Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 February	8 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) 00:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Kumagaya[edit]

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

Subject is not known for anything except for small scale OVAs and animated pornography. Article is a credits dump at best. Stub in JP Wiki. MizukaS (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did an extra long search for sources here, just because I'm a Virtua Fighter fan, but I couldn't find anything that would indicate notability, just wikis, directory listings, and the like.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sadly, despite an extensive search in both English and Japanese, significant coverage specifically about her is lacking. It doesn't help that most of her roles are supporting or bit roles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:36, 13 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi Maeda (voice actor)[edit]

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

Article is essentially a credits dump. Subject is not known for anything in particular. Stub in JP Wiki. MizukaS (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lead role in Gag Manga Biyori and major roles in several other series, which is more than enough to warrant inclusion. The state of the Japanese wiki article is irrelevant. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant in that there aren't any WP:SIGCOV articles at the JP wiki side to gather any further information on the subject. The burden would then be on the article to provide such articles to meet WP:GNG. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 3 references from the television station and 2 from fansites are not independent reliable sources and are insufficient to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had a look for sources with Goodsearch, but found nothing beyond the usual database entries and credits lists. Nothing in the way of significant coverage.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:59, 10 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thathal[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Was listed at WP:RFD as a redirect before being restored as an article. Sitush (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 23:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the list of redirects to this article is indicative of alternative spellings: Thathaal, Thathaal (clan), Thathar, Thothaal, Thothaal/Thathaal, Thothal/Thathaal and Thothar. – Uanfala (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Unless someone turns up evidence that they actually are synonymous, they ain't. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there have been several similar articles on Jat clan that were deleted via AfD. samee ^talk 14:35, 11 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) 00:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Cornwall[edit]

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

Ultra-stub by a now-banned user, and no clear notability for the topic. Page was previously deleted in 2013. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete NOTDIR Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say per WP:NOTDIR but it's barely a directory - it's one bus route and a tiny village bus, sourced to a single primary source. Perhaps salt due to editor's sock-y history. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 22:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists like these contain volatile information and are rarely maintained/updated or expanded by other users. No useful encyclopedic content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above, excluding user:Lugnuts. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If expanded, will simply become an information directory, and we are WP:NOTDIR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by My name is not dave (talk • contribs)
Delete - WP:NOT ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIR. I'm sure another project could handle this, but there is no point having it here. Nihlus 22:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Brad v 05:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR and all of the above. All for citations come from a single website as well. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:27, 15 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) 00:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prosperity Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable school - I cannot find coverage. May be defunct? Tacyarg (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nom that there are no reliable sources for this school, only wikia, mirror sites, and ~~map locations~~ GPS coordinates. Quis separabit? 20:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because a private school enrolls above the 9th grade does not grant it automatic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No indication of notability, no Google News results, website is dead... Citobun (talk) 14:22, 14 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) 02:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tyler (DNC spokesman)[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Apart from mentions of his hiring, coverage is of him making statements on behalf of the DNC, and his role isn't the type of role that is inherently notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly, he should be in wikipedia. Numerous citations in credible media. see for yourselves--Wikipietime (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete organizational spokepeople are rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being frequently quoted is part of his job. That does not satisfy our inclusion requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 15 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) 00:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Bellamy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Aside from his inappropriate tweets which caused a local kerfuffle, completely non-notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local politician who got his 15 mins of fame using Twitter. Lack of enduring, significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being city councillor and vice mayor in a small town is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and this is not referenced to anything like enough reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG: the bulk of the sourcing here just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring interest who's passed the ten year test. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- Even though I contributed to this article, I can agree that he really doesn't have a claim to lasting coverage. He likely falls under notable for one event only. On the other hand, he has actually gotten some national media attention unlike many of the other local politicians that other people claim need to be kept.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:20, 8 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) 07:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Appears to be a typical small-town mayor with a few headlines here and there but no sustaining coverage of the subject. Nothing notable in sources and nothing notable in a search for sources. Does not pass WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NPOL. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotteville is more than a small-town. If this guy were the mayor, I think he'd have a stronger claim to notability. However, as the vice-mayor..." Mojo Hand (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

46K is still pretty small for the purposes of whether a mayor gets past WP:NPOL or not. It's a city where mayors could be kept if they were really well-sourced and well-substanced, but not one where every mayor would be extended an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing if their sourcing were as sparse as it is here. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially a one event BLP, as others have noted.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable local politician....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:04, 10 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Buddha Rising[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. The most substantial coverage is at [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 8 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Design Manchester[edit]

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

Not a notable organization. I haven't checked all 49 references, but many of the links have absolutely nothing to do with the organization, and the others are primary sources / press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any sources which actually supporting the content. Theroadislong (talk) 11:02, 9 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, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Audain[edit]

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

Biography of a writer and unsuccessful election candidate, not referenced to any reliable source coverage about him to demonstrate that he passes either WP:AUTHOR or WP:NPOL. The "references" here are a glancing acknowledgement of his existence at the end of a biographical blurb about his father, which is cited only to support that James served in the army, and a raw table of the results of the election he didn't win (which is not a source that can assist the notability of an unsuccessful election candidate -- it can verify the vote totals in an article about a candidate who was already notable for other reasons, but it can't make a candidate notable because candidate per se.) Writers don't get an automatic free pass over AUTHOR just because their books exist, either -- we still need reliable source coverage about him and his writing before a writer becomes a notable writer. And I can't find any stronger sources that would bolster the case for inclusion, either. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable son - Michael Audain as well as grandfather (James Dunsmuir). If he is notable - it would be per AUTHOR (POL and SOLDIER clearly not relevant) - Coal Mine to Castle: The Story of the Dunsmuirs of Vancouver Island is quoted quite a bit.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People don't get articles just because they happen to have notable relatives, because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so Michael and James are irrelevant to the matter. You're correct that his notability claim, if he has one, would have to stand on AUTHOR — but we'd need to see better sources to support that than I've been able to find, and can't just hand him an automatic freebie just because his books exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not claim his progeny or ancestors make him notable - it is relevant in terms of looking for sources (notability is NOTINHERITED, however coverage by RS sometimes is). Coal Mine to Castle: The Story of the Dunsmuirs of Vancouver Island passes WP:NBOOK from what I see. The Courage to Change The Things We Can quite possibly ([2][3]). For Alex Dunsmuir's Dilemma and My Borrowed Life - I see passing mentions, probably need Canadian newspaper archives to really see if it was covered.Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Trivial in relationship to others above and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited.--Rpclod (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Audain's novel is one of only a few about the inner workings of a world wide organization that makes a positive impact in twenty million people's lives and yet remains wildly misunderstood. His notability rests not in the coverage of the novel, but in its topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riseley (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That has no relevance to Wikipedia notability. Please see WP:ANYBIO. If you want to write an article about the subject's novel's topic, go for it. But the topic's notability is not inherited by the novel, much less the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every single person who writes anything at all could always claim that their work was a "special case", which should be exempted from having to satisfy normal notability standards because the topic they wrote about was such an important one. That's actually one of the most common arguments that people attempt in defense of poorly sourced articles about writers — but it's not one that carries any weight in the absence of reliable source coverage about the writer in his or her own right. Having an article about every single person who ever published a book at all, regardless of their sourceability or lack thereof, is not our goal — for any writer on any topic, it's the media coverage that has to tell us that the writer's work is considered important, not one Wikipedia editor with an agenda. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am very much a supporter of the cause of AA, but I see no way that the subject writing a novel of about people in AA makes him in any way notable. The sources are not enough for notability, and defeated candidates for public office are not generally notable. We do have far too many sub-par articles on people who actually held public office at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 13 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) 00:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amol Chiwhane[edit]

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

A non notable actor. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG. Nothing to establish notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in relable soruces and fails WP:NACTOR as the subject has only had a significant role in one notable film. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 12 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. Although there's a "keep" majority, there's no consensus; much of the discussion was superficial or was sidetracked by a renaming proposal. Editors are encouraged to work on possible editorial solutions such as splitting, merging or renaming before renominating this article for deletion. Sandstein 08:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction[edit]

