the subject of the article, I have found that:

1) All reliable sources on the subject have only been in context of a single event (even his posthumous honours are reported on in the context of the shooting)

2) The Subject is likely to lose notability over time and thus will likely return to being a low-profile individual, new sources are become scarcer and scarcer as time progresses. That being said there is enough information weighing on the one event to promote the idea of a merge with the main article.

3) Per WP:GNG, the editor who authored this article was right to create the article on presumption, based on the significant coverage of the article. However this policy is not a guarantee that a subject deserves their own article hence this discussion. As a result I see no grounding in WP:GNG policy in this context as that policy asks for discussion. The same policy also advocates a merge of relevant information into the main article upon the outcome of delete at AfD.

4) Per WP:VICTIM, this policy only applies to victims who have been wrongly convicted of a crime or who are victims of a crime which has been carried out in a highly unusual manner. Therefore WP:VICTIM does not actually apply in this situation, although I think that policy needs to be reworked, it could easily be confused as an applicable policy.

Based on the above arguments I can't justify keeping the article, however I can justify keeping some parts of the article and merging them into the main article. This is going to be my final re-evaluation of my view for the AfD (having previously re-evaluated once). Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: ChieftanTartarus is the nominator of this AfD. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Textbook example of NOTMEMORIAL. My condolences to the family and friends of the subject. Carrite (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the major issue we have to address here is how much coverage the subject is likely to get in future. Otherwise, as his notability derives from a single event, his role in that event was minor and we only have hard evidence of short-term notability, we would have to delete the article per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. As it isn't possible to predict the future it's hard to judge how much coverage the subject is likely to get. It is certainly possible that he might get sustained coverage if he is held up as an example of heroism on many occasions in the future, and we have articles on victims of major school shootings who displayed courage in the face of the attacker (e.g. Virginia Tech shooting, Columbine High School massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting). Given that we can't make an accurate call now I suggest we keep it and then revisit the situation in the future. Merging and redirecting with the article on the shooting would also be a reasonable call for editors to make on the talk page. Hut 8.5 19:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting#Victims. The existence of other borderline-notable victim articles is irrelevant, and GNG does not guarantee notability (this is something we need to get away from), especially when an article fails other tests such as WP:NOT or WP:BLP. That's exactly the case here. Since all the coverage of this person is in the context of the event, that's where this content should go. Of course, this can change in the future if coverage is extended beyond the event, but I doubt that will happen, since he is unfortunately deceased. ansh 666 10:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (ballet)[edit]

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

This article is not about any specific ballet based on Snow White that is the work of a notable composer or choreographer. This completely unreferenced and very vague article just says that ballets of Snow White are sometimes performed and that they often copy elements from the Disney film. I don't feel that this page meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines or has any educational value. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and vague. Like the nomination mentioned, this isn't about a particular production of a Snow White ballet, but about the concept of ballets based on the fairly tale in general. While there certainly are ballets out there based on the story, and sources that talk about them, there are none that I can find that really discuss the scope of what this article is about. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KW Music Group[edit]

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

There isn't any evidence (online or otherwise) to show that this a notable record label. London Hall (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost no reliable sources beyond the group's own sites and Facebook group. Fails WP:NCORP. Blackmane (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 20 albums is not a significant release history, nor are there any notable artists (the single blue link is to an unrelated topic.) There are no independent sources in the article, and my search for independent, reliable sources with any level of coverage on the topic failed to find any. Non-notable record label. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. No notable artists or release history. The article was declined FOUR times at AfC [36] – it's unclear why the final editor to decline the submission then moved the article to mainspace themselves. Very sadly, it appears that label owner Lucas Konk West had an accident in 2006 that left him deaf and unable to continue in the music business [37], and I can't find any evidence that the KW Music Group released any records after this date – their website is dead. Richard3120 (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 06:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Boston University Terriers football team[edit]

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

NN season for long-defunct NCAA Division II program. Fails WP:NSEASONS, as a national championship season might be notable at this level per the guideline, but this was a year the team barely cleared .500 and finished fifth in its conference. Further, per WP:NOTDIR, a team season article "should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players." (emphasis in the original) It does not. Ravenswing 09:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that Boston University later discontinued its football program is utterly irrelevant to the notability of the 1974 team. If the 1974 team was notable at the time, its notability is not lost by such later events. In this case, the article easily passes WP:GNG as the team received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. (I am in the process of adding some such sources to the article.) Cbl62 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not disputing the notability of the team -- the team page isn't up for AfD. This is discussing whether this season is notable, and per WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTDIR, it is not. Nor, per WP:NOTINHERITED, does the season gain notoriety because some of its players achieved conference honors (very few seasons for any team at any level of sport, from high school competition on up, can't make similar claims), the principal addition you made to the article. I also note that you spent work sourcing that the games were played, but that's routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE from contributing to notability. Ravenswing 18:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been substantially rewritten and sources added with coverage from newspapers across the country including San Antonio, Louisville, and Philadelphia. The assertion that even in-depth coverage of a team's games cannot be used to establish notability of a season is simply wrong. That is the coverage used in almost every case. Compare: Single season notability discussion library. (The Boston Globe and Boston Herald would likely provide the most in-depth coverage, but its archives are not available on-line for 1974, at least not to the best of my knowledge.) Cbl62 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. College football seasons are commonly accepted on Wikipedia, and while that argument violates WP:OSE, the article is also now well-sourced, and all other teams in the conference that year have a season article. Whether they should probably requires a broader policy change. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consensus is that individual college football seasons are notable and notability is not temporary. Smartyllama (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep College football seasons, including seasons at the level at which Boston University competed in 1974 (roughly equivalent to the current FCS), receive extensive coverage, both in the media at the time and in almanacs and histories and the like later on. (Note the extensive list of sources now in the article.) Even at a lower level, college football is popular enough in America that these teams will receive extensive coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's sourcing and improvements to the article. As to the ridiculous idea that game coverage cannot count towards notability of a sports season, that is a clear misunderstanding of WP:ROUTINE, please see What is and is not routine coverage. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary, the mere fact that the BU FB program has become defunct is not a valid deletion criteria. Article is extensively sourced to WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SadlerVision[edit]

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

Article has never had any references, and no updates since creation in 2008. I can't find any references to it on the internet except mirrors. I suspect this is either a non-notable homemade series or even a joke entry (similarity of the title to Children's BBC programme ChuckleVision and titles like "Christmas Day 2004" imply it might just be a collection of home videos. Bob talk 09:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 09:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Can't find a thing about it online, and if it's not a hoax then it's completely non-notable. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tagged the article as a possible hoax since there is nothing online verifying its existence outside of Wikipedia mirrors, but this edit made by the original author soon after the article's creation makes me further suspect that this article is a joke by how it decribes the supposed main characters of this show (like how Tracy is "Seans Mam, Rachels Aunty. Is funny with her dog situations and when on holiday"). The original author soon removed the "main characters" section in favor of all of the non-descript episodes that suposedly aired on TV during the six seasons (and later seventh). I feel this is a long-lived hoax or joke that somehow managed to evade detection for this long. Eiether way, delete. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find anything on this at all. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 17:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Adelmann[edit]