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

Per WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, WP:CHERRY, WP:POV. Article is an arbitrary unification of various, diverse and mostly unconnected events that affected Muslim people in the various former territories of the Ottoman Empire into one giant WP:SYNTH. Events as unconnected as the Great Turkish War of the 17th century and the Italo-Turkish War of the 20th century are all lumped together into great one giant victimological narrative. Mainstream scholarship does not lump all these events together, except for WP:FRINGE pro-Turkish writers such Justin McCarthy (on whom the article is mostly based on). And even McCarthy's work is much narrower in scope than the article, which has grown as activist editors have each added their favorite persecution episode. Article is also hopelessly POV (by its very nature). The various events are presented without any context to create a highly POV article. Each of the events included in this article has its own article, so there is simply no need for this article. Lastly, the article was created by a sock of a banned user DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs), who was banned long ago for highly disruptive behavior. Khirurg (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long standing articles of the sort exist on Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the modern era, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Muslims, etc which also contain events that some sections lead to other articles that have expanded content on a particular event. Those articles have similar layout structures and deal with content akin to the Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction page. In instances (nearly all of those articles) where deletion tags were applied, those were all declined as per wp:SNOW: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. The above editor's reasons sound more on the wp:idontlikeit side (like refering to "activist editors", "giant victimological narrative" and "POV by its very nature" -how so and what is meant by vague terms like nature?) then anything else. On mainstream scholarship, the topic of Ottoman Muslim casualties and expulsions has only become a recent field of scholarly interest [11] and has treated issues such as casualties in a more holistic fashion giving similar numbers to McCarthy [12], [13] etc or the expulsions of Ottoman Muslim refugees from the Balkans (Isa Blumi's detailed work, 2011 [14] and Dawn Chatty & Philip Marfleet 2013 [15], [16]) that shows the topic is notable in recent scholarship. In regards to McCarthy, the main part in the article that deals with him is in the Total casualties section. His study was the first to look at these numbers hence cited, and even academics (Genocide scholars, other historians) who disagree and criticized him on his views on the Armenian Genocide, have analyzed and acknowledged his work on Ottoman Muslim civil casualties and expulsions to be of merit [17], [18], [19], [20]. That's only one source, there are more than 100 references in the article from 19 other sources on the page and the filing editor does not express any issue with those. Wiki guidelines on articles created by a sock and issues of deletion [21] suggest that not all articles are deleted and at times judged on a case by case basis. I should note that this article has existed now for a number of years with many editors contributing over the years. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources in the article (except McCarthy), or the ones name dropped above, link the various disparate events mentioned in the article. This is the very definition of WP:SYNTH, of which you seem to be unaware. Do Chatty and Marfleet link theGreat Turkish War, Greek War of Independence (1821-1829) to the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) as one single instance of ethnic cleansing? Does Blumi? No, they don't. So quit cluttering this page with irrelevant stuff. As far as the article "existing for many years", it has existed exclusively as a POV battleground of the lowest quality. Time for it to go.Khirurg (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment:I have concerns with the filing party's motives, and knowledge (or lack thereof) of the facts in this nomination. First, they brought the article for deletion, claiming among other things that there were no reliable sources, besides McCarthy. Around one hour later, the filing party realized that the article had 110 references from more than 20 reliable sources, and they took to WP:RS the Middle East Quarterly, just one of the sources. In doing so, they first show that they are not prepared to sustain their position in this AFD, as they still don't know well the sources used. Second, the filing party also breached WP:CANVASS, by going to another forum and getting attention there for this article which they had brought to AFD an hour before.Resnjari (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "additional comment". The reason I sent this for deletion is because none of the "110 sources" link these unrelated events, except McCarthy. Each of these events has its own article. Doesn't matter if you add another 110 sources, if they don't link the events together they are useless. Regarding the Middle East Quarterly, that is a highly partisan, non-peer reviewed source. Rather than trying to leverage that in this debate, the onus is on you to avoid such sources in the future. The accusations of WP:CANVASS are grotesque and reveal a lack of knowledge of policy and/or good faith. When the arguments run out, it's time for aspersions. I also note it is extremely poor form, and intellectually dishonest of you, to try to defend this article so passionately while at the same time engaging in behavior such as this [22] (the tired old "my persecution is persecution, but your persecution is not persecution" racket). Khirurg (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response:Well apart from your attempted character assassination of me being disingenuous and offensive to say the least, but anyway there is more then enough scholarship covering events and Blumi does and so do Chatty and Marfleet etc that treat this topic holistically. The onus is on you to go and read the books, journal articles etc as they are cited. Again your wp:idontlikeit views are that. Also if your issue was the Middle East Quarterly (which you regard as "highly partisan" -though it is run by conservative historian David Pipes and its content is considered by its critics as being not friendly to Islam related issues), you ought to have opened a discussion in the talkpage or the RS (to maintain good faith), not place a deletion tag for this whole page (and then additionally go to a RS) because there are one or two sources which once again you don't like. These articles Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the modern era, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Muslims also contain scholarship which at certain points link events and others that treat events separately. Similar arguments were made by some editors who called for their deletion and the end result was keep as per wp:snow. As my editing is refered to I have edited this article because i have access to scholarship and read up on this topic, due to my background having done postgraduate studies in history at university.Resnjari (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty rich of you to talk about "character assassination" when you started this whole screed about "the filing party's intentions" (also interesting you just can never bring yourself to refer to me by my username - why is that?) and the ridiculous accusations of WP:CANVASS. Just like it's pretty rich of you to try and keep this article by any means necessary while at the same time edit-warring to suppress material you don't like at Persecution of Christians. If you don't want to be accused of dishonesty, don't engage in it. About your postgraduate studies, that's great, however, please familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy. For example, the other "persecution" articles you keep referring to were not subject to AfD, but to WP:PROD, which is something entirely different. Your repetition of is WP:SNOW is nonsensical and shows a lack of understanding of wikipedia policy. Khirurg (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the filing party other editors who place a vote here are going to take into consideration your reasons and your comments, as you are the initiator of this process. My concerns about your intentions for deletion are raised because you made the following comments "as activist editors have each added their favorite persecution episode", "giant victimological narrative", "POV by its very nature", "textbook example of Oppression Olympics", "It could as easily be renamed Laundry List of bad things done to Muslims 1600s to 1923" etc." You may not support the existence of this article, but the events contained within the article are sourced from credible scholarship and they happened (separate to your objections to McCarthy -1 source on casualties). So from that yes your intentions are going to be brought up. As for other articles, other editors asked others to go to the talkpage, as per WP:BRD. I never disagreed with the content and nor did i agree, just following wiki guidelines. On wiki policy all those article deletions where declined with a keep and wp:snow was used for the others as a keep [23]. No dishonesty, just facts.Resnjari (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your "concerns" are just mudslinging and character assasination. And then you have the nerve to complain. And you're not "following wikiedpia guidelines", you are edit-warring. BRD only applies to the first revert in a series, not the 3rd or 4th. But you're repeating yourself. Instead, please explain the difference between WP:PROD and WP:AfD. Khirurg (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"edit warring". How so ? Or is it your "mudslinging" interpretation with these comments about deleting this article like "as activist editors have each added their favorite persecution episode", "giant victimological narrative", "POV by its very nature", "textbook example of Oppression Olympics", "It could as easily be renamed Laundry List of bad things done to Muslims 1600s to 1923" etc.". Evidence speaks for itself. This deletion thread initiated by you is based on wp:idontlikeit reasons.Resnjari (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained the difference between WP:PROD and WP:AFD. Let's hear it. Khirurg (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the filling party, I have explained my reasons for keep and am aware of Wikipedia policy. How you wish to interpret them is your deal not mine. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A wide collection of unconnected events in terms of time and space. No wonder this article was created by an aggressive national advocative (and permanently blocked) editor. Off course the specific article is not about persecution of a specific religious group but about vaguely-defined ethno-religious subdivisions inside the Ottoman and Turkish society.Alexikoua (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar comments were made by editors in past deletion discussions (literally a decade ago) of the other religion based Persecution of pages, and these were declined in the end and kept, as per wp:SNOW. On the comment of "vaguely-defined ethno-religious subdivisions inside the Ottoman and Turkish society", Islam was quite well defined in the Ottoman world, especially within the context of the millet system.Resnjari (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reform. Sure, this page has problems-- if McCarthy is here, he should go. If it is written from a Turkish perspective then NPOV should be enforced (for example one can mention that Christians suffered in the same period, and that in Greece, Serbia etc attacking Muslims was seen as "retaliation" for 400 years of slavery etc etc). But these are not "unconnected" events at all, and their connection is made exceedingly clear in the literature -- as Christian states ended up ruling former Ottoman territories, Muslims, whether of native or colonial origins, were viewed as "Ottoman leftovers" and/or potential fifth columns, and more often than not they ended up facing expulsion or in some cases massacre. This is a systematic phenomenon with a common cause that is not OR. In some cases one episode by one Christian state would inspire imitation in another. If that is not made clear enough on the page itself, it should be. If there are scholars who dispute this narrative, then their views should also be included in a section titled "Analysis" or "Dispute of Concept" etc, for NPOV. And I'm not saying WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but really in this case, other crap exists and is found all over Wikipedia with pages like this (too bad there is not a WP:ANALOGOUSCRAPISREALLYEFFINGCOMMON link...). Short version, the page's problems can be fixed without deletion and it is notable. --Calthinus 15:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy is only cited in the area of numbers, other scholars from Genocide studies, historiography though noting his issues over the Armenian Genocide, have viewed his numbers being of merit and they come up regarding this topic in academia -its unavoidable. Nonetheless there are other scholars who give similar numbers such as Biondich [24]. As with other articles relating to religions and Persecution of, editors were told to improve the content of the article, but overall the decision was keep as per wp:snow.Resnjari (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: This is precisely the problem, the article by its very nature is impossible to redeem. It was, is and always will be a perpetual POV battleground. First of all, what is the scope of the article? The 19th century? The 19th and early 20th? The 17th to the early 20th? The only one that links these events together is Justin McCarthy, in the period 1821 to 1922. Fine then, let's include this in the Justin McCarthy article, that's what it's for. This article is simply what I call a "counter-genocide" article, created by the banned DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs), a Turkish atrocity mongerer. His mentality, reflected in this article is "If you have your genocide, why can't we have ours?". Another issue is balance. By its very nature, this article highlights the plight of various Ottoman Muslim populations, while completely ignoring atrocities by these same populations. For example, in the most violent period, 1912-1923, Ottoman Muslims basically wiped out the entire Christian population of Anatolia, an estimated 3 million deaths. In that period Anatolia went from 27% Christian to 0%. How do you include this in this article? You can't. Any such discussion will be marred by the usual sabotage and filibuster so familiar to those editing these topics. Another example: The article links the Greek War of Independence (1821-1829), with the Greco-Turkish War that took place 100 years later, as if they were part of the same plan. Yet, except a short war in 1897, the period between 1829 and 1912 is the longest period of peace in Greco-Turkish relations. Yes, there were wars, and massacres and expulsions on all sides. But there was no grand plan, and these events were not linked. A far better use of the community's time would to work on improving the various individual articles mentioned in this article, and where the deportations and massacres suffered by the Ottoman Muslim populations can and should be mentioned (e.g. as in Greco-Turkish War. Khirurg (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well DragonTiger23 seems to be banned and despite a past socking episode is uninvolved in this current dispute. This page has been changed by plenty of other people since then, most of whom appear to be unaware of this discussion. We could have "Sectarian persecution during Ottoman contraction" but that would be very long and I'm afraid it would come off as cheapening the genocide that happened to the Armenians. Plenty of people write about generalized "persecution of Muslims" as the Ottoman Empire collapsed -- if I recall Misha Glenny does in The Balkans and Charles King does in Ghost of Freedom-- indeed he has a page or so on how the suffering of Christians and Muslims was connected and advises readers against "comparative victimology". Plenty of others do, you could find a reading list for the next two years ("orgies of cultural destruction", etc etc...). I don't think this page is engaging in some sort of Oppression Olympics still, even if that may have been its original purpose. It doesn't mention Christians, it doesn't mention the fact that Ottoman contraction was associated with suffering not only for the Muslim population but Jews as well who were also targeted by Christian mobs. That's because it's about what happened to the Muslims. But I really don't think you'd find much opposition if you try to include references to what happened to Christians as it is relevant -- i.e. a spiraling of retaliatory violence due to the mixing sectarian identities and conflicting nationalisms with territorial conflicts, escalating into its climax in the devastation of Western Armenia in the shadow of World War I. I'd say it's relevant.--Calthinus (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually a textbook example of Oppression Olympics if you ask me. It could as easily be renamed "Laundry List of bad things done to Muslims 1600s to 1923". That was indeed the article creator's original intention and the article is still pretty much the same (albeit expanded). Regarding your last point about mentioning what happened to Christians, if the article is kept, that's a must, however I do expect significant opposition. In any case, these things should be discussed on a case by case basis on the individual articles. This article is basically nothing more than a list of little encyclopedicity or utility. Khirurg (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article is made up of a bunch of irrelevant events under the presumption that they fit some sort of common narrative. Most of the sources used for these random events do not even place them under the theme of "Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction". The conclusion drawn from this would make it WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Per WP:SYNTH: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. Wikipedia is not a place to create or write our own narratives, it's a place where we quote existing ones based on WP:RS and WP:NOTSYNTH. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar arguments for deletion were made for Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the modern era, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Muslims with the end result still being keep, as per wp:snow.Resnjari (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily just copy this entire article, paste it in the Persecution of Muslims article, and it really won't change much. Hence why this article should really not be a stand-alone article. It's just a bunch of random events being placed under the guise of "Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction" when the content and the sources within the article neither presents itself as persecution per se and neither does it talk about the contraction of the OE. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, because there is heaps more room for expansion as this is an expanding field of study in scholarship. Christianity has two articles, a general one and one that deals with the modern period. On persecution of Muslims, there is a general one, quite full already and this one dealing with the Ottoman topic.Resnjari (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the modern period Christianity article needs to get deleted. Who knows? And quite frankly, that's not the discussion we should be having. In other words, I don't need to know what there are on other articles. That's WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST as noted by others. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is its deletion was prevented, and though you cite OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST's, wp:snow was invoked on discussion had regarding other Persecution of articles that prevented its deletion and the end result was keep. If you want to place a delete tag, its your call. All other Persecution of articles in relation to adherents of a particular religion have gone through this process of challenge and all have been kept thus far.Resnjari (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "prevented" per se, it was contested. More important, that was a PROD, this is an AfD. And even if it were an AfD, you can nominate the article several times for AfD. I've seen articles get nominated to AfD four times. But no one argues SNOW on each and every one of them. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason invoked that kept one article and it was applied to the others too, not only that all those articles were listed after one was listed due to a few of them having separate deletion discussions. Since your suggesting that an article can be put up for deletion time and time again, why don't we make all those articles part of this deletion listing as was done in times past [25] (as those articles are all very similar to this one)?Resnjari (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The fact that those other articles were kept does not in any way mean we should keep this one. Khirurg (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The filing party keeps showing that the main motivation for tagging this article with a deletion tag is due to wp:idontlikeit. This is shown through comments like refering to "activist editors", "giant victimological narrative", "POV by its very nature", "textbook example of Oppression Olympics", "It could as easily be renamed Laundry List of bad things done to Muslims 1600s to 1923" etc. Precedents on religion and Persecution of articles such as Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the modern era, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Muslims being keep, as per wp:snow exist and this article belongs in that category of articles.Resnjari (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per wp:snow.—-Liridon (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"per wp:snow" is really not a reason for deletion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, as per reasons outlined in comments here in relation to other Persecution of articles of which that reason was given for them being a keep.Resnjari (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, that was a PROD, this is an AfD. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Liridon: Hi there, I don't think we've met. I'm just a little bit curious as to how you found out about this discussion? Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg:, we haven't. Just happen to be in my watching list, since the time when I was translating articles related to Ottoman Empire into Albanian.--Liridon (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you then. But what's really strange is that this particular article hasn't been translated into Albanian. So how did you become aware of this discussion. Were you contacted by any chance? Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that I translated, I said "since the time when I was translating articles related to Ottoman Empire...." ;). --Liridon (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't explain how you found out about this AfD, considering you are not very active on en.wiki. Khirurg (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all WP:CHERRY and WP:POV are not criteria for deletion. I advise the nominator to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The sentence Lastly, the article was created by a sock of a banned user DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs), who was banned long ago for highly disruptive behavior. is almoast same as the example Delete Creator has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia in the Arguments to the person section. And other arguments:

POV by its very nature
textbook example of Oppression Olympics
It could as easily be renamed Laundry List of bad things done to Muslims 1600s to 1923

are clear indication of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Article has some issues for sure, better keep it and discuss the things to improve on the talk page, Wikipedia has no deadline.--Abbatai 08:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of persecution/de-islamization/whatever of the Muslim population in lands held by the former Ottoman Empire in Europe (broadly construed) is a notable topic. If there are POV and sourcing issues in the article they should be cleaned up.Icewhiz (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Supporting split proposal below.Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I myself have refrained from tackling this article all together, as the numerous POV issues left me unwilling to clean up the mess myself. It seems a Herculean task to clean it and bring the article in line with Wikipedia's core policies such as WP:NPOV. While POV issues cannot be a reason for deleting an article, it is the nature of that POV the reason it has to be deleted: the population casualties and deaths during the Ottoman wars, are not exclusive to the Muslim populations but also to the Jewish, Christian and other populations. However, the way the information is picked from the Ottoman wars while leaving completely out what casualties the other populations in the Ottoman territories had, is a blatant case of cherrypicking and gives the false impressions to the readers that somehow the entire world went against the Muslims of the Ottoman territories even though this is not true at all. I highly recommend that the casualties of the Ottoman wars are added to their relevant article pages so the readers can have the complete image of all the groups that have suffered. The article should be deleted, or follow the same rationale that has been followed for Jewish and Christian population casualties in the wars of other European empires (i.e. Byzantine Empire). To follow double standards here for Muslims of Ottoman wars that are not followed elsewhere, not even for the Christian population casualties of the Byzantine wars, is finding myself vehemently opposing. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 14:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an article is optional. If there were issues as you say, there is the talkpage, which to date you have raised no issues or left comments about an issue. wp:idontlikeit reasons like "gives the false impressions to the readers that somehow the entire world went against the Muslims of the Ottoman territories" are not sufficient for a article being deleted. The same could be said for any number of these articles: Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the modern era, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Muslims if the word Muslim is substituted for with the other religions. The issue of casualties is only one section which some now here have issue with, that still is not a rationale to delete a whole article such as this. I don't see double standards considering that other Persecution of articles cater for multiple religions and events that happened to their adherents with even Christianity having two pages, the second dealing specifically with the modern era.Resnjari (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident We don't have an article about Christian casualties of the "Byzantine wars" but that's not because of a double standard, it is because of either lack of scholarship or lack of initiative from interested editors. If you know a lot about that topic, I really doubt that anyone here would you stop you from making an article. This is an "OTHER CRAP DOESN'T YET EXIST" argument with little bearing on this page. --Calthinus (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are suggesting that CRAP EXISTS, SO LETS CREATE MORE OF IT which again is not something I am agreeing. To create an article about Christian casualties in Byzantine wars (sources exist for them, and there are editors willing to create the article) is very problematic approach to the events of these wars and still will be finding me opposing. No matter what you may believe, you can't just take a certain information from the whole, from wars unrelated to each other, and give it more spotlight than anything else due to religion. Sorry but no matter how you see it, this stinks. Both Jews, Christians and Muslims have been killed in many imperial wars, but to pick selectively from the population on religious grounds, isn't helping Wikipedia, it may only help certain interests that have religious agendas. I am very saddened, Calthinus, because this is not a step towards the right direction for the project. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 21:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if, as you said, sources exist for them, and there are editors willing to create the article is true, it would appear (news to me) that Christians were for some reason systematically targeted during the "Byzantine wars" (not sure which ones you're referring to). I'm not an expert at Byzantine history, but this would seem to make it notable.

As the majority of participants here agree on, this page has problems in that it doesn't clearly tie together the unifying themes and the connections between these events, except for one citation by Hall. There are plenty of books that do discuss these events collectively, touching on their common causes, common features and etc, as I've already elaborated, and they were absolutely not unrelated as they were all driven by the Ottoman decline and the view that Muslims were Ottoman leftovers and/or a fifth column (not to mention in many cases one event led to another). And there is also relevance to the suffering of Christians during the same time period, as plenty of authors draw connections (Henze, Glenny, King, etc etc etc etc... some of these analyses are actually on Wikipedia already anyways), so it would not be hard to include some discussion of those as well since Khirurg brought up that. --Calthinus (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COATRACK. I would support keeping the article, however, if the scope was narrowed to the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. 23 editor (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this long term (Persecution of religion X in country Y during time period Z...) can be sourced as having been used occasionally for each of the unrelated historical situations treated in this article, combining them into a single article would still constitute illegitimate OR – a classical WP:SYNTH case. The act of spinning these historical episodes into a single historical "thread" is precisely the kind of "novel narrative" that our WP:OR policy is meant to prevent.Alexikoua (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These articles Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the modern era, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Muslims are structured in very similar ways to this one. Most of those were created around or just over a decade ago. All their deletion requests where turned down, with wp:snow being invoked. This article was created about nearly half a decade ago and overall follows those articles layout structures etc.Resnjari (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari, persecution articles on religion are ok as everyone will be telling you here. But persecution articles on religion on empirical wars, is not ok I am afraid. The purpose of a persecution article is to help the readers understand the problems of persecution these groups face, unlike this article here which is trying to pick from various past wars that happened centuries ago just to illustrate a case about a certain religious group which isn't really the case about these wars, and normally couldn't be given more spotlight than it was done for the other religious groups that lived in the same areas at that time and which too have had suffered casualties in these wars. The same is true not only about the Ottoman times, but about the other empires, their regions and their religious groups which lived at them. You are welcome to create a Persecution of Muslims in the modern era if you want, but not an article like this one here. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 21:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity has two articles on Persecution that cater to its topical parameters, a generic one and one on the modern era, of which both are ever expanding (and there may be more in future once those reach their 10, 000 word limit with article splits etc). Point is there is a generic one also for Persecution of Muslims and a specific one for Muslims during the era of Ottoman contraction. This article has been expanded over time and continues to be enlarged as editors add content etc. Regarding wars, all the Persecution of articles deal with war, conflcits and associated events to those adherents centuries ago, hence the persecution. This article does not just cover casualties, as that is just one section, but overall covers events, as do all the other Persectuion of articles.Resnjari (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve it a little. First of all let me say that I am an atheist and I couldn't care less about any religion (no offense meant for everyone). My vote is mostly based on two arguments. Number one is standards. If similar articles exists as some editors above have already stated I see no reason why this particular one should be deleted. Either we get rid of all them (except persecution of Jews, which is somehow different from other x, y, z etc..religion persecution) or we keep them all. I don't want any religious war here or another article titled Wikipedia double standards on Muslims. It sounds funny but it's not, neither in current situation nor in the future multicultural society. We want to have a collaborative environment within all Wikipedia community and I care about everyone sentiments. The second argument is about the historical process. This persecution happened and left big scars within communities scars which are felt up to these days and have created big problems and even wars. If this persecution happened as a religious reprisal, nationalist ideology, or just a lack of state power, this is something which should be improved in the article. Aigest (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aigest, I'm really curious about how you found out so quickly about this discussion even though you hadn't edited since mid-December of last year. Let's hear it. Khirurg (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khirurg. Articles for deletion are on my watch list. If I see there something interesting I say my opinion. As for the frequency of my edits those are depending on my free time and interest I may have on editing. One of the reasons I am filled up with editing are the editors with your kind of attitude. If you have something about my arguments respond to them please. Personal attacks are one of the main reasons experienced editors (me including as I've been around wiki from 2007) leave wiki for good. Right now you are just damaging wiki with your attitude Aigest (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is on your watchlist then? That's weird, because the last time you participated in an Afd was in...2013 [26] unless I am mistaken. There is no need to get snippy by the way ("editors with your kind of attitude"), I just asked you a simple question. It's interesting you got so defensive though, no? As for your arguments, I would respond if they were policy based, but, well...they aren't. Khirurg (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So first you place wp:idontlikeit reasons and now your accusing editors who vote keep of being "snippy". What next ?Resnjari (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the edit histories of others who placed a delete vote many of them have not participated in a AFD in a long while. Odd that. Should one make more of it or is it pure coincidence. More mudslinging of editors i take it ? Not surprised.Resnjari (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We could point out to the relevant topics but keeping a directory is not aligned according to WP praxis. Othon I (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Two of the "keep" votes are from users that edit the English wikipedia very infrequently (Liridon [27], Aigest [28]), and one from an account with only 20 contribs (Tiimii [29]). I also speculate that it is not a coincidence, as these users have a great deal in common (a specific ethnic background) with the user that is most strenuously contesting this discussion, as evidenced from their contribs log. This isn't the first time this happens, either [30]. Khirurg (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM--Abbatai 06:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Just pointing out some unusual coincidences, that's all