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

Had a look online for any references concerning him or his work but found very little. Article does not meet any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. London Hall (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not reliably sourceable enough to pass WP:GNG, and the article states nothing about him that would entitle him to a presumption of notability in the absence of enough sourcing to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found information about a computer expert, a stamp collector and an inventor, all with the same name. But I could not find any evidence that this person is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources about him to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 20:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Brothers school alumni[edit]

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

Completely non notable categorisation of alumni from a selected group of schools. Whilst each BLP in the article is notable in their own right (at least has their own articles) as are each school, the respective schools that each name are affiliated to also already has an alumni section attached to that article. Furthermore, the list appears to be a interest project of just particular user. Ajf773 (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding the nominator correctly, this is a conglomerate list of alumni from a group of schools, similar to if we had List of Ivy League school alumni. So long as this really is duplicative of individual school lists, I think this can just be deleted, otherwise we should take care the information is preserved in the appropriate places for each school separately before getting rid of this. postdlf (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all similar. The Ivy League is a football league formed by a group of colleges each of which was independently founded and is independently managed, whereas every Christian Brothers School is run by the Congregation of Christian Brothers, a single, international religious order of teaching monks, with a Brother Superior who in chief of the whole shebang.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Postdlf. Not improper for Wikipedia, but in a different format (by school.) SportingFlyer (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does not just relate to an ad hoc collection of schools but relates to schools operated by a religious order across 20 or so countries. It connects with List of Christian Brothers schools and is similar to List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions. Wikipedia is replete with lists of people with connections which are interesting to some, such as, for example (and there are many examples): List of former Protestants or List of Christian denominations affirming LGBT and many others. I don't see why the subject list should be treated differently from them.Emendment (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The association of alumni with a particular school is notable, the second degree of separation associating alumni with the religious order is NOT. Duplicating the alumni of each school (appears to be well over 100 of them worldwide) and listing into one article serves no encyclopedic purpose. You also mentioned a few other articles which I am considering nominating for deletion as well. Ajf773 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only one similar to this one is the List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions, I also don't see the informational value to grouping those together in this way, at most it should just be converted to a list of lists. The others are really just irrelevant WP:OTHERSTUFF comparisons. postdlf (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the wikipedia lists (see List of lists of lists) need to be examined subject to the overarching criteria before any of the lists discussed are deleted.Emendment (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- We normally allow school alumni categories and lists. It might be better to have a category for Christian Brothers alumni articles (and categories). A list such as this for all the schools run by a Catholic Order together will inevitably become unwieldy. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is one already: Category:Congregation of Christian Brothers schools Ajf773 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We may need to split this further by individual school, or by country, but this is a good start. We always include notable alumni for schools, and if there are more than a few of them, a separate list is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Practically every school mentioned in this article already has an alumni section. The AfD is for the combined alumni of 100+ schools regarding a second degree of separation. You haven't exactly given a reason to support this. Ajf773 (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point is that all of the persons who are listed were taught across many countries by the international organisation, the Congregation of Christian Brothers. Although they may be listed in different schools, it is the connection to the Christian Brothers that is the important one. Would it help if the attribution to the different schools are deleted? But that is interesting to some. As discussed the most similar list appears to be List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions. The connection to the Christian Brothers is interesting to some just as some are interested in things like List of people on the postage stamps of the United Arab Emirates or any other of the hundreds of examples on wikipedia.Emendment (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't been able to explain why it is important other than The connection to the Christian Brothers is interesting to some. Lists have to be notable too. Ajf773 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question comes whether there are sources that would put together a list across all Christian Brothers schools, or whether we editors are doing original research to make up such a list. If the alumni association across all schools keeps a public database like this, then that would suffice. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "original research" as we can verify that these schools are part of this group and these people are alumni of those schools, thus these people are alumni of schools in this group. It's more just a question of what informationally or navigationally do we gain by listing these alumni of these different schools together in one undifferentiated mass, and I haven't seen a good argument for doing that yet. postdlf (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not the attribution to the various schools which is important. It is the fact that the persons listed are all alumni of the Congregation of Christian Brothers. Therefore the list is actually on all fours with List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions and if the Christian Brothers list is deleted than so must the Jesuit one.Emendment (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While the other article may also be a candidate for AfD we are discussing this article only. Also we're still waiting for a compelling reason how alumni linked to a Christian congregation alone is notable. Ajf773 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because the Congregation of Christian Brothers is a religious order just like the Jesuits. That is it is a corporate structure with a defined membership of people who have a vocation for that way of highly regulated life. We are not just talking about a "Christian congregation". It is the ethos of the education offered by such an organisation (whether the the Christian Brothers or the Jesuits) and the characteristics of the people educated under it which makes the topic notableEmendment (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The alumni belong to the schools, not to the Christian Brothers. The Banner talk 02:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these schools are all part of a single chain, or brand, all under the authority of of a single teaching order of monks, the Congregation of Christian Brothers, and all answer to a Superior General who sits at headquarters. Note that we have an article List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions, a similar set-up, and we could have such articles on a nuber of other orders, such as those in Category:Sisters of Saint Joseph schools, and other Category:Catholic schools by order. Also note Alliance Israélite Universelle#Notable alumni, the Alliance Israélite Universelle was a 19th century Paris-based chain of schools for Jewish children in Muslim countries, it was run out of Paris and taught a modern curriculum in French.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Tassano[edit]

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

non-notable Wikihmc (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has sources that prove notability. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sufficient reliable sources. Ranger2006(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the proposal-for-deletion flag appears to have been malicious, and a possible instance of sock puppetry.

It was added by someone (86.84.64.37) who ostensibly has no previous history of editing articles on Wikipedia. One minute later a comment endorsing the deletion proposal appeared, from a Wikipedia identity (Wikihmc) which likewise has no previous history of editing.

I find it implausible that someone with no previous experience as a Wikipedia editor should make their first edit the endorsement of an article-deletion proposal.Ranger2006 (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficiently notable. Akkadius (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone do an actual analysis of sourcing beyond saying "there are enough" or "there aren't enough"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His work has been covered by Nature and the British Medical Journal, which are pretty high-quality sources attesting to the notability surrounding his work under GNG and criteria 1 of WP:PROF MarginalCost (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. significant books with substantial reviews is enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep He's been reviewed by at least Nature, the Literary Review, and the British Medical Journal. It seems like that's enough to show he's a notable author.Sandals1 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bd2412 T 19:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Susan Smalley and Stacie Madison[edit]