Yes it is. "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD." We simply should focus on what issues article has to improve. As far I see most of them pointed out here are content issues and need to be discussed on article's talk page not on AfD. Thanks. --Abbatai 07:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out suspicious editing patterns that point to off-wiki coordination is not an ad hominem. On the other hand, something like this [31] is very much an ad hominem, since you want to discuss this. As are several other comments, all by editors that voted "keep". Khirurg (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just reread my previous comment. Thanks.--Abbatai 07:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbatai:, i find it odd that the filling editor would continue to cast aspersions on keep votes (mudslinging ?) while seeming to not to take into account that this discussion was placed on four wikiprojects for wider discussion some days ago. Looks like every keep vote gets more colourful commentary from the filling editor who already expressed his wp:idontlikeit reasons for the article. I expected more from such an editor who has been on wikipedia now for many years. The behavior of the editor just shows the lengths he would go to by placing a thread where he made such allegations years ago and were dismissed. Really disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mud slinging, just pointing out some fishy goings-on, for example, this account, that showed up here with only 20 contribs [32]. Almost certainly a sock or meat puppet that was contacted off-wiki. And it's not the first time this happens: [33]. It's also interesting you are reacting so defensively and intensely. I wonder why. Khirurg (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior of the editor just shows the lengths he would go to by placing a thread where he made such allegations years ago and were dismissed. Really disappointing. I expect nothing else from the filling party and such rhetoric. I looked into the filling party's claims and the editor in question has made more than 3,000 contributions on the whole Wikipedia project [34]. To the filling editor, i remind them of issues of wp:harassment. This kind of behavior of the filling editor has been noted last year by an administrator [35] and by other editors of the filling party having contacted via email other editors in an attempt to have sanctions thrown at another editor [36]. That some number of editors here who voted delete here have a history of interacting with the filling editor and that votes occured for RFC's have also been noted [37]. Apart from wp:idontlikeit reasons i am really not surprised here.Resnjari (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pretending, will you? Half the "keep" votes are from users who share the same ethnicity as you, even this article is not particularly related. So I will ask you point blank: Did you contact people off-wiki, and if so, how many? Khirurg (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin:Its disappointing that the filling party, (apart from their wp:idontlikeit comments so far of the article) has now resorted to questioning the good faith of editors and their vote (considering that this deletion discussion was posted by @Babymissfortune: on four wiki projects [, [38], [39], [40] some days ago regarding proposed article deletions for further discussion by other editors interested in the topic).Resnjari (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find it strange that editors that haven't edited in over a month and a half suddenly show up to vote here (and all vote "keep" of course)? Khirurg (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If one went through the editing histories of editors who have cast a delete vote, someone could also make these kinds of claims as at most times they have crossed paths with you on articles with an editor drawing a conclusion that your suggesting of other editors. To the filling party, i would like to remind them that the article has been listed on four wikiprojects to have wider comment from more editors (take it up with the editor if you did not want this to happen -but its within rules) and as such there might be more delete votes as well as keep votes. @Khirug:, however if you really think that your claims are real and not just mudslinging on your part you can always initiate through the proper channels a thread at one of the forums.Resnjari (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference, of course, is that the "Delete" votes are all from regular contributors, who probably followed the contribs of you or me. This is in contrast to many of the "keep" votes, that are from users who very seldom edit en.wiki (Liridon, Aigest), or from accounts with very few contribs [41]. It's also not the first time things like this happen in votes where you are involved [42]. Khirurg (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's odd then because when i went through the editing history of this article apart from 3 or so editors who voted delete others have not edited it at all [43] or never participated in talkpage discussions. Define "regular contributors" here as i find interesting that most of these editors of whom i have not crossed paths (only around three for the delete votes) before on articles would be following me (as suggested by your comments) out of the blue. So your saying they are all following you, "probably". Its interesting that you claim that for the delete votes, but equally claim that most keep votes are part of some coordination. You keep recycling allegations made once in the past which were dismissed. Disappointing considering that you are the one who has been noted by other editors for having actually engaged in that kind of behavior (as noted in my above comments above).Resnjari (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin:What does the filling party mean by "I also speculate that it is not a coincidence, as these users have a great deal in common (a specific ethnic background) with the user that is most strenuously contesting this discussion"? How does he know the ethnic background of editors (WP:OUTING and WP:NDP) or is this just more mudslinging (WP:PERSONAL)?Resnjari (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what the "filling party" (sic) means: It is plainly obvious that we are dealing with co-ordinated ethnic bloc voting. Half the "keep" votes are from people from the same ethnic background as you, including several who are not regularly active on en.wiki, but active on sq.wiki. It's obvious as the sky is blue, and it's not the first time this happens in voting discussions where you are involved. Khirurg (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. You keep bringing up editors' ethnicity, or claim to know it (WP:OUTING?) but editors have not disclosed information here on Wikipedia. So its more mudslinging here. I would like to remind the filling editor that last year an administrator noted this behavior currently undertaken by the editor [44] and by other editors of the filling party having contacted via email other editors in an attempt to have sanctions thrown at another editor [45]. That some number of editors who voted delete here have a history of interacting with the filling editor and that votes occurred for RFC's have also been noted [46]. The behavior of the editor just shows the lengths he would go to by by recycling previous mudslinging from years ago when he made such allegations and were dismissed.Resnjari (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COATRACK. the events covered in the article are unrelated to one another. A lot of these details can be merged with the Persecution of Muslims article. --Երևանցի ^talk 09:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These concerns should have been brought to article's talk page not to AfD. WP:COATRACK is not a reason to delete articles in most cases. Regards.--Abbatai 10:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Resnjari (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is nothing more than a weird collection of unrelated events in terms of time and space & can't be compared in structure with articles that are related to persecutions of specific religious groups (of Christians, of Jews, of Buddhists, of Muslims etc as unsuccessfully claimed above). No wonder we have no similar article to compare with.Alexikoua (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a notable topic here, but the article as it stands is coatrack-y. I have pruned some. It is certainly not a TNT case as of now, but if it continues to have SYNTH problems and act as a grab-bag, I could perhaps be persuaded in a subsequent AFD. Ultimately, reliable sources exist for a (somewhat narrower) topic and AFD is not cleanup. Srnec (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is of much importance and must be kept. It needs some improvements because it describes only some of the massacres and its background section is a bit vague and confusing. The described massacres have strong connections between them, and in some cases were products of each other. WP:COATRACK does not apply here and some editors ought to disclude nationalist perspectives from their arguments. Tiimiii (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Account has only 25 contribs on the English wikipedia [47] (but many contribs on the Albanian wikipedia). Khirurg (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I looked into the filling party's claims and the editor in question has made more than 3,000 contributions on the whole Wikipedia project [48].Resnjari (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note However, the user is blocked indefinitely in Wikimedia Commons after ignoring warnings from the admins and consistently violating copyrights. Have a look here [49]. Othon I (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia Commons is not this Wikipedia project. Some editors who have made delete votes here are blocked from other Wikipedia projects from making contributions [50].Resnjari (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Pardon me but you are wrong, I can’t see anywhere in the report here [51] indicating that Alexikoua is blocked in from my understanding Albanian WP? Please refrain from false accusations. Also, please be aware that the link that you kindly placed here is in Albanian so I cannot understand what it includes, I only see a placement of Spyromilios as a person from Himara which I can’t find were is the problem. Othon I (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH, for lack of academic sources (other than Justin McCarthy) that discuss this topic as a topic. Incidents such as the massacres during the Greek war of Independence and the Italo-Turkish War are so different from one another in every way (one an uprising of Ottoman subjects demanding independence, the other undertaken by the invading Army of an expanding empire,) that they cannot be grouped together, and neither can be defined as "persecution" - not ever massacre is a persecution. this is born out by the fact that the only source that links the two is Justin McCarthy - no reputable historian would discuss the events in this COATRACK in the same paper, and none has.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The things brought up by editors as issues regarding the page are a first for those who have edited the page over the years because these things where not raised or discussed on the talkpage, only here. There are sources, it just requires time to do edits for the article of this calabre. As i pointed out reputable scholars are treating this topic in a holistic manner such as Isa Blumi's in depth study Ottoman Refugees, 1878-1939: Migration in a Post-Imperial World (2013) [52] etc.Resnjari (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but fix it since the topic important. The article has many problems and seems to me over all the place, but with effort and work it can be cleaned up to be more in line with Wikipedia rules. Vargmali (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is very important. It does not make sense to delete it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal However I agree with Srnec that we need to narrow the scope of the article, and I agree with 23 editor that it should be narrowed to the 19th and early 20th century. E.M.Gregory There is literature about the persecution, and yes, it is considered to have been persecution [53]. But not every massacre described in the article was part of the persecution relating directly to the period of Ottoman contraction. Some of the massacres were very related to each other, as they were done with the same goal (creation of ethnically "pure" countries), in the same way and nearly in the same time (19th to early 20th century). I am talking about all massacres during that period of time, except of [54] and [55]. Those massacres were outcome of centuries-long conflicts and produced a handful of other important event such as [56] and [57]. The massacres, when analyzed together explain many things, and give a better understanding of the time when they happened. Scholars have produced a lot of good works on them, their reasons and their aftermath [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. The article should be enriched, and include all acceptable points of views. There were many Muslim victims but there were many Jewish and Christian victims as well. The article, to be balanced and to sustain itself, needs to be enriched, and I think there are good editors who want to do so. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support this compromise proposal by Ktrimi991 (and thanks a ton for the sources, the page needs these) --Calthinus (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, none of the sources above call it "persecution" or anything similar. They mostly talk about migration, e.g. "X numbers of Muslims migrated from the Balkans to Anatolia in the period XXXX to YYYY". Of the sources above, the only one that speaks of persecution, is in reference to...Armenians [64]. I could support a drastic narrowing of the scope of the article and renaming it to "migration of Ottoman Muslims 1878-1923", but "persecution is just way over the top. True there were many deaths, but the vast majority of these were to disease and famine. That's not "persecution". The migration of Ottoman muslims in the period 1878-1923 is a notable topic. The "persecution" is not. Khirurg (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"True there were many deaths, but the vast majority of these were to disease and famine." Sounds like Turkish official position to deny Armenian Genocide.--Abbatai 08:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you equating these events with the Armenian Genocide? And are you saying that the Turkish position on the Armenian Genocide is bunk? Khirurg (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal as well.--Abbatai 08:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal outlined by @Ktrimi991: of covering the 19th century and early 20th century. In relation to the filling party's comments that the issue refers just to "migration" omits that those same scholars refer to civilian casualties of Muslims due to wars and the then contemporary views of those states and their uneasiness with having Muslim populations that places into context events of the forced and involuntary migration etc. The filling party needs to consult and read in depth scholarship around those issues as it is a complex subject.Resnjari (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed the strikes on Abbatai's votes as although the justification given was socking, it appears that the SPI that was filed did not come to that (or any) conclusion. The whole situation regarding this seems quite perturbing actually-- what on earth happened??--Calthinus (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: the migration is a notable topic and its already covered in another article. However, the persecution in this case fails to meet any notability criteria.Alexikoua (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, subject matter is notable and should be covered separately, as per increasing scholarship on this topic.Resnjari (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal: Rename article to Migration of Ottoman Muslims during Ottoman contraction (1878-1923). Keep all the info on massacres, destruction of heritage etc...Basically, change the title and narrow the scope of the article to make it less POV and SYNTH, and to be in line with the literature, which mostly speaks of "migration" [65] [66] [67] [68] and less of "persecution" (only one hit [69]). Khirurg (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal looks good. Although I'm not aware of any migrations/emigrations of Muslims in and around 1878. Could be wrong though. But at any rate, that can be further analyzed through discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that title as long as it has the word persecution in it and with a few changes to read something like Persecution and Migration of Ottoman Muslims during Ottoman contraction (19th century-1923) so as to encompass as you say the "massacres, destruction of heritage etc". Scholarship refers to massacres, destruction, wars, forced migration etc -these are persecution.Resnjari (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article should be 1878-1923, because that's the period most of the literature focuses on. The earlier 19th century is a completely different era, and only McCarthy goes as far back as 1821, for POV reasons. The Ottoman "contraction" didn't really get under war until the 1870's and there was also a long period of relative calm between the 1820s and 1878. As for "persecution", the literature does not really use that term, so it is WP:UNDUE. Perhaps something like "Expulsion" or "Forced migration", but "Persecution" is too strong a term. Khirurg (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg: You can make a proposal for renaming the article after this AfD. I could support your proposal. You are correct that the sources do not confirm persecution of Muslims at that period, so I can't see why couldn't this proposal of yours gain any support for title change. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 22:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The filling party made references to "info on massacres, destruction of heritage etc". If he wants to include those words (of which the sources do use and refer to) as opposed to Persecution fine. But if those words are not going to be in the pagename, Persecution more than fits the bill akin to the other Persecution of articles.Resnjari (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment your making now is something that could have been done in the talkpage. However since you have now initiated this process, its important to see where this goes. Not all scholarship gives 1878 as the starting point, but the 19th century as a whole. Your comment about not using the term persecution for this article would then sideline the events of massacres, wars, forced migration etc that occurred. Other Persecution of articles have the term Persecution as it is the best word to encompasses events and actions of massacres, wars, forced migration etc. Otherwise we can always have the topic called Massacres, expulsions and forced migration of Muslims due to wars, nationalism and Balkan state formation during Ottoman contraction if you want to encompass the sources in full. I can support that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Migration" is the title that is in accordance with wikipedia naming policies. "Persecution" is not, and is very POV. I hope you also realize that the article will have to include information on massacres by Ottoman Muslims, which, by the way, dwarf the massacres committed against Ottoman Muslims in size, scope, and intensity. So the title you are proposing is a bit strange and extreme, to say the least. Khirurg (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No not strange or extreme, you say you want a the page name to encompass the sources to a word, without using the word Persecution. So i suggested one that encompasses the sources to a word. What is strange though is that you say this article will "include information on massacres by Ottoman Muslims". The article's focus is on Muslims, not other communities. The numbers of Muslims who underwent those experiences whether one accepts them or not are large, very large that are in the millions and that is fact. Other Persecution of articles focus on a particular community like says Chrsitians, Jews Buddhists etc and they don't have information about persecution of say Jains etc.Resnjari (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find some common ground here. I really have no time for this kind of extremism. We're not just going to present to our readers an out-of-context List of massacres of Ottoman Muslims. Context is essential. Your uncompromising attitude is actually a very good one reason the article should be deleted. Khirurg (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See thing is you refer to "extremism" of others, while in the same token have made all these comments: "as activist editors have each added their favorite persecution episode", "giant victimological narrative", "POV by its very nature", "textbook example of Oppression Olympics", "It could as easily be renamed Laundry List of bad things done to Muslims 1600s to 1923" etc." Just reflect for a moment, what if someone else made such comments here, but the word Muslim was replaced with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or let’s say Armenians or Greeks. How do you think that would come off in a discussion with other editors, how would they interpret it? Anyway at least its good your now trying to find common ground. True, context is essential, but the article is about Muslims, that's its main focus. There is the Armenian Genocide and Greek Genocide pages. The focus on those communities and with the first for example there are scholars like Henze (p.111 [70]) that say that the Circassian Genocide influenced the events that happened with the Armenians later etc, etc. But in the end the focus is Armenians, not other communities. The intention of this article is not to present our readers with a list. This article is about the contraction process of the Ottoman Empire and its affects and impacts on Ottoman Muslims. Thing is some of the stuff said here would have been better said on the talkpage instead of going through this process. We are all here, so now the issue is about the very existence of this article.Resnjari (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comments regarding this article. From its inception it has been a magnet for POV warriors (starting with its creator) and the situation has not improved. Now, I'm not saying to give equal weight to the massacres by Ottoman muslims, but, context is necessary. For example, it's not ok to present desperate acts by Armenians on the receiving end of genocide as "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims", out of the blue and without the necessary context. Ditto with the national uprisings in the Balkans, etc...Also keep in mind that many of the Ottoman Muslim deaths were military, or individuals complicit in atrocities. That's not "persecution". By the way, can you please properly indent your comments (WP:INDENT). Khirurg (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the Circassian Genocide also. All this unsourced rhetoric needs to be toned down, the Armenians suffered during WWI but they are not the only people who suffered. Most WP:RS say Ottoman Muslims felt threatened after what they have experienced and I guess there is no way to know in hindsight if it would have escalated to genocide or persecution? So that is what all of this means - having a POV is ok, every editor is entitled to theirs, but collaboratively editing with editors who have a different POV to produce neutral well-sourced articles is really a necessary part of how Wikipedia articles are improved, imo.
Some scholars have said all of this goes to the Ottoman's genocidal intent - but genocidal intent is extremely complex, and non-expert sources can and should be discounted for this. Beyond that, none of this battleground stuff is helping improve these articles.Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaaand cue the Armenian genocide denial talking points. I was wondering why it took so long. Which brings us to the real reason behind some of the "keep" votes: The purpose of this article, from its inception, has been to serve as an equivocation for the Armenian genocide. A way to cloud the waters by saying "The Ottoman Muslims suffered genocide too", or, the best defense is offense, so to speak. This is a perennial talking point of the genocide deniers (starting with who else, Justin McCarthy). It's amazing how in this topic area, just about everything revolves around the Armenian genocide and its denial. It always comes back to that. Khirurg (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg: - I request you strike this comment. I voted keep, was not canvassed off wiki, and do not deny the Armenian genocide. As for diminishing the Armenian genocide - this article can have a clear lede stating both how Muslims came to be in southern Europe and a more specific estimate of how Muslims communities contracted (by converting (in most cases back) to the local religion and by migrating).Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't meaning you, Icewhiz (or Calthinus for that matter). But some of the other comments are textbook genocide denial, straight out of the McCarthy playbook. Khirurg (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

long story short, Seraphim disputes accusations of denialism and gets into legal debate with ED. This dispute has little bearing on this page specifically and seems like an argument between two users. Please continue on your talk pages if you want to, not here. --Calthinus (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not genocide denial, and accusing editors of genocide denial is a personal attack. As far as I'm concerned, arguing about whether the genocide was premediated is a waste of time because it doesn't mean anything. There is no premeditation requirement for genocide. Was there an actus reus? For who? Which specific intent category do the facts meet? I have a law background - I'm not invested in laymens arguments about genocide. I am explaining this because this is not the first time you have accused me of genocide denial and it is not ok.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"As far as I'm concerned, arguing about whether the genocide was premediated is a waste of time because it doesn't mean anything." - that's effectively denying the Armenian Genocide though since premeditation and intent are critical to the Armenian Genocide, let alone any genocide accusation. So you can go around Wikipedia saying how you're not a denialist, but if you're effectively becoming one and even arguing (i.e. "the Armenians suffered during WWI but they are not the only people who suffered", "genocidal intent is extremely complex", etc. etc.) and editing to that extent ([71]), then your "I'm not a denialist!" argument becomes moot. This is strongly reminiscent of WP:POVPUSH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, premeditation is not a requirement of genocide. Schabas [72] because it would make genocide harder to prosecute ("premeditation on the part of the individual"). I removed premeditated because I know what premeditation means and I knew it was wrong. I don't know why you would want it to be an element, but its not. Premeditated is no part, let alone critical, to legal analysis of the Armenian Genocide [73] - but I was accused of genocide denial then also. These personal attacks are tiresome - I get that genocide is a difficult topic, but I don't really feel this is collaborative - these are just ad hominem attacks, and very offensive ones.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. I have tried my best here to be respectful of the relation of this issue to the Armenian Genocide, and tried to find ways to make the page more agreeable to those who feel that it in any way mitigates the genocide.--Calthinus (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This now has gone off in another disappointing tangent. The article is not about denial of the Armenian Genocide. It happened and is fact. The focus of this article is about Muslims and persecution during the era of Ottoman contraction, not genocide denial of other peoples. I also agree with @Icewhiz that the comment made by the filling party was inappropriate warranting it a strike through.Resnjari (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And other editors have expressed in talkpages over time that they would also like to have context covered on issues relating to Muslims on the Armenians and Greek Genocide pages, as that is necessary as well. You can't just call for context on this article, while not having that kind of context on the other articles. I don't mind that you hold the view that a certain article is a "magnet for POV warriors", i hold the same view of certain articles myself, however how you expressed that was in a way that did not set the best of tones for discussion. Also not all casualties were military deaths or the work of just "individual". Scholars have specified this. They were civilian and numbers are large.Resnjari (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles are not the subject of this discussion, so drop the whataboutism. And learn to indent your comments. You've been editing long enough that you should know how to do that by now. Khirurg (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not, and in fact the discussion here is about the existence of the article, as per your initial request and not about making changes to it (as you now have been shifting in between positions here and there). Also I have been indenting by placing the semi colon at the beginning of my reply. Its just that this discussion has become big, that even i am having difficulty in finding your latest comment as well.Resnjari (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Henze is a former CIA agent and an active denier of the Armenian Genocide. He is not a scholar of any kind and definitely not a reliable source. Khirurg (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well one learns something new with these things, just like you have that not all numbers are McCarthy or that all scholarship around this topic is McCarthy.Resnjari (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the non-stop snide comments? Stop. Khirurg (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, any response by a editor to you is snide. Anywayz....Resnjari (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As 23 editor noticed and other editors acknowledged, this article has serious COATRACK and SYNTH issues. The issues are impossible to be resolved by simply narrowing the timeline. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)?[reply]
Keep - per above. 174.92.70.237 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question to administrators: Are IPs allowed to participate at AfDs (especially when there has been a problem with vote canvassing and vote stacking)? Khirurg (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg: They are, unless the IP happens to be a blocked/banned user, which doesn't appear to be the case for the IP above. AfDs, and all discussions for that matter, are not "votes", and IPs aren't prohibited from participating simply because they're an IP. SkyWarrior 18:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Khirurg (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No actual argument for deletion has been made by nomination. WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, WP:CHERRY, WP:POV, and even WP:COATRACK are all content issues, not notability issues. There is no doubt that persecution of Muslims did exist in the Balkan successor states and that this is a topic of scholarly notice. See, e.g., Poulton, The Muslim Experience in the Balkan states, 1919‐1991, Nationalities Papers, 28(1)45:19 Aug 2010 or Bieber, Muslim Identity in the Balkans Before the Establishment of Nation States, Nationalities Papers, 28(1)1:13:19 Aug 2010 or Mourelos, The 1914 Persecutions and the first Attempt at an Exchange of Minorities between Greece and Turkey, Balkan Studies, 26(2)389:1 Jan 1985. WP:Deletion is not cleanup and clearly notable topics are not deleted just because they are poorly-written. This article hardly rises to the level where WP:TNT is required. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're reading the articles you've just cited:

The Muslim Experience in the Balkan states, 1919‐1991 - does not talk about "persecution", nor are the years 1919‐1991 relevant in terms of the contraction of the Ottoman Empire.
Muslim Identity in the Balkans Before the Establishment of Nation States - nothing about massacres and persecution in this article either.
The 1914 Persecutions and the first Attempt at an Exchange of Minorities between Greece and Turkey - Your inclusion of this article makes it clear that you may have just searched "Balkans", "Muslims", "Persecutions" and didn't bother reading the article. This has nothing to do with Muslims being persecuted. In fact, the "1914 Persecutions" are in reference to the Greeks, not Muslims. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Eggishorn deletion votes seem to be about content disputes - proposals to move the article to a different title or to discuss the scope belong on the talk page. The only alternate I can see is to merge them into the respective articles like "Greek genocide", since some editors want to cover both topics in one article for NPOV reasons, in which case the article would prpbably need to be renamed as well. I think separate articles is ok by the way, because it is a distinction that exists in RS for analytical reasons - that does not make it POV, and it would probably be SYNTH to go beyond the sources and add our own background context to the articles.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Khirurg's proposal: As the only way to focus on the notable features of the article, which are about the migration. It's also important to mention that those migrations became the primary tool of the Ottoman authorities to launch genocide policies.Alexikoua (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

???? How did the Ottomans use those migrations (the result of massacres, wars and discrimination etc) to launch Genocide policies. Can you elaborate?Resnjari (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you of the fact that you ignore some basic facts about Muslim migration of that era since the current state of this article is at least unacceptable and can't provide you some decent info: Radical ideas were embraced by many migrants and they participated in numerous atrocities as well "Many of these gangs consisted of members of the SO and radicalized Muslim refugees from the Balkans or the Caucasus, the so-called muhadiirs, who plundered and murdered "as many of the hated Greeks". Thus, if a part of the present article should stay it should focus on the notable aspects of this developments.Alexikoua (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua I was working on more coverage of this phenomenon a while ago but my work got interrupted. The reason for Caucasian "plundering" was not religious fanaticism, it was poverty, landlessness, plague and neglect, and tensions with the native populations, both the Muslim and Christian populations -- they also plundered Kurds and Turks, and actually drove the Kurds out of some ares. Most of their conflicts with Christiasn were with Armenians and Bulgarians, not Greeks; independent Greece actually contributed disproportionatelly to aid for the Caucasian refugees. There is now a growing literature on this topic thankfully, and if analogous things occurred for other refugee ethnic groups it can be added to a "Legacy" or "Consequences" section I think. --Calthinus (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Legacy/Consequences section would be appropriate for the article as chronologically the Genocides happened mostly after these events [74]. Good suggestion @Calthinus.Resnjari (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua, your referring to context. @Khirug was saying this article should have context on the later Genocides that happened. One thing that you ignore (though the scholarship covers) is that the radicalisation which you refer to occurred due to the massacres, wars, forced expulsions/migrations the Muhadzhirs (the word means refugees which is from Arabic) had underwent in the Balkans (from the new countries that had emerged) who were exploited by the Ottoman Empire for later events of Genocide and so on. So I am all for including that context in the article about those things explaining the links. As you have aroused my curiosity, where did you get that quote from. Can you cite the academic link from where its from, as i would like to explore further the source. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think "migration" is appropriate. It's too narrow. Many -- maybe the majority--- of events described here cannot be called "migration". --Calthinus (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Persecution" though is too strong and not widely used. Can you suggest an alternative? Khirurg (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It passes GNG. I founded the following sources:

The Nation-Building Process in the Balkans: Ethnic Cleansing and Massacres of the Ottoman Muslim and Turkish Population (1912-1913)
Greek Independence Day : The Beginning of Ethnic Cleansing in the Balkans
What we all get wrong about Armenia, Turkey and genocide
A History of Muslims, Christians, and Jews in the Middle East

This is not all, and more sources can be found. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough:

The Nation-Building Process in the Balkans: Ethnic Cleansing and Massacres of the Ottoman Muslim and Turkish Population (1912-1913) - this is a conference attended by Armenian Genocide denialists including Mccarthy himself. I love how it calls the Armenian Genocide a "tragedy" and the Ottoman Muslims stuff genocide (numerous times).
Greek Independence Day : The Beginning of Ethnic Cleansing in the Balkans - A source published by the Turkish Coalition of America? No thanks.
What we all get wrong about Armenia, Turkey and genocide - a passing mention in some Al-Jazeera opinion piece doesn't make this topic notable.
A History of Muslims, Christians, and Jews in the Middle East - did you read the text? No mention of anything like that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources like those of @Ktrimi meet guidelines and are specific to this topic showing there is increasing research in this field relevant to the subject. Not many editors here from both the keep and delete sides have edited this article and so are not familiar with the topic or its sources. Please everyone just read up and check on things. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More sources:

palgrave macmillan
OUP - not McCarthy, still discusses the 1800s.
[75] - ABCCLIO
[76] Daniel Bloxham Oxford Handbooks "claims of long term genocidal planning appear to be untenable. Instead it has become evident that the development of the war determined the timing of deportations and massacres. Moreover, the genocide can not be separated from demographic policies that targeted other communities, like the Greeks, Nestorians, Syrian Orthodox Christians, Circassians, and Druzes." - (this article should also be about persecution of Muslims after they arrived in the Empire)..."For years the Sublime Porte had settled Muslim immigrants to strengthen control over areas feared to be threatened by foreign occupation or national movements like the Armenian Highlands. Many newcomers had survived ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, Caucasus and Aegean" (emphasis mine to put this "migration" issue to rest)Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I saw this AfD soon after it was filed but did not have time to reply, and I am pleased to see that the discussion has evolved to encompass substantial literature in the meanwhile. For now I should just say that the sources submitted at this page indicate that whatever name we choose to use, this subject has been studied as a general phenomenon by reliable, non-denialist literature. This seems to be another one, this also talks about a "Great Unweaving" of massacres and expulsions (and not only migrations) in secessionist drives from 1821 to 1913. Akçam here gives a synopsis of the persecution and an excellent account of how this contributed to the revanchist genocidal mentality. Very importantly, it is also not merely preferable, but essential, to talk about how, as Resnjari put it, this "radicalisation [...] due to the massacres, wars, forced expulsions/migrations the Muhadzhirs (the word means refugees which is from Arabic) had underwent in the Balkans (from the new countries that had emerged) [was] exploited by the Ottoman Empire for later events of Genocide". The nominator's comments regarding "oppression Olympics", "extremism" indicates that the AfD was not filed in the spirit of an in-depth examination of literature, but frankly, just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT as many others pointed out. Accusations that others are cuing denialist arguments and equating these events with the Armenian Genocide are simply not OK and disruptive because nobody is doing those things. Otherwise those !voting delete have raised very valid arguments, but I do agree that these have to do with the scope and the content of the article and should be addressed at the talk page. Renaming the article may also be required. --GGT (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per wp:snow and wp:cherry. --S. Saiti (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, another account with less than 100 contribs since 2015. Probably no coincidence that such users (Tiimii, Hatake) have e-mail enabled. I must say, the degree of coordination among a particular ethnic bloc of users is nothing short of impressive. !votes are not arguments though, and this is a discussion, not a vote. Khirurg (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg:, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. I believe that you've made your position reasonably clear to any and all who might read this later. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my "position", it's a fact that needs to be pointed out. And each suspicious !vote should be pointed out. Thank you. Khirurg (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the huge edit notice that has already been added, there is no reason that the !votes you believe are "suspicious" need to be individually labeled as such. It polarizes the discussion and brings no benefit. Do you really believe that the closing admin will be unable these without your assistance? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please have more input by experienced AfD / Wikipedia contributors, focusing on the core issue of the sources and whether this topic or content is OR? Many of the above opinions are not very helpful in this regard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best this is original research. "Other stuff exists" is not a credible argument.--Rpclod (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources mentioned. Passes WP:N and should be a keep. M A A Z T A L K 13:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Resnjari. samee ^talk 09:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about that this time? You keep...uuuuh....changing [77]....your...uuuuuh...mind [78], witohut presenting any arguments. Khirurg (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bludgeoning the discussion and attacking editors who vote keep. Above you insist that each suspicious !vote should be pointed out. even though Eggishorn asks you to stop - in this case, clicking on those diffs shows that Samee just made a mistake thinking this nomination was made by User:DragonTiger23.Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind your own business. Khirurg (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NEXIST. and WP:GNG. Plenty of good references anyway. BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming proposals[edit]