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

No evidence that this isn't any more than just a run-of-the-mill disappearance case. Very tragic, but tragically not really uncommon; about 2,300 Americans are reported missing each day. References, many of which may be unreliable don't appear to be much more than typical routine coverage. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Nom is correct that most missing person cases are not notable. However this one has continued coverage.[38][39][40][41]. Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. RF23 (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sustained coverage. WP:CRIME. BabbaQ (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz's sources. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't believe the sources available are showing a lasting impact on these particular disappearances. If you google "Susan Smalley and Stacie Madison" you get some news hits, per Icewhiz above, but they are local and sporadic, not sustained, in the vein of "whatever happened to...?" stories that will pop up. It's difficult to assess these sort of articles without sounding callous but I'm not seeing anything that makes these disappearances particularly notable and having a lasting impact (changed laws or attitudes or renewed focus, etc.). I say weak delete because although there are sources, they're not convincing per WP:LASTING or WP:DEPTH. Having said that, it's weak delete because a result of keep for this article would certainly not be detrimental to Wikipedia. freshacconci (✉) 16:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Remove the headers from this "article" and we have a genuine copy of a news piece. Sure, some coverage exists, but as Freshacconci actually took the time to analyze, the context and duration of the coverage are significant. We find sources sporadically published, but they are mainly just "Missing...x years later" without any actual substance or lasting significance. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has a lot of coverage, there's even a book written about it.★Trekker (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's a self-published book from Lulu.com a vanity press. freshacconci (✉) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I see.★Trekker (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do note, however, that according to an INDEPTH Dallas Morning News article now added to the article, the self-published book caused the Police Department - and also the police in the adjacent county - to renew the investigation: new detectives, new theories, a new search for evidence. (Not that they found much.) Case is still "open". E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known disappearance, totally worthy of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only was coverage at the time INDEPTH, coverage has been ONGOING with INDEPTH stories - 2 of which have now been added to the page that were published in 1988 and 2010. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any sources that aren't local, and indeed some we should not be using as sources at all (Websleuths threads ... really?) Since there are thousands of missing-person cases out there, we need to limit ourselves to writing about those cases that get some level of national coverage, i.e. a Disappeared episode or coverage outside the area in which this occurred. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What sets this article apart is the ongoing nature of the coverage, which includes some intl., national and Texas coverage beyond the Dallas/Ft.Worth metro ares (a metro area bigger than most member states of the U.N.), coverage has continued on this decades old case. A (self-published) book on the case got local/regional coverage, plus - and this is unusual - caused police to launch a new/renewed investigation of a very old, cold case. Article can be improved both by adding more of the coverage that exists, and by deleting the non-reliable sources flagged by Daniel Case. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: While it is certainly interesting that a self-published book about the case triggered a renewed investigation, that fact alone does not get it above the notability threshold. In searching on this case, I am actually surprised, given the high degree of local attention, that none of the US TV network magazine shows like 20/20 or 48 Hours have done a segment on it, as they have on many other such disappearances (the fact that the case is 30 years old may, I agree, not help this). I don't know if that's because they haven't considered it or did and decided not to, but that really doesn't matter in this discussion. Once the case gets that kind of coverage, we can have this article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is sustained ongoing coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is the coverage ongoing when the last few segments were from early 2017 -- the typical "We still have hope..." news pieces? TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As they disappeared in 1988, 2017 would be ongoing. So would 2011. We still have hope pieces are not routine - the vast majority missing people are simply forgotten media wise. Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pascal Lorne not deleted because it was only added in a comment halfway through the nom and no one else ever responded, and an AfD notice was never placed on it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gojob[edit]

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

Trivial company; the references are PR and notices. Notice the equivocation of the "accomplishments': "registered" not actually accomplished anything for them. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a 2015 start-up company which is aiming towards having 30 employees by end-2018. The coverage provided is routine funding announcements, start-up sector reviews, and articles where the founder describes the firm. At best WP:TOOSOON; I am seeing nothing to indicate attained WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB notability. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @DGG, AllyD, and Smallbones: We also have an article about the CEO (Pascal Lorne) who looks even less notable than the company. Shall we bundle that article into this AFD? SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although merges and redirects are often preferable to deletion, it does not seem that an appropriate destination exists. J04n(talk page) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Black Sr.[edit]

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

County freeholder. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN Only sources are minutes from the freeholder's meeting without even a date provided (also a primary source) and a local newspaper obituary. Rusf10 (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors Djflem (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one non-primary source, an obituary from a local paper, is just not enough to show notability. I underestand the desire of some to avoid Wikipedia being too presentist, but Black does not pass any reasonable notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Johnpacklambert. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors (per Djflem). I will remind all participants per policy that "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending 'Disambiguation', 'Redirect' or 'Merge' instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." It's hard to understand why alternatives to deletion are hardly ever considered by the arch-deletionists, although maybe that's what defines their brand of unprincipled deletionism. Alansohn (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn:There is a huge problem with this. Black is even as much as mentioned in that article. Do you know why??? Because he was NOT a Monmouth County Freeholder Director. If you had actually taken the time to **READ** either the article or your proposed redirect target **BEFORE** posting here you would know that. Therefore I must strongly oppose the redirect.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a different target planned when I read his article, but copied material to vote incorrectly. I have struck out my previous vote and added a corrected vote below. Alansohn (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monmouth County, New Jersey. I will remind all participants per policy that "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending 'Disambiguation', 'Redirect' or 'Merge' instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." It's hard to understand why alternatives to deletion are hardly ever considered by the arch-deletionists, although maybe that's what defines their brand of unprincipled deletionism. Alansohn (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, would you care to explain why we would redirect to that article instead when Black is not mentioned there either? (and there is no appropriate place in the article to mention him)--Rusf10 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pro redirect or merge, but this redirect makes no sense to me; Black isn't inherently notable to begin with, and redirecting him to a geographic place seems odd. I don't think there are any suitable candidates for redirect or merge here. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And Davidgoodheart is cautioned about canvassing with regards to future AfDs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Tammy Rothganger[edit]

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

No evidence that this is no more than just a very tragic but typical disappearance (about 2,300 Americans are reported missing every day). References are to routine databases and typical news reports; no indication of this case being any more notable. See also, WP:MURDEROF. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Nom is correct that most missing person cases are not notable, however news coverage may make crimes notable per WP:NCRIME. In this case coverage mainly seems to be around the 2016 capital murder charge stemming from this case (e.g. [42][43]) and is mainly local. So local non-continuing coverage. Amenable to changing my !vote if additional sources found.Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is sourced enough to be included. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No there really doesn't seem to be. Not as far as I can see.★Trekker (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a database for missing persons. Nothing from the coverage available convinces me this case has any lasting significance or sustainability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per source 8. I agree with Davidgoodheart overall that article is sourced, level on sources are sufficient. BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This editor was canvassed by the article's creator here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources suggesting national-level notability. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. It is unlikely that the songwriting credit for "Deja Vu" alone, or the contest participation and Eurovision admission alone, would support inclusion, but the existence of multiple points to this effect makes this a permissible outcome. bd2412 T 19:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla North[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Her discography can't even be found on norwegiancharts.com. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 17:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:TOOSOON, I reckon – the handful of singles that she has put out appear to be self-released on iTunes, Spotify, etc. and haven't charted anywhere. The competitions she has entered are non-notable. She appears to be participating in some kind of qualifying round for Eurovision, but it's not clear whether it's the main Eurovision Song Contest, or even if she is taking part for Norway. In any case, the article is a slightly altered version of the biography on her website so it's really just taken from one primary source, and independent reliable sources appear to be non-existent. Richard3120 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She's competing to represent San Marino at the Eurovision. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 18:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming that – it's what I thought from reading the external link in the article, but it seemed odd that a Norwegian would represent San Marino... it shouldn't do, considering in the past we've had Americans representing the UK, a Canadian represent Switzerland, and an Australian represent Ireland (twice).