I'm very sorry I took awhile to get back to this-- was busy. A couple days ago Khirurg asked me to suggest a renaming proposal to see if we could find some common ground there. The idea of a rename and/or rescope has also been floated by other editors -- 23 editor, Ktrimi991, GGT, SilentResident, and Srnec, hope I didn't miss anyone. . Here is my proposal, it is both a split and rename proposal. The page will be split into two pages:

1) Muslim refugees in the Great Turkish War -- perhaps to become just Refugees in the Great Turkish War. This should cover the earlier material, namely the flight of Croatian and Hungarian Muslims from their homelands across the Ottoman Empire's new territories (and the conversion of those who remained to Catholicism). This flight was significant and desreves its own article -- these were not few, they were as high as 1/3rd of the population in some regions such as Slavonia and Lika, and they were replaced by Orthodox populations ultimately, which had significant demographic and historical consequences. I say this may become just Refugees in the Great Turkish War because the Christian, especially Catholic though also Orthodox refugee movements were also significant -- in particular, Catholic Slavs emptied out of Western Bosnia around Bihac which became one of hte most heavily Islamicized regions of the Balkans, and there was the flight of Serb Orthodox and Albanian Catholics from the plains of Kosovo-- to Hungary, where the Albanians starved. This was followed by the settlement of mountaineer populations that were converted to Islam. Additionally, in Bosnia it appears that the arrival of radicalized Slavic and Hungarian Muslims caused the previously cordial Muslim-Christian relations in the region to erode. All of these things are notable enough for a separate page and plenty of sourced text is already present on this page and others. Long story short, this was an important phenomenon that deserves its own page, not this one.
2) Muslim refugees during the Ottoman decline -- with the "decline" being from the early 19th century to its replacement by the modern Republic of Turkey. The page is to make no claims that there was some conspiracy by Christian powers to drive out Islam, or -- instead, the much scholarly analysis should be cited about the effects of these movements on the rump of the Ottoman Empire (plenty of stuff on this but I'm pressed for time and some is already on this page if you look). There is plenty of scholarly work discussing how these refugee movements caused resettlement dilemmas for the Ottomans, cultural loss, conflicts between the famished refugees and the natives over resources, accelerated the erosion of communal relations and the rise of nationalist movements (especially in the Bulgarian and perhaps Armenian case), led to confessional cleansing becoming an increasingly common policy as nationalist movements competed for territory and may have led to the mentality that led to genocidal massacres and expulsions of Christians from what remained of hte Ottoman Empire, etc. This is all notable. This is a unified topic that deserves its own page.

Thoughts? --Calthinus (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support split and rename per above. The topics are significant. I agree separating the 17th century fron the 19-20th makes sense - different event, scope, and locations.Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the above proposal, both in terms of scope and article naming (with a preference for Refugees in the Great Turkish War). The way I see it however, it would be better to create two articles from scratch rather than rename the current one. Khirurg (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support splitting and renaming as well. Calthinu's proposal now is well-balanced and reflects better on sources without POV and offers a better reflection of the different time periods. If this was done from the start, I couldn't ever vote for its deletion at all. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 21:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support With the understanding that the first article would be Refugees in the Great Turkish War as the references sited above make it clear that the population disruption was multi-lateral. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support thought I prefer Refugees in the Great Turkish War for the first split article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if, at this point, that if Resnjari is willing to support this, consensus may be reached, and furthermore, if he did, his help on creating the two pages would be extremely beneficial as I believe they are events he has much knowledge about -- for this reason I am also interested in his views on the proposal--Calthinus (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus:, it is true that Resnjari is very well familiar with the whole Ottoman and Muslim subject, but their position is clear and well-known: they will not consent to any renaming that has the word "Persecution" removed. Like with other cases in the past, a consensus without that particular editor perhaps is the only way to get things moved, even though it could have been much better if they watered down their stance and finally gave their consent and support. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 02:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on principle. No editor has veto power, and no editor is indispensable.Khirurg (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course no one has veto power, never said anyone did, however I value the input of those who have spent time studying the topic, and furthermore, I am searching for a broad consensus here, hopefully as a step forward from the typical Wiki pattern of multilateral national filibustering. --Calthinus (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - The article about Muslim refugees during the Ottoman decline already exists (Muhacir). Not a single word in this article describes Muslim refugees in the Great Turkish War so no condition for splittin is met. There is apparent consensus that it is necessary to change the topic, the name and timespan of this article. I think that it is as good as consensus to delete it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was 20K plus about this when the article was listed. It was removed: [[79]] --Calthinus (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging some of the contents of this article into Muhacirs, and create the article for Refugees of the Great Turkish War? Khirurg (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not merge or rename discussion. This is AfD discussion. Some editors here struggled to keep this POVFORK victimization OR article aimed to present 20th century migration of one (Muslim) minority from newly established European nationstates as some kind of eternal religious persecution of Ottoman Muslims. Because Muhacirs article already exists, all above !votes in "support" for split and rename are actually "delete" !votes. Reaching the consensus that the topic of this article are Muslim refugees during the Ottoman decline the editors here reached the consensus to delete this article because this topic is already covered by Muhacirs so consensus is reached that this article is its (POV)FORK and should be deleted as such. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No you are being flatly manipulative with this post, whether intended or not. My vote remains a strong keep. There is no such consensus and proposals to change the scope of an article are NOT implications that the poster believes the entire page is a POVFORK and should be deleted. Please quit trying to speak for other people.--Calthinus (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having in mind that all above !votes in "support" for split and rename are actually "delete" !votes I here !vote in support split and rename.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imo Muhacirs should be merged into this, not the other way around. We've had the issue with the term elsewhere where it is used, because it can carry the connotation of one who has relocated out of religious convictions alone (different meanings in different languages, better to steer clear of this one). --Calthinus (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you have to propose this on the article talk page, either as a move discussion or an RfC. It is complete inappropriate in the middle of an AfD.Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. AfD is often misused for discussions about mergers and page moves. The problem with starting such a discussion at AfD is that the AfD will be appropriately closed, but the move/split/merge discussion can continue elsewhere, creating a disjointed conversation that occurs in at least two places. Another unhelpful possibility is that the move/merge discussion might not continue elsewhere, remaining truncated and unresolved when the AfD is closed. Overall, it is better to avoid these discussions in AfD and instead direct editors to discuss in a more appropriate place. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - In general you are correct. However in cases in which you have a collection of topics in a single AfD, or in which the article title itself is an issue (e.g. - BIO1E articles are a clear example (if the event is notable (and doesn't have an article) - a Rename !vote is textbook)) - discussing this in the scope of the AfD makes sense - as this impacts the !votes (e.g. people ~voting on ESSAY or POVFORK grounds).Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the refugees is fine and we can have one but it is not this article. There is enough content that this article would be spun out eventually anyway. There are plenty of WP:RS for this article that support much stronger language than persecutions:
anti-islam in the balkan slavonic discourse - the end of the Ottoman Empire Routledge
It has been linked to later atrocities in the Balkans
Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction - reciprocal genocidal killings (emphasis in the book, not my own)
[80] "Genocide of Armenians, Balkan Muslims" "entire city neighborhoods were razed, names of villages changed, their inhabitants expelled...collectively 'converted'...erasing the Ottoman Empire from 'Christendom'"
routledge mutual ethnic cleansings
[81]
how many sources are needed to establish notability for genocides and ethnic cleansings? I think these sources are enough to show that the notability of the topic is strongly supported by academic WP:RS. Undoubtedly there are more sources available in databses that can be used to improve the article. I don't disagree that the article needs work, but the AfD nomination and the comments here have been inappropriate, for example this article is simply what I call a "counter-genocide" article, created by the banned DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs), a Turkish atrocity mongerer. - this comment from the nominator would be bad enough for civility without the wealth of WP:RS, but considered together with the majority position in WP:RS it is firmly in WP:RGW territory.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I have to agree with @Seraphim System: here. @Jacknstock: made good points about issues of multiple discussions and agree it is inappropriate to be talking about splits and other things while the future of this very article is in question. @Calthinus:, @Icewhiz: I would be inclined to support a split (if this was a discussion on the article talkpage and not the AfD), but oppose part of the proposed pagename of the second article as it does not have the word Persecution. Those peoples became refugees due to Persecution. To not have the word Persecution in the title offsets or sidelines the experiences, events and scholarship that inform why millions of Muslims were civilian casualties and why millions more Muslims became refugees during Ottoman decline. Any renaming discussion should occur after the AfD so every editor knows what the purpose of the discussion is. At this point in time one does not know if this is about deleting/keeping the article anymore or that the article is now assumed as kept (???) as those editors who were calling for its deletion (such as the filling editor) are now talking about splits and renaming. @Sandstein:, some clarity about the article's future is needed before discussing other parameters like scope, content, scholarship, and pagename. Otherwise its a time wasting exercise. Some certainty is needed first. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarity is needed regarding contents of the article - After being nommed on the 30th Jan, it had a third of its contents chopped off (82k->56k). I agree with Calthinus that the Great Turkish War is a separate topic from 19th-20th century - so a split to two separate articles - however named - is warranted (so - this is a keep*2). There are also, quite clearly, POV issues in the contents of the article, and particularly in the title and lede. If this AfD closes Keep (as it will if Calthinus's proposal is accepted) - the closing admin will probably kick the naming process to the article talk page unless there is an overwhelming consensus on the matter.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz:, though part of its content was cut off due to content and timescale parameters, nonetheless as its still an open AfD. That issue should be resolved first before any discussion about possible pagename renaming or content issues are dealt with which of the second traditionally occur within a talkpage discussion of an article. Editors no longer know what they are commenting on here, is this still an AfD or something else. If its something else, what is the resolution of the AfD, delete or keep ? Admins need to give a clear decision of this as its already past 7 days (the time usually given for these kinds of things). Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A split is keep + spinoff (of what is split off) to a separate article. AfDs may remain open much longer than 7 days on enwiki - if there is no clear consensus AfDs may even be relisted thrice - resulting in them being open for 28 days.Icewhiz (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz:, ok about relisting and article splits, but any rename discussion should be done outside of an AfD, as editors who have called for a delete, now want to rename it (?) or not (?) or still want to delete (?). Otherwise without clear parameters about what the discussion is, its delving further into becoming a farce. I think its important to know if this is still an AfD. If it is then my vote is still keep.Resnjari (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari: Icewhiz has already covered most of my points but I want to reiterate, both to you and to whoever may have been confused by this proposal that it is a compromise proposal which presumes a keep result as part of it (followed by split and rename). That said, I have been criticized by three different editors for muddying the situation, and perhaps I do have something to apologize for in that-- my bad. To the closing admin, I want to be clear that this proposal did not change my keep vote. --Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against any splits, its just that the initial AfD by the filling party was about questioning the existence of the article. As this AfD is about article existence, a resolution is needed on that before the discussion you have opened up (which is warranted @Calthinus:) but appropriate on the article's talkpage only after an AfD has been settled. Otherwise its confusing as to what is the purpose of discussion here by editors. Are we having a AfD discussion (or has that been resolved defacto?) and now we are discussing article content and pagenames?Resnjari (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of the AfD has become quite clear and you don't need an admin's help to understand that there is no consensus on its removal, but there is a clear consensus among those who voted to keep it and those who voted for its deletion, that the article currently is problematic. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 02:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it hasn't. The original AfD was about whether this article should exist or not. This is the first aspect that needs to have a resolution. There is no point having a discussion on other things if this article does not survive. If it survives and is allowed to be around in future, the following discussions on non AfD issues then make sense in having.Resnjari (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every AfD nomination is about whether or not articles should be kept or deleted. An AfD literally stand for Articles for Deletion. I'm sure you knew this already. But not every AfD has a yes or no answer to that question. Some may result in a merge, rename, redirect, and even userfy. It's literally the second sentence of WP:AFD: Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. So no, this discussion doesn't have to talk place at the talk page of the article. We're already having that discussion here. After all, that's all an AfD really is. A discussion. Nothing more, nothing less. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Étienne Dolet, then my response is still a keep and i oppose any renaming that removes the word Persecution, which would sideline events of forced and involuntary population movements, massacres, wars etc that led to millions of Muslims becoming civilian casualties and millions more refugees during the era of Ottoman decline. I should also note that only a few editors are having a discussion on what they would like to happen to the article (some who are in between positions of delete and what appears a keep via proposals???) and that is not a view of support expressed by everyone here.Resnjari (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is especially common as Icewhiz already mentioned for BLP1E and I have worked on some of those at AfC after they were draftify-ed. Editors sometimes name an article as a biography where it should be a case name for a legal matter, etc. But this is not one of those cases - in an Arbitration area, the issue of whether persecution should remain in the title should have never come to AfD. I really don't see any justification for the nomination under WP:DEL-REASON, as a cursory WP:BEFORE yields many sources for the article subject. Most move discussions do not belong at AfD, except in the case of something like BLP1E where the deletion would be otherwised justified under policy.Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I proposed that the scope of this article should be narrowed. My proposal came after reading literature on the events. I might agree with splitting article, however, the name of this and the new article should not be "Refugees of...." because the term "refugee" has some other meanings that do not belong to the events of this article. Other articles, that are similar in topic and timespan, are named "Persecution of...", "Ethnic cleansing of...", "Expulsions of...". Hence, the names proposed by Calthinus are not ok. However, we should know if the article will be deleted or kept, to justify some energy that is needed for improving the article and eventually (maybe) splitting it. After the article is decided to be kept, and issues relating to its scope and content are clarified, we can hold a discussion on a new name. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the status quo in this case will have the opposite effect. I am thinking in particular the persecution of the Circassians (and some others), it would be less arbitrary to classify those alongside the persecution of some Christian communities. I personally don't like the idea of categorizing groups solely on religious grounds. In some case it could be useful, particularly during the rise of nationalism in the Balkan; but this is more limited in scope. Creating (if it does not exist) a category/template, etc. on persecutions within the Ottoman Empire, irregardless of religion (my point of view) is a better approach. The sources provided by Seraphim document that persecutions were often indiscriminate (irregardless of religion), depending on who had the upper hand..., in fact, who had the upper hand (human innate behavior) in a given situation mostly alone is the main factor, not religion. I have no proposition personally, neither a delete or keep, the information has to be here somewhere, the debate is just the format of that information. :) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk)

@Yahya Talatin:, heads up, you forgot to sign off on your comment. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks, I often forget to sign, this is a nice read. [82] The way the subject of war crime is compared and covered (in that book or other similar ones) can be useful in this and other cases. Comparative studies are very useful when dealing with situations where many groups are involved. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yahya Talatin:, your constructive comments have given much to reflect on. About this AfD, this thread has become ridiculously long and voices like yours might get lost if there is no sign off with the four tides, hence my comment. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Even if the page is split into 2 or 3, atleast 1 should retain the original title, as:

1. It has more keep votes, i.e 16 vs 11.
2. There are other pages by the name like Persecution of Muslims,Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar,etc. M A A Z T A L K 14:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, per User:Seraphim System, why is this discussion taking place here. Shouldn't it be mentioned on talk page. It is diverting attention of the usual procedure of AFD. M A A Z T A L K 14:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ma'az:, i know what you mean and what @Seraphim System: brought up as well. This AfD has now gone off into many tangents and is heading more and more into becoming a farce. I do agree with what you say about the word Persecution being retained in the pagename. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is becoming more complicated. I think the usual AFD procedure should be followed. M A A Z T A L K 08:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: per comments I've provided above. The Muhacir article should be also merged to those migration articles as Calthinus noted. The main subject of the article should be "migration", "refugees" etc, not "persecution" which is of secondary importance per available bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexikoua is this your edit? Please sign off with the four tides, so an administrator knows its your edit and does not mistake it as a comment or vote of some new editor. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this in Resnjari talkpage, but can be useful here too [83] even though I doubt anyone would accept those kind of propositions. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the proposal per Seraphim System and Resnjari. Firstly, this discussion should really be taking place in the article's talk page. Secondly, it is clear that the scope of the article goes beyond merely the issue of refugees. Seraphim System has pointed out to sufficient literature covering this issue not simply as a matter of refugees, but as a matter of ethnic cleansing, atrocities, massacres etc as well. This is true both for specific periods of persecution that form part of the article as well as the general phenomenon right from the start of the 19th century up until the Balkan Wars, see my previous comment and the sources there. Anyone active in this area will be able to recognise the authors of some of these sources as big names that we constantly cite in our articles on late Ottoman genocides - Bloxham, Akçam, Üngör, Jones etc. I would also like to point out the scholarship produced by Mojzes on the Balkan Wars [84] [85]. I am positive that such instances of scholarship can be expanded. --GGT (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sufficient sources are available in the article / were presented at this AfD to meet notability requirements. The persecution did occur, so I'm not seeing unsurmountable OR issues. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The user proposing to delete it clearly is not neutral concerning the matter. A WP:IDONTLIKEIT case. All other users above already stated why it shoud stay. Akocsg (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, a revenge !vote by a wikistalker angry over an unrelated content dispute [86]. That's new, at least. Khirurg (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like every user who does not suit your POV and mission is either biased, seeking revenge, a wikistalker (!) etc. Not really encylopedic and constrctive I would say. Akocsg (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiiight, because even though this AfD has been open for almost 2 weeks now, you !voted right after I reverted your crude POV-pushing at Northern Cyprus [87]. Yeah, I must be crazy. Khirurg (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per reasons given by Ma'az & GGT. --Liridon (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails runs on original reseach and synthesis. The scholarship to assert this is a unified topic is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 14 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) 00:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Petz[edit]

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

Non-notable business person with no actual in-depth coverage. All the sources are passing mentions or mill coverage, if it can even be called that. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any evidence of notable coverage outside of passing mentions, a preliminary Google News search showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accepted this from AfC based primary on this reference: [88]. It may not be enough if other sources do not corroborate it.Thsmi002 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:50 year rule. SpinningSpark 19:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. scope_creep (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another run-of-the-mill business person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 12 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) 00:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Levensohn[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. Promotional tone. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on own/company produced material. Edwardx (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real evidence of biographical notability. Is there a conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:07, 14 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 Rutgers University–New Brunswick. There's clear consensus here that these should be merged somewhere. There's disagreement about exactly what the proper target is, and perhaps different targets for some vs other nominated articles. Read the whole discussion here for ideas and use your best judgement. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Lynton North and South Towers, Demarest Hall, River Dorms (Rutgers)[edit]

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

These are dormitory buildings, the buildings aren't even historical. Fails WP:GNG, there is no coverage of the buildings outside of the Rutgers website. Rusf10 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these two articles for the same reason:

Merge and / or Redirect All to Rutgers University–New Brunswick - these articles may not merit standalone status, but should be redirected (and where appropriate merged) to Rutgers University–New Brunswick. I'm not sure why the nominator has not considered this option, as required by WP:BEFORE, WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and the header of this page, which reads "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." Alansohn (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever man, its a dorm. If you really think dormitories are an important part of a university that deserve mention in an article about that university, I really don't know how to respond. I guess that means we need to mention every single building on campus. There are probably over one hundred at Rutgers.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge River Dorms (Rutgers), Ernest Lynton North and South Towers, Demarest Hall and create List of dorms at Rutgers University or something similarly titled. Alternatively:

merge: Ernest Lynton North and South Towers to Livingston Campus (Rutgers University)

merge: Demarest Hall/River Dorms (Rutgers) to Queens Campus

Djflem (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:19, 8 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) 00:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs covered by Indian singers[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list - unclear why the topic is notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: How can you say that it is a indiscriminate list? Your point?Zafar24Talk 10:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :This is notable topic in India thats why it is covered by reliable references. Covered version exist for every artist see this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_cover_songs Zafar24Talk 18:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zafar24: - Indian people have covered songs, and so have people of every nationality, race, creed, etc. Creating a list for every potential combination of factors is indiscriminate. All the lists in that category are songs related to specific artists, not a trait or class of musicians. It is entirely different. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: said that it is indiscriminate list. Please note that I cannot create coverd songs list for every Indian singer so thats why I wrote them in this list. For example List of songs covered by the Beach Boys exist in same way I created list for Indian singers which includes those singers who sung covered songs.Zafar24Talk 18:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, but this just seems too trivial. Listing songs covered by a singer is in my view not going to be encyclopedic other than for the most notable of artists. Virtually every popular singer has covered other people's songs at some point. --Michig (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: It is encyclopedic as it is showing info about original and covered songs. And those are the notable artists which present in Lists.Zafar24Talk 10:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too indiscriminate for sure; anyone can cover a song if they want to (if people listen/like it though is another question). Unless this is a sourced list where the cover does better than the original, there's no point to this article. Nate • (chatter) 01:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: I don't think it is indiscriminate list because it is just show info about covered song and previous song. 2.They are not anyone, they are Notable Indian singers.Zafar24Talk 10:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why are they notable? You have to establish why they're notable. As much as we think Dua Lipa is world-renowned for instance, in a few places there are plenty of people who are 'Dua who?'. And French people don't follow German signers closely, the same as Russians don't really follow much K-Pop outside a few known names. Nate • (chatter) 18:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/Michig. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and Michig. Also, I dont see the point of having this list. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 04:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just trivia and has no encyclopedic value. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 05:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete covering songs in one way or another is just to common to be listable. On a similar note, too many song articles are categorized by all the people who ever made a cover of them, which is some cases is just plain ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per majority of others. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The artists/singers seem notable. The songs seem notable. It's possible that each cover might be worth mentioning on either the singer or song page. There is, however, no evidence that this list is notable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:27, 12 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) 00:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput resistance to British conquests[edit]

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

This largely-unsourced article is OR/synthesis. Some people who resisted British expansion in India happened to belong to the Rajput caste. This article contains a section each on these people (who are disconnected in time, geography and objectives), bundling their deeds under the term "Rajput resistance to British conquests". In absence of any reliable sources that mention this term, this is like creating an article titled Sagittarius resistance to Nazism, piecing together content from Anton Ackermann, Bernhard Bästlein, and Eugen Bolz, because all these people happened to be born between 22 November and 21 December.

Proposed deletion was contested with the rationale that "there's an immense literature" on this topic. However, I couldn't find any sources that support the content of this article while describing the resistance as "Rajput resistance". utcursch | talk 16:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a Rajput WP:COATRACK. We're getting better at fixing caste glorification articles but in this case the nominator is correct. There really isn't anything to fix because it should not exist for the reasons stated by utcursch. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. samee ^talk 17:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete While the article is presenting many historical facts the absence of references is an issue. This looks like original research and should be considered for speedy deletion under A7 & A11. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 05:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sitush. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 10 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) 00:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu women's national football team[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have played any matches, doesn't seem to have gotten much independent attention. Fram (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An non-notable article. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice towards re-publishing should the team's status change or adequate references be identified in the future. Hmlarson (talk) 04:07, 12 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. An WP:RM can be held if people want to try the renaming idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino women's national football team[edit]

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

There is no "San Marino women's national football team", and there has never been one. There are apparently only 48 senior soccer players in the country in total. When only 48 people play a sport in a country, and they don't participate in international events, then perhaps that is a sign that we shouldn't have an article on it? Fram (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge to Football in San Marino. The article appears to state that the subject of the article doesn't exist. Nuff said. --Michig (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Content from the 'Background and development' section could usefully be merged. --Michig (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it isn't clear from the article whether the subject actually exists (a team could exist and play friendlies but not compete in qualifying or tournaments), some coverage of women's football in San Marino should be maintained. Merge to Football in San Marino, so the useful material in the article can be kept.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Women's football in San Marino per above. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liechtenstein women's national football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liechtenstein women's national football team (2nd nomination). Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 'Women's football in San Marino' per Hhhhhkohhhhh, keeping a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regarding suggested move - sadly, there doesn't appear to be a basis for an article on Women's football in San Marino. Take out all the statements of things that haven't happened or don't exist and there's barely anything left. If there's anything worth merging to Football in San Marino I could support that, potentially some of the content from 'Background and development'. --Michig (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Rename - to Women's football in San Marino or at worst merge content into Football in San Marino. Notable topic, plausible search term, though probably don't need the empty table. Fenix down (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Women's football in San Marino with paragraph and link from Football in San Marino. Hmlarson (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Women's football in San Marino GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 16:13, 12 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) 00:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Manzar Hasan Zaidi[edit]

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

this is very promotional, and unsourced BLP apperearnly written by the subject himself. i don't think he meets GNG. Saqib (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm Wildly over-written, and under-referenced (probably by a PR person), I suspect he might actually be notable, if we had the refs. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: I followed BEFORE but unfortunately was not able to find much coverage in RS on the subject. There is coverage on his project but nothing in-depth on him. Two accounts are obviously related to the subject; User:Syedmanzar and User:Axissoftmedia (blocked). --Saqib (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and promotional. MT Train^Discuss 10:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would need a full rewrite to remove the promotional tone and the copyright violations. It includes the full text of this Wordpress post from 2009 (article started in 2011). I'll start ripping out vios. Even if he is notable, this needs a stick of WP:TNT. Mortee (talk) 19:39, 9 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 procedural close. The article was moved to Draft namespace by another user (diff) one minute after being nominated for deletion, and the nominator here has not contested this move. At this time, if deletion of the draft is desired, then WP:MFD is the place to go. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael DiMuro[edit]

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

There seems to be a claim of notabilityhere (hence no speedy) but there are no independent sources & a quick search produced zip. TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see this has been moved to a draft. Good call, user:Discospinster.TheLongTone (talk) 15:30, 7 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) 00:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajithkumar Nair[edit]

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

Non-notable civil servant. WP:BEFORE searches don't find anything which elevates him above numerous others. He may have worked on high-profile cases but that doesn't make him notable as an individual. Neiltonks (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a run-of-the-mill civil servant. - Sitush (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. He is occasionally interviewed as a criminology expert - but not nearly enough to support notability. His public service positions would not confer notability per any criteria I am aware of.Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 13 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) 00:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roland deSouza[edit]