Anyway, that still makes me think this is WP:TOOSOON – if she wins the nomination and takes part in the competition she will probably pass WP:NMUSIC, but right now she doesn't. Richard3120 (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A songwriter with a number 1 on the World Billboard list for "Deja Vu" which is found on the "4 Walls" album of the Korean girl band F (x). I think the nominator may not have realized to search for the Norwegian name "Camilla Norderud" because there is extensive in-depth coverage about her.^[1]^[2]^[3] She doesn't even need to fulfill the requirements for WP:MUSIC (though she probably would) because she already satisfies WP:GNG due to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.ba.no/camilla-north-skapte-sin-egen-arbeidsplass/s/5-8-32851
^ https://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/norsk-modell-og-latskriver-deltar-i-mgp-for-lilleputtstaten-san-marino/69219591
^ http://sydvesten.no/nyheter/2015/11/13/naert-og-personlig-fra-camilla-north/

I'm not convinced that the Billboard World chart fact gives her notability – she's one of six writers on just one track on the album, and it was the album that made no. 1 on the chart, not the song, so it's pushing it a bit to say she's had a no. 1 hit. But I had read the three references, and they are reliable sources, which is why I'm still on the fence about this nomination. Richard3120 (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - indeed songwriter with a number 1 hit. Covers WP:MUSIC.BabbaQ (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you guys seriously keep articles of someone just because they have co-written a non-single song on an album that went #1 in a component chart? I don't think this is nearly enough to make her relevant - one songwriting credit on a song and zero presence in any national charts or even listed in the national chart's website archive. Too soon. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 18:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This biography doesn't need to fulfill the requirements for WP:MUSIC (though it appears it does that too) because she already satisfies WP:GNG due to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing they covered is literally her attempt at representing San Marino at the Eurovision. If we applied this criteria, all Eurovision national final contestants would deserve their own article. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 18:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, anyone with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is eligible for an article. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And in what world are a couple of websites 'significant coverage'? I googled her name and that's pretty much all that came up. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 23:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What issue do you have with the established sources? Lonehexagon (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you can count them on one hand's fingers and aren't even estabilished in all cases, the issue is clear. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 08:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline do you believe is being broken? Lonehexagon (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the one where you do not understand WP:RS? 104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be rude. It's more helpful for the discussion if you explain why you disagree, or what your particular issues with the sources are. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the Norwegian WP has had an article on North here since 2009, one of its refs brings up an error, another confirms North's involvement with Live & Unsigned, it would be good, though, if there was more. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ref to a dead source in no:Camilla North is found in web.archive: Garvik, Bodil (22 September 2008). "Tar mastergrad i låtskriving - bt.no: LokalLokal". Bergens Tidende (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on September 22, 2008. Retrieved 18 February 2018. Sam Sailor 18:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of no-wiki sources? FWIW I don't think NMUSIC is met but GNG is still in question, so I'm not closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, the editors arguing for keep are really reaching here. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You better come up with a better rationale for deletion than simply "non-notable" before commenting on other editors in this AfD. BabbaQ (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional examples of secondary coverage from independent sources.^[1]^[2] Lonehexagon (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.ba.no/demo/camilla-norderud/s/1-41-4295214
^ https://www.bt.no/kultur/i/7pqp8/Camilla-tok-vare-pa-sjansen

Yes, good research.BabbaQ (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also her participation in MGP for Eurovision Song Contest is notable per establishing her career as a singer. WP:MUSIC covers that per performance in national televised event. She covers paragraph 10 and 12 at WP:MUSIC as well. She covers paragraph 1 at Composer section at WP:MUSIC. BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in the a Eurovision selection doesn't give you automatic notability. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 14:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMUSIC and has coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of programs broadcast by G4. J04n(talk page) 16:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal (TV series)[edit]

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

This TV show appears to be non-notable and fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find sufficient reliable sources on a search. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I personally remember watching it, but in terms of Wikipedia it's not notable and only supported by a single source. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to G4 (U.S. TV channel) The show happened, we can document that, but I don't think it can have its own standalone page. A merge is better. (I would suspect a lot of G4 programs lack significant coverage, and this might be where a brief expanded List of programs broadcast by G4 (with 2-3 lines for each program) could be given. --Masem (t) 22:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am very skeptical of the goodwill of the nominator and votes above, all three of which have come here from a very related discussion at Talk:Portal (series)#Requested move 12 February 2018 and seem to be motivated against this article primarily as a way to affect the outcome of that move discussion. On principle, as I'm also coming from that RM, I'm not going to vote, but I don't see any reason to think this article fails our WP:NOTABILITY guideline as a series which ran for two seasons on an established network. The article has been here since 2005 with no prior AfD. Sources can be fixed, and the article can be improved. I ask future voters and the closer investigate the motivations of the nom and voters coming from that RM. -- Netoholic @ 00:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a straight up assumption of bad faith/ad hominem and not proper Wikipedia behavior. I am not sure what's wrong with seeing an article in another discussion and calling out a clear and obvious problem. The fact that it lasted since 2005 was more because nobody cared than because it was notable. In my opinion the nominator should have checked to see if the article was notable before proposing a move instead of assuming as such._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be improved sure, but where are the sources that would help do so? WP:N says "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this passes WP:NTV, mentioned in Guinness World Records 2017 Gamer's Edition, and has only been brought here because of Talk:Portal (series) where there is a discussion about the correct dab being (video game series). Because video game editors currently have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to claim "series" for video games, therefore competing TV series articles risk AfD. This is not the way to help readers by zapping TV series which share the names of video games. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Any more sources outside of a Guinness World Records? Even if Portal (series) goes back to Portal (video game series), this article would still lack sources and overall notability. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is a local consensus, then embarking on a one man/woman crusade to nominate every article in existence for a move is not the proper procedure and is a WP:DISRUPTIVE example of WP:POINT. If we reach a consensus at WP:VPP, we can get a bot to do it instead of arguing about it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion hasn't gone to Village Pump as far as I know. If it does please ping me because I don't watch it. Re above still pass WP:NTV. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I don't see how you can claim bad faith while openly scheming like this about your motives for all the move duscussions. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Lack of sourcing and content for a short-lived show to warrant a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearly meets notability guideline. Seems WP:POINTy in response to Talk:Portal (series)#Requested move 12 February 2018. --wooden superman 12:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly how exactly? There certainly aren't enough sources demonstrated yet. Right now you are just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NTV: "A [...] television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience". It was also in the Guinness Book of Records. --wooden superman 11:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key word is "likely" not "guaranteed to be notable". That doesn't automatically give every TV program notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it somewhat shifts the burden of proof onto those that would want it deleted to demonstrate that it isn't worthy of inclusion. Despite the show being cancelled 14 years ago, and a title which hinders a lot of search methods, I've found two new sources just during the span of this discussion (a magazine and a book) which cite the television show as an important early example of the merger of TV and video games. I have no doubt that more exist, but that's already two more sources than I think were needed to establish baseline notability as cited in WP:NTV. -- Netoholic @ 21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To judge new sources mentioned in Netoholic's last comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google on Portal Meinstein -Wikipedia -Wikia still gave me over 12,000 ghits, so in the face of no evidence to the contrary, clearly notable. (And I think it's up to those proposing deletion to examine and in need challenge the sources now added to the article, and otherwise we assume good faith of a very competent editor and accept them.) Disclosure: I also came here because of a link from the RM mentioned above. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:GHITS. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point (although I'm very familiar with that entire essay, and it makes some good points).

But we now have five reverences in reliable sources, so the notability guideline is satisfied. The ghit count is relevant in deciding where else to look and what to expect. It's the reliable sources (or lack of them) that should decide the issue. And I wanted to put it more gently, but just how hard have you and others looked for these sources? The ghit count suggests that it would be wise to look. That's all.

(It will of course be up to the closer to determine whether my !vote is relevant.) Andrewa (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to G4 List-of shows At the time of its airing being the 'most popular' show on G4 (pre-TechTV merger) was a crapshoot of either just being around 10,000 viewers, or unmonitored by Nielsen because of being under that number. Basically it's equivalent to what a YouTube channel would be; maybe good enough for its own article, but all we have is generic titles and loglines, and several unsourced claims. Nate • (chatter) 02:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Seems likely notable to me. But, the article doesn't make a great indication of notablity. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to G4 List-of shows - like most of the other G4 shows before the merger with TechTV, this lacks the sourcing needed to maintain separate notability outside of being a G4 show. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Lacey[edit]

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

County-level politician. He does not pass WP:NPOL. The only sources are the local newspaper. There does not seem to be anything extraordinary about his time in office. Rusf10 (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL #3: only one source (two newspaper articles from same newspaper announcing his assumption of the post and his resignation.) SportingFlyer (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete part of our absurdly overly high number of articles on politicians from New Jersey who come no where close to meeting notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County freeholder is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, but this article is sourced nowhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG as more notable than most other county freeholders. As is so often the case, there's a decidedly advertorial campaign brochure spin here, as well: "recipient of the Ocean County College Alumni Association Distinguished Achievement Award"? Why on earth should anybody care? Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of April Pitzer[edit]

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

Although that this doesn't appear to be a run-of-the-mill case, references, most typical news reports and routine coverage, are not indicative of this case being any more notable. No sign of any major lasting outcome, such as a change in a law or procedure, which is usually used as a clearance for notability in these cases. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Nom is correct that most missing person cases are not notable, he is incorrect in asserting that a change in law or procedure would be required for notability (though such a law would probably create a presumption of notability). Coverage seems to be limited to a segment on Disappeared[44], and local coverage in 2016 [45][46][47][48]. Note I'm amenable to changing my !vote on stronger sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These types of cases are tragic but the (limited) coverage is far too routine and localized for this to be suitable in an encyclopedia. We are not a database for every reported missing persons and should not try to be.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine cold case. WP is not intended as a cold case database, the governing policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The case has been the subject of an episode of Disappeared, which airs nationwide on the Investigation Discovery cable network. This gives it more than local notability, even if most of the other sources are local. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Weekley[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. References are only routine coverage, and am struggling to find any more sources other than typical news reports, etc.; no indication that this passes WP:BIO. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SportingFlyer (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Much of the article content is about the subject's company (also at AfD), from which notability would be WP:NOTINHERITED. What remains is Scouting involvement and awards, which are not inherently notable, and local philanthropy, valuable community involvement but again insufficient for the biographical notability criteria here. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even in the unlikely event that his home building company is notable, that does not mean he is notable as an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voltea[edit]

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

Not a notable company. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP and the only coverage is in trade press publications such as "American Laundry News". power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This tag was added while I was creating the page. A good number of references have been added after the tag has been added. I was going through the definition of WP:NCORP. I think the following links meets the WP:NCORP critera.[1][2][3][4] The CapDI technology developed by Voltea has been recognized internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyatt jin (talk • contribs) 07:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It sounds like User:Merclove was intending to work on this, but never did. If you still want to work on it, it could be restored to restored to draft space and you could work on it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starship 420[edit]

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

Not a notable web comic. No independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working to fill in gaps this week. This is a media project on multiple levels and is published in trade magazines nationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merclove (talk • contribs)
Added more links as well as contacting other contributors to help update this page. It was created hastily a few years ago and this project has taken on more life since this pages original creation. We will be working this week to up keep the information and bring it to standard for Wikipedia. Also sent artwork and media to OTRS Ticket#: Ticket:2018012810003767 for copyrights verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merclove (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I didn't find a lot of sources other than the ones listed in the article in a web search. What links are there aren't references. Willing to reconsider the vote if the article can get cleaned up. Article is also an orphan but for AfD links. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 16:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Airlines Flight 8284[edit]

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

Unremarkable aviation incident, no deathe and minor injuries to the crew. And nothing interesting about the cause, either TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:AIRCRASH. Small cargo aircraft with no fatalities, not notable. - Samf4u (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt appear to be particularly noteworthy, nobody killed, it didnt hit anything important and nothing changed in the industry. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:AIRCRASH as this was a hull loss for the feeder airline of a major cargo airline. Agree it's not the most notable accident in aviation history. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Want to clarify my comment above: it's still notable. News articles: [49] [50] [51] Followup local broadcast news article that's 1) on YouTube 2) was on for an early three-minute block in the broadcast: [52] Secondary sources (official and blogs): [53] [54] SportingFlyer (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS. AIRCRASH is only an essay and not policy, but would probably fail it anyway. Non-notable accident with no notable consequences / effects.--Petebutt (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was a hull loss accident. I reject the argument that accidents involving cargo aircraft are less notable than accidents involving aircraft that carry passengers. As long as the aircraft involved is of a size that meets our agreed criteria, then it should not matter what it was carrying. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Mjroots. Is the agreed criteria you refer to a gross weight of more than 12,500 lb?