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Another clear failure of WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; lacks WP:SIGCOV. Appears to have been created by the subject himself, going by the username: Special:Contributions/Dsouzaron. Just an advertorially-toned CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing that stands out for stand alone article. Trivial. Kierzek (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage in one unreliable source, nothing more. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a large body of articles on non-notable people from Pakistan. No where close to meeting notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 14 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guilhermina Marçal[edit]

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Marçal is notable for her activism, and was covered in a book about notable activists from East Timor.^[1] I added additional citations to her article. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cristalis, Irena; Scott, Catherine; Andrade, Ximena (2005). Independent Women: The Story of Women's Activism in East Timor. CIIR. pp. 70–71. ISBN 9781852873172.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more sources can be found by searching under her religious name Sister Guilhermina with "Timor" (added to article, redirect made). I've added one to support her notability. PamD 09:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable figure in East Timor. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References demonstrate Marçal's notability in East Timor Thsmi002 (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great references. Victuallers (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The provincial superior of a religious order holds a position with some similarities to a bishop. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I take a diametrically opposed view to the Nom. Significant in WP:RS. Meets WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE should usually include a search on Google! But at least the article has been enhanced even further now. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:59, 11 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) Jdcomix (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liberius Pieterse[edit]

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- AS the compiler of a hymn book and a Dictionary of Christian Terminology, I think he ought to climb over the bar into being notable . Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep translated Bible into Urdu. The Dictionary of Christian Terminology was written in Urdu also. Probably a "first" at that time. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:51, 15 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) 02:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manufahi Teacher Training and Resource Centre[edit]

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

Local institute, fails WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a largely ad hoc inservice organization. This is not a formal school, so it does not get the assumption of notability given to secondary and tertiary organizations, and we lack sourcing to show this is a notable organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 14 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 procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by User:Bbb23 per WP:G5, "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit KaduDeshmukh[edit]

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

A non notable actor. Whatever coverage there is, it is not from reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:01, 7 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Taj Mahal & My Love[edit]

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

Changed this seemingly non-notable poem to a redirect to author; this was reverted. Seeking a wider consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 7 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 Withdrawn, I wsa nominating some articles about non-existant national football teams and stupidly missed the very recent previous AfD on this one. Fram (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein women's national football team[edit]

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

Liechtenstein doesn't have a women's national football team, never had one, never played an international football match (duh). This article is literally much ado about nothing. Fram (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Women's football in Liechtenstein since that's what the article seems to be about. You could merge it with Football in Liechtenstein but I think there's too much information to do that. Smartyllama (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the information is extremely WP:UNDUE, like squads of non notable players (the only bluelinks are for other people with the same name, not for any of the players in the sqauds). Liechtenstein basically has the population of a small city, and women's football matches get, according to Football in Liechtenstein (which has all the information on woman football in Liechtenstein we need): "Average attendance at league matches was 30 people in 2017" It doesn't even generate much interest in Liechtenstein, so why should we keep a lengthy article on the subject? Fram (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just trying to imagine that we would use and accept the same kind of regional/local sports coverage (and tons of primary sources) for a similar situation, but where the locality wasn't a "country". A series of articles about the major sports (divided in male and female) for some city, say Salisbury or Stillwater, Oklahoma. Obviously, it is a country, not a city, but even so it seems like extreme overkill to allow a litany of local youth sporting events, warranting a minor article only even in Liechtenstein, to be bundled into an article. Everything we would normally say about this subject is adequately covered at Football in Liechtenstein, the remainder is fluff. Fram (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the very least it should be a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Liechtenstein-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We had an AfD less than a month ago closed as keep and rename to Women's football in Liechtenstein. I don't know why we need another AfD rather than just implementing consensus like we should have done at the time. Smartyllama (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Fram: I don't know why this AfD reopened after the previous AfD closed only about 1 month ago. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move to Women's football in Liechtenstein is better. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Situation seems clear; nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contact (Boney James album)[edit]

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

This has been merrily edit-warred over since start of the year, bouncing to redirect and back. A clear decision seems desirable. For my money, seems to fail WP:NALBUM. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I notice this was redirected on the basis that it "fails WP:NALBUMS" - I wonder on what basis that conclusion was arrived at. I have never heard of the album or the musician, but a few minutes searching found coverage from Jazz Times, Billboard, VOA, and from a Highbeam search, New Pittsburgh Courier and The Commercial Appeal, to add to the Allmusic review already cited in the article. It was also no. 1 on the Billboard Jazz Albums chart ([89]) and no. 53 on the Billboard 200 ([90]). I would say it's quite clearly notable. --Michig (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:NALBUM as per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The nominator should have done some more research before doing the AfD, and would have noticed the extremely notable fact that it was a #1 album. Article merely needs to be improved with the sources found by Michig above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I only started this to give a basis for a decision on the ongoing edit war, in either direction. Ideally I just wouldn't have added a nominator position on this at all, since I know zip about music notability. Anyway, looks like clear state of affairs, so withdrawing, and any further edit-warring can be referred to this page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:10, 9 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 Salt Lake Screaming Eagles. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Controlled Football League[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Right now, this league is just a proposal. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Salt Lake Screaming Eagles as they are the same ownership, the content on this proposed league is already found there (I know because I wrote both sections even though I am not the creator of this stub of a page), and is a logical search term. The ownership did receive a feature article in the Wall Street Journal, but per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON, this article does not seem to have the legs to be a stand-alone article. Yosemiter (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because even the Wall Street Journal has been covering it. It just got started and needs to sprout wings. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Salt Lake Screaming Eagles as per Yosemiter. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:10, 13 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) 00:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Kliche[edit]

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

Non notable model. Fails WP:NMODEL. Very minor coverage. fails to assert WP:SIGCOV scope_creep (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - He was never a Non-notable model. He was selected as the Most Beautiful Man in the World in 2000. An equivalent of world famous beauty queen, Priyanka Chopra and Lara Dutt, who won Miss World 2000 and Miss Universe 2000 respectively. Ratsama (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As for the other pageants, well, other stuff exists. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.--Richie Campbell (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources and clearly does not meet criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Citobun (talk) 14:45, 14 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Brien (comedian)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was kept last time entirely on the basis of a forbes piece. Well, it's a forbes contributor piece, actually - basically, a curated blog that is not a reliable source (with no editorial oversight). Same nomination rationale as last time "Not notable, mentioned only in youtube, blogs, and articles written for site or other parts of site." Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Esquire, Asbury Park Press, Huffpost, etc. It didn't take me very long to dig those out. Trivially passes WP:BEFORE. --Jayron 32 15:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Jayron32, plus New Jersey Monthly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
Keep The sources in the article already (including those identified by Jayron32 and Djflem}} all demonstrate that he surpasses the notability standard. The Forbes piece is not what makes him notable. Alansohn (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One also sees that the closure of the the first nomination was dubious at best.Djflem (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, huffpo has only a mention, the other two are almost entirely interviews where he's promoting his book.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:48, 10 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) 21:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8 Miles High (EP)[edit]

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

Not a notable album as required by WP:NALBUMS. Mattg82 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First of all, the nominator should say something beyond "not a notable album" and give some indication that he/she investigated what is truly missing from the article, because it is possible that its authors neglected to go the extra mile but the community could help. With that being said, I investigated and found that the album cannot quite satisfy WP:NALBUMS, especially criteria #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published..." The album has a few trivial mentions in music magazines but I can find nothing beyond that, so it appears that there is not enough for a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've add content including reviews and references. Three tracks (the singles) were placed on high rotation on national radio stations. Passes WP:ALBUMS#1 and #6.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The above voter added some sources but my own vote above will not change. Of the current sources in the article, the most robust are about the band's overall history or are even reviews of different albums, and merely mention the existence of 8 Miles High. So we now have sources to verify that this album exists, but see WP:EXIST. Beyond existing, the item has to have some notability as an entity that has been discussed in the media in its own right. The sources being used to support this album article would actually be more relevant for the band's article, and the album itself is still lacking in its own notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete মাখামাখি (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Great, we have proven the EP existed but that alone has never been justification to keep an article. The success of the singles are a seperate concern, irrelevant to this topic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or redirect to the band's article. — Za wl 10:13, 11 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great West League[edit]

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

league (as well as team pages) appear to not meet notability requirements. Article also reads like a press release or spam. RF23 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article talks about a legitimate collegiate woodbat baseball league that is treated like a professional minor league baseball organization. Local media outlets cover them on a regular basis. There are other collegiate leagues that have articles like the West Coast League which are not nominated for deletion that are allowed to stay. Why this was "nominated" is beyond me. Please leave this article as is. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The league itself is notable.. i'm not sure about all of the teams though. Spanneraol (talk) 17:07, 7 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 Julia (programming language)#History. Undo incorrect nac. Clearly the consensus is not to have this article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bezanson[edit]

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

Co-creator of the Julia programming language co-founder of subsequent 2015 startup based on the language. Sources in the article either don't mention him, mention him in a single line (as part of the founder list), are self authored - with the exception of wired which is an interview with some coverage (where Bezanson is mentioned in 4 paragraphs, some of which are quotes). BEFORE doesn't yield much more in news coverage (32 true hits in gNews - in most he is mentioned as a name in a founder list + this in waterstechnology where he is mentioned in a list a few times (as well as Shah just laughs and says there's no great story there: A friend of Bezanson suggested the name and the group fell in love with it and ran with it. - not sure of RSness, but it is also fairly scant on Bezanson). In terms of meeting PROF, multiple authors from the Julia team, are named on two well cited papers - google scholar - "Bezanson, Jeff, et al. "Julia: A fast dynamic language for technical computing." arXiv preprint arXiv:1209.5145 (2012)." has 291 citations per scholar and "Bezanson, Jeff, et al. "Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing." SIAM Review 59.1 (2017): 65-98."(published in 2015 on arxiv) - has 329 (few papers other than this. He is mentioned in some papers as a Julia co-creator (in a list)). These two papers would not be enough for PROF, and coverage of Bezanson does not rise to GNG. I'm not nominating at this time other Julia co-founders - Alan Edelman (MIT professor) is clearly notable. The other two are more borderline Viral B. Shah has some coverage in Indian media, and Stefan Karpinski has some coverage in relation to the subway challenge. Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing references do not establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bezanson is the brains behind Julia and is worthy of an article for that reason alone. Viral B. Shah is more charismatic and self-promotional, yet much less critical to the creation of Julia; I won't fight deleting Shah's article. Just because Bezanson doesn't go promote himself doesn't mean he's not worthy of an article. Sanpitch (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentions of Jeff Bezanson's contributions to Julia and founding of Julia Computing have been covered by various media outlets:

Wired - https://www.wired.com/2014/02/julia/
Forbes - https://www.forbes.com/sites/suparnadutt/2017/09/20/this-startup-created-a-new-programming-language-now-used-by-the-worlds-biggest-companies/#4b07f2aa7de2
Ars Technica - https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/scientific-computings-future-can-any-coding-language-top-a-1950s-behemoth/3/
VentureBeat - https://venturebeat.com/2015/05/18/why-the-creators-of-the-julia-programming-language-just-launched-a-startup/
Economic Times - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/why-amazon-disney-and-uber-are-courting-this-two-year-old-startup-julia-computing-viral-shah/articleshow/60169227.cms
Economic Times - https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/startups/julia-founders-commercialise-language-create-new-startup/47212849
Waters Technology - https://www.waterstechnology.com/industry-issues-initiatives/2476518/the-infancy-of-julia-an-inside-look-at-how-traders-and-economists-are-using-the-julia-programming-language

Apart from the papers cited above, Jeff Bezanson has various other talks and presentations at prestigious conferences (acceptance by peer review), which should count for significant online coverage, and much more than a passing reference, in my opinion:

PLISS 2017 - https://pliss2017.github.io/talks.html#JeffB
Curry On! 2015 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZTqMSM2ksY
Reflections|Projections 2014 - https://www-s.acm.illinois.edu/conference/2014/speakers/jeffbezanson.html
SPLASH-I 2013 - https://conf.researchr.org/track/splash-2013/splash-2013-SPLASH-I#Program
Lang.NEXT 2012 - https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2012/Julia
Strata NY 2012 - https://conferences.oreilly.com/strata/stratany2012/public/schedule/speaker/138943
ACM SIGPLAN Array '14 - https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2627373.2627383
PyData NCY '17 - https://pydata.org/nyc2017/schedule/presentation/86/
JuliaCon '17 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2LtJUe1q8c
JuliaCon '15 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUP3cSKb8sI

Podcasts with Jeff Bezanson (the first one is only with him, while the second one is with other Julia co-creators):

Software Engineering Daily Podcast interview with Jeff Bezanson - https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2016/11/08/julia-language-with-jeff-bezanson/
RCE 107 Podcast