I believe that accidents involving freifght aircraft are much more common than those involving self-loading cargo. Which would mave them less notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the passenger carrying capacity of a non-cargo version of that type of aircraft. However, the aircraft type in question also exceeds the weight you quoted. Either way, we have a large enough aircraft that a hull loss means it should be capable of passing WP:GNG via WP:V x WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you. - Samf4u (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable aviation incident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AIRCRASH states that an accident is notable if The accident was fatal to humans or the accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport. That accident did involve a hull loss of more than 12,500 lb, which make it notable enough to pass it and WP:GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Want to make one more comment: several delete votes here claim it's not notable without providing any reasons as to why it's not. I concede commercial plane crashes without fatalities have a little more work to do than plane crashes with fatalities to get over the WP:GNG line, but I don't see any good policy arguments for its deletion other than the fact it's "not notable." Since it's a hull loss as per WP:AIRCRASH (just an essay), and since significant coverage otherwise existed (including local news follow-up stories, citing the accident in sites which contain a database of notable CVR logs here [55], and ongoing third-party non-news coverage as to the result of the incident [56] ) both WP:GNG (per ongoing coverage) and WP:AIRCRASH are clearly satisfied. The NTSB also made safety changes as a result of the accident: [57] I'd like to qualify my "not the most notable accident in aviation history" comment above as it could easily fly under the radar as a hull-loss feeder cargo accident without deaths get less news than a passenger accident without a hull loss or even any injuries, but this was a major accident nevertheless. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. The thing to remember about WP:AIRCRASH is that it is an essay, and it is more geared for passenger vs. military crashes - transport flights fall in between, and the ATR 42 while not a small aircraft is not a particularly large one (seating 40-52 passengers when configured as such). This particular crash while resulting in a hull writeoff, did not fully destroy the hull. No fatalities. No change to regulations. It was covered in news in 2009 [58][59], but not later. There are some google books ([60] where the NTSB report summary is in an appendix, and [61] where the NTSB report summary is in a page) and a few scholar hits (none of which are cited by more than 10. A mixture of passing mentions and NTSB report spinoffs - e.g. [62] which is about simulation modeling). And we have, as usual, the NTSB report. The level of coverage here is lower than that present in many military crashes which we would delete - and does not pass SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There were follow-up articles from 2011 when the NTSB report was released; [63]. I don't understand what you mean by "did not fully destroy the hull," as the hull was definitely lost/written off. Whether a hull is completely destroyed has no bearing on WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The hull was written off - it was not destroyed - in terms of WP:AIRCRASH (as essay, we should remember, not policy) - this is a writeoff of a small to medium transport flight - which is really on the edge of the essay. Reporting on the NTSB report are fairly routine. Basically this thing got coverage the week it happened (and not all that wide), some coverage later when the NTSB released a report, the NTSB report itself (not grounds for notability - the NTSB investigates anything), and minute subsequent mentions.Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: That the hull was destroyed or written off is basically the same thing: the plane never flew again. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinct difference between deciding not to repair an aircraft (for instance in order to file an insurance claim and/or sell the parts for spares/scrap) and a catastrophic hull loss which is not repairable. The former is a matter of judgement at the time of the accident (which can be affected by a multitude of conditions - including the financial circumstances of the company, market conditions, and age/value of the aircraft) and the latter is absolute (as fixing what remains when you have a hole in the ground is impossible).Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate - the write off decision may have been different (and definitely a closer call) had this been a 2 year old plane and not a 19 year old plane (aircraft are typically depreciated at 5%-10% per annum. 19 years is at the edge of service life for some models). Jan 2009 was the height of the financial crisis. These are all variables unrelated to the crash, but a writeoff decision for a fairly old aircraft in an accident is different from a newish aircraft.Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this line of reasoning. We don't have an article for UPS 5X61, which "crashed" when the nose gear failed during takeoff and the aircraft was written off. Even though it was a write-off that probably had a lot to do with the fact it was an MD-11 in 2016... But also note the difference in the aviation-safety database articles: [64] versus [65]. The UPS flight was "substantially" damaged; the ATR-42 in this instance caught fire and was "destroyed." The entire right side of the plane caught fire (the photo isn't in the wikipedia article.) That's the distinction I make between these two types of hull losses. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete (unless) – The NTSB's recommendations are not binding. Unless the ATR-42's stick-pusher logics was actually modified as a result of this incident (and I could not find any source confirming that after a quick search), then the event remains a non-notable incident caused mainly by poor airmanship, like countless others. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deeday-UK it does not appear that it was by the FAA, but the EASA did take it up and looked into the Saab 340 as a result of this crash. Simulator practices of icing conditions were also changed, and some recommendations remain open. Source: [66] SportingFlyer (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EVENT. There are lookback stories in local media and significant analytical coverage in academic papers [67][68][69] BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've changed my vote to Keep after considering the number of references to the event in apparently reliable academic papers. People researching those papers would reasonably expect to find some coverage of this accident on Wikipedia. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I find the rationale, "nothing interesting about the cause" to personally be insufficient as a primary reason for deleting an article. It has a reasonable number of references and has been noted in a variety of academic papers (see above). --HunterM267 ❯ talk 17:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. As for the hull loss, the entry mentioning the incident in the parent company's article is more than enough.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Billhpike. Lookback articles are a clear indicator that it meets longevity requirements for coverage as an event. Acebulf (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vale of Pnath (band)[edit]

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

fails WP:NBAND. The sources fail to prove notability as per #1 of the criteria. Sources are 1: the band's label, 2,7,9,10 sources from 2 web sites that do not meet the RS definition. 3,5,6 + 8: passing mentions, 4 the band's recording studio, Domdeparis (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ (see new comment below) - The nominator's footnote numbers are a little off, but this band has received passing mentions in Blabbermouth, Metal Injection, and Loudwire which are all reliable sources. I think basic notability is covered but would not dispute anyone who concludes that this band needs more notability to merit their own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: hi, normally passing mentions are not sufficent especially if the band doesn't meet WP:NBAND --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions don't help get a band over WP:GNG. We require substantive coverage about the band, not blurbs or namechecks. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, or achieved anything musically of note. Mattg82 (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this AfD is probably still sitting here because I originally voted "Weak Keep" above while also saying that I could be convinced by anyone else who thought the band needed more evidence of notability. I have no need to dispute the comments above, so the Admins of this AfD can consider me to be in the "Delete" camp. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MagicDraw[edit]

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

Non-notable software, basically no independent sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The state of the article and its current sources are poor. It should be improved. I did a Google search and found the following:https://www.itcentralstation.com/products/no-magic-magicdraw https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228988537_Towards_implementing_a_framework_for_modeling_software_requirements_in_MagicDraw_UMLhttp://base.thep.lu.se/chrome/site/2.17/html/developerdoc/write_doc/documentation.magicdraw.htmlhttp://www.floppybunny.org/robin/web/virtualclassroom/chap11/case_tool_tuts/magicdraw/class.pdf and this one is weak https://conf.researchr.org/event/sle-2017/sle-2017-papers-tool-demonstration-a-development-environment-for-the-alf-language-within-the-magicdraw-uml-tool. This leads me to believe that the subject is important in academic circles and so the subject just meets GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Horrible article. Promotional language, walls of unsourced content... even if this article is kept, it should be rewritten via TNT. I will review above sources later, but at least the second link (PDF) gives me error 404. Pavlor (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short review of the sources above: First source looks like nice review, but the host site seems to have quite liberal publishing policy - anyone can post reviews, editorial policy is limited to title of the article and basic oversight over terms of use and community guidelines. Not that kind of RS I would like. Second source reports error 404. Third source is behind paywall - I don´t have access to it to judge. Pavlor (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 16:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Passons[edit]

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

Politician who has yet to hold public office, doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. Only minor local coverage, most of them covering his announcement to run, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Entire Political Positions section is sourced from his campaign website. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the campaign literature Largoplazo (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been inappropriately flagged as a candidate for deletion, despite having eight distinct cited sources, which is more than most articles on Wikipedia. This article should be kept. The subject of this article is notable because of his significant coverage in the press, some of which can be seen here,^[1]^[2] and which started well before he declared his candidacy.^[3] Omar has raised the third-most money of the candidates for this seat.^[4] Narayansg (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Narayansg[reply]

References

^ Stewart, Joshua (5 April 2017). "Omar Passons enters county supervisor race". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 12 February 2018.
^ Combs, Seth (6 September 2017). "Election 2018: Omar Passons is a man with a plan". San Diego CityBeat. Retrieved 12 February 2018.
^ Peterson, Karla (4 March 2014). "Former foster child returns many favors". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 12 February 2018.
^ Stewart, Joshua (2 February 2018). "Republicans raise more money than Democrats in county campaigns". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 12 February 2018.

Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL. [70] is substantial coverage not related to the election, but everything else is local election coverage that is routinely ignored for the purposes of GNG. Due to the obvious promotional editing I don't think a reasonable page can be maintained at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am less than convinced winning the election would lead to default notability, but being a candidate clearly does not make one notable in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Brief mentions do not equal significant coverage. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS never works as a valid argument. Donald1659 (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:NPOL, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The subject of this article has met that, as has been previously demonstrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayansg (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only sources are directly related to the campaign. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. SportingFlyer (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. In general, candidates for public office must receive national or international coverage, well beyond what is normally expected of a candidate, such as Christine O'Donnell, or meet the notability standards before coverage of their election. A large reason for this is because BLP's "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy," WP:BIO and that there is a distinction made between high- and low-profile individuals (of which most candidates and local elected officials are). --Enos733 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — he would need to either have preexisting notability for other reasons before becoming a candidate, or be reliably sourceable to an unusual volume of coverage that marked him out as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of significance. And a county board of supervisors is not an office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass either — so even if he wins the seat, he would still need to be sourced to an unusual volume of coverage that marked him out as significantly more notable than the norm for county supervisors before being a county supervisor qualified him for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of civic leadership roles and TWO profiles that ran in 2016, before he was a candidate for office: Best of San Diego 2016: Omar Passons, San Diego CityBeat, & Former foster child returns many favors a detailed bio that ran in the San Diego Union-Tribune. Note that I removed the self-sourced material and removed some election hype.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what in either of those two new sources would constitute a notability claim per se? If all we had to do to get a person over WP:GNG was show that they had received two pieces of human interest coverage in their own local media, but it wasn't necessary to show that there was an encyclopedically noteworthy context for that coverage, then as I've pointed out many times before we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who got local media coverage a few years back for finding a pig in her front yard, and every kid who ever tried out for their high school football team despite having less than the standard number of toes, and pretty much everybody who ever opened a restaurant. So if the coverage isn't in a noteworthy context, and instead we're going for "just because media coverage exists", then we do have to show quite a bit more than just two pieces of it and/or a much wider geographic range than just the local media in the subject's own hometown. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:POLITICIAN, only has local news coverage which can be expected for a candidate running for office.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tenebrae Vision. czar 03:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temper (song)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONG Enwebb (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started this article. I think you're probably right. Just from the two references there, I don't think this really meets notability. It was one of the first articles I started, so I was just learning. The shame is, I know the resources exist to make this article meet guidelines, I just don't have access to them yet. There are heaps of books that talk all about these old industrial 12-inch singles. A shame, but what can you do. CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CelestialWeevil Are there at least reviews of the album that this track is from that discuss the song in detail? That might help if there are enough of them. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is one book I found that writes about the song, but I don't have access to most of the album's reviews. It's all print, magazine stuff, sadly. Thanks for the idea regardless. CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tenebrae Vision. Not enough independent notability for the single release to merit its own article, but the fact that it was released with B-sides can be mentioned at the respective album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Ghost Inside (band). czar 03:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now or Never (The Ghost Inside EP)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUM Enwebb (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Covered in multiple references. If it cannot be kept, it should be redirected to the band page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ghost Inside (band). No significant coverage of the release in reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Did not chart and has not been reviewed by any of the major publications or websites, so it is not notable enough for a standalone article. Mattg82 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ghost Inside (band). I have not found sufficient coverage for its own article. As stated above, the album did not chart, nor did it receive any major notable reviews. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 05:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thookkupalam[edit]

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

This unreferenced article is about a minor locality in Kerala. Fails WP:GNG Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 03:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 04:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does however meet WP:NPLACE as it is a populated place and it's existence can be verified. (by looking on Google Maps) Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to exist so keep per WP:GEOLAND Alex (Talk) 23:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @JMS Old Al:--Per this RSN thread, the afore-linked website shall be considered as non-reliable.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Winged Blades of Godric: Ah, thanks, never saw that before. Alex (Talk) 14:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Per this.Also feautured in Census records for the district.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep — Per WP:GEOLAND, it's an official place.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 20:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GEO, this is definitely a locality, here is a mention of a minister attending a function there (near bottom of the blog), here is a tourist site that lists facilities available there, it also has a public school and a higher education institute. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. copyright (G12) and spam (G11) note that A7 does not apply to schools Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calderwood christian school[edit]

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

Non-notable school that doesn't meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising and a copyright violation of two pages from the school's website. Home Lander (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Once one removes the spam, there is nothing left. Hardly surpising if this is a copy paste from the subject's own website. Cannt even call it "artspam". Just "spam". -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COPYVIO. Regardless of whether the school is notable, the current version must be deleted. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Calderwood Christian School was previously speedy deleted as promotional and a copyright violation. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kozak[edit]

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

Local TV weather person. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. There was some coverage in 2013 for one event, but that would fall under WP:BLP1E - no sustained coverage. PROD removed, so now to AFD. MB 02:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like he made international news with his drawn forecast in 2013. Was the first meteorologist to go viral internationally for doing so. Looks to be "on the beach" but we should watch his next move before deleting. 5:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CantWX111 (talk • contribs)
Delete This is the most blatant violation of the guidelines against 1 event coverage of a person I have ever seen. Local weathermen are not notable, and a one time event that gets coverage in the news saturation culture of the present does not overcome this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TV Meteorologists were drawing forecasts in the 50s on, first from necessity, then for effect. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb Drum Records[edit]

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

Unnotable label, avoided a CSD because of unsourced claims that an album charted, yet a google search could not verify this beyond mirror sites of this page- https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&ei=8XeLWpiWA4WJggf344KoAg&q=%22True+Independence+II%22+%238+charts&oq=%22True+Independence+II%22+%238+charts&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3925.6836.0.7083.2.2.0.0.0.0.67.127.2.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.6LRAjzN1ZzI Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. London Hall (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally speaking, it's no longer possible to verify an album's Chart Attack placement, as the actual chart histories didn't survive the Channel Zero switchover — it's weirdly still possible sometimes to find individual radio stations' tracking submissions to the charts, and occasionally it's possible to source the fact to another newspaper or magazine mentioning it, but the actual fully tabulated national charts are gone gonzo gone. But even if we could verify the chart placement, it's actually a non-IFPI-certified WP:BADCHART that doesn't count toward getting an album or an artist over NMUSIC's charting criterion — where verifiable, it can be mentioned as a supplementary fact in an article that's already cleared our notability standards on other facts and other sources for them, but it's not an article-clinching notability claim in and of itself. And there just aren't any reliable sources being cited here at all — I was able on a ProQuest search to find a glancing namecheck of the label's and album's existence in a "concert listings" blurb for two non-notable bands who happen to have been on the compilation, but that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - kinda hard to add anything to what Bearcat stated above. I often argue against the WP:NOTINHERITED reasoning for record labels, because a record label is notable because it produces notable music/artists. However, in this case the article tries to inherit notability by naming notable individuals who are peripherally associated. There were no signed artists. No verifiable sources back the claim it had a cultural impact. Non-notable as a record label. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Blue Book Network. J04n(talk page) 12:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subcontractors Register[edit]

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

No indication of notability of this publication is given in the article. The only source is findagrave.com and a search doesn't reveal any other sources. Rusf10 (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for sourcing. This is an old time annual directory now used as a reference by historians and other researchers looking for info on 19th and early 20th century New York City building contractors. (Also note that Nom has a reputation, documented on his talk page, for bringing many articles to AfD inappropriately, PRODding others, and failing to follow WP:BEFORE.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERSONALATTACK by E.M. Gregory. To be fair maybe we should also note that his behavior at AfD has been the subject of multiple ANIs (but let's try to stay on topic). The article has been unsourced for over a decade, should we wait around another decade to see if sources magically appear?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Rusf10 we can wait. Slow pace of development due to lack of magic is not a valid reason to delete. ~Kvng (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Walter O'Malley~~ (no merge necessary, as the journal is already mentioned in Walter's article). Sport's Illustrated calls Subcontractors Register a "standard work" which suggests that it might be a useful search term. The periodical also gets passing mention in two places in Walter's biography: https://books.google.com/books?id=-PwoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&dq="Sub-contractors+Register". However, I don't see enough that would suggest a non-OR, NPOV article about it. One concern I have is if the other publisher, Joseph O'Malley, were to someday have an article, then it wouldn't be as obvious to have the redirect point to Walter. I suppose that may come about, but right now I don't see much info about this Joseph O'Malley. I'll point out that this Joseph O'Malley isn't the same as the Marquette philosophy professor Joseph James O'Malley whose writings are frequently referred to on google books (nor the same as Joe O'Malley). Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my destination in favor of target proposed by IP below, The Blue Book Network. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect per Smmurphy, above. Merge to The Blue Book Network, per below) With literally no references cited in the article, and nothing that I could dig up, there is apparently is just the passing mentions in the bio mentioned above. Not nearly enough to pass WP:N.

references have been added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the NYT refs because they are pay walled, but they are being used to support a paragraph about O'Mally and rather than about the topic of the article. So I am very skeptical that they provide significant coverage of the topic. The other source merely mentions the topic in passing, so does not established notability either. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I've gone ahead and removed the paragraph about O'Malley since it's off topic. Certainly relevant for a Joseph O'Malley article, but not this one. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because there were two O'Malleys involved, and because continues to be used as a somewhat widely cited reference work (on the New York building trades a century ago - the scholarly library I use holds a full set), and becasue it was issued annually over the course of decades, I think it makes more sense to keep it as a free standing article. Just tag it for sourcing and hope the next grad student coming to the page will add a source or two.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you added have any in-depth coverage of the subject. The book you added has only a single sentence mentioning the subject. You've only proved the subcontractors register existed, not its significance.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to The Blue Book Network. This article, A century of building Bridges in the construction industry, traces the roots of the Blue Book to O'Malley's Subcontractor's Register. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Blue Book Network. I find it hard to believe that a trade directory is independently notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find it hard to beleive that a longstanding publication in a major metropolitan area does not meet notability guidelines. The obstacle here is going to the library and digging up the offline sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of Envy[edit]

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

Not convinced this meets WP:NBAND. Note lack of third party sources establishing notability. Sro23 (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are potential notability claims being made here, but there are no reliable sources being provided to support them. This has also been tagged for several months as a likely conflict of interest with advertorial overtones, but there's been an edit war over the past couple of weeks, with an anonymous IP removing the tags on the basis of "improvements" which didn't consist of actually changing any of the advertorialism or adding any sources, but merely unwikifying the entire article (including the categories) so that it was a linkless and uncategorized dead end — and they revert-warred over it enough times that I've had to sprot the article against unregistered editors. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can rewrite it neutrally and reference it properly, but nothing claimed in the article entitles them to an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of valid sources for it. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Caparas[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by the son of the subject. Edwardx (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough independent sources to meet WP:GNG NerudaPoet (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lacks the coverage needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Holidays Czech Airlines. J04n(talk page) 15:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays Czech Airlines destinations[edit]

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

(1) The article is unreferenced. It fails WP:V. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing useful.
(2) The subject is described as a charter airline, which makes a discussion of destinations an unconfirmable description.
(3) Holidays Czech Airlines is described as a subsidiary of Czech Airlines which makes this article an unnecessary fork. Rhadow (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Repaired malformed nomination page. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the three reasons outlined by the nominator. Ajf773 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why not merge and redirect to Holidays Czech Airlines? Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Done some searching and I don't know how this page could be referenced. A merge wouldn't be bad if some major destinations could be referenced, though. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Czech Airlines destinations. This information should be somewhere, but it doesn't need its own page. Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Charter airline destinations are not a regular service and should not be listed. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronny Santana[edit]

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

Advertorially tinted WP:BLP of an actor, politician and businessman, with no strong claim to passing our inclusion standards for any of those endeavours and no evidence of enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG. His notability as an actor boils down to "has had roles", and his notability as a politician amounts to "smalltown public safety commissioner" and "non-winning candidate for Congress" -- but none of those three confer an automatic inclusion freebie on a person just because he exists, and the sourcing here is complete garbage right across the board: the acting is sourced entirely to IMDb, another IMDb-like directory, a non-notable blog and a YouTube video, while the politics stuff is heavily reference-overkilled (five to seven separate cites on a single sentence, three times over) to glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that are not about him -- such as a brief namecheck of his existence as Anna Eshoo's challenger in a media endorsement of Eshoo, routine FEC reports of the type that every candidate for Congress has to file, and raw tables of election results. And then for his business career, we bounce right back to his own self-published web presence.
Nothing stated in the article is an "automatic" notability freebie that entitles him to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists: actors do not get an automatic WP:NACTOR pass just because they've had roles, political candidates do not get an WP:NPOL pass just for being candidates, and businesspeople do not get an automatic pass over our notability standards for businesspeople just because their business has a website. He has to be the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG for those things, but none of the sourcing here, not even one footnote out of the 33 listed here, counts for anything whatsoever toward getting him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Ronny Santana is already mentioned on these Wikipedia Pages;
United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2008
California's 14th congressional district
United States House of Representatives elections, 2008
Anna_Eshoo

Also, these sites of USA government and New York Times have listed his political career.

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/2008/2008Stat.htm
http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2008-general/shortlist_gen2008.pdf
https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/H8CA14169/
https://www.sccgov.org/elections/results/jun082010/
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2010/results/primaries/california.html

Alic.Mat23 (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, a person does not get to have a Wikipedia article just because his name happens to be mentioned in other Wikipedia articles — to qualify for a standalone article he has to pass Wikipedia's inclusion standards, which nothing in this article or its sourcing does. And secondly, a person does not get to have a Wikipedia article just because his name gets mentioned in the exact same routine government and election-results sources that mention every candidate in every electoral district across the entire state or country. He has to be the subject of media coverage, not just have his name present in tables of the vote count or lists of all the candidates in his district or the financial statements that every candidate has to provide to the FEC. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is not a notable politician, actor or businessperson. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a twice defeated candidate for congress (once apparently, but not clearly, in the primary) is just not notable. His role as an actor is even further from notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.ba.no/camilla-north-skapte-sin-egen-arbeidsplass/s/5-8-32851

[2] ttps://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/norsk-modell-og-latskriver-deltar-i-mgp-for-lilleputtstaten-san-marino/69219591

[3] ttp://sydvesten.no/nyheter/2015/11/13/naert-og-personlig-fra-camilla-north/

[4] ttps://www.ba.no/demo/camilla-norderud/s/1-41-4295214

[5] ttps://www.bt.no/kultur/i/7pqp8/Camilla-tok-vare-pa-sjansen

[SDUT-6] Stewart, Joshua (5 April 2017). "Omar Passons enters county supervisor race". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 12 February 2018.

[SDCB-7] Combs, Seth (6 September 2017). "Election 2018: Omar Passons is a man with a plan". San Diego CityBeat. Retrieved 12 February 2018.

[SDUTold-8] Peterson, Karla (4 March 2014). "Former foster child returns many favors". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 12 February 2018.

[9] Stewart, Joshua (2 February 2018). "Republicans raise more money than Democrats in county campaigns". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 12 February 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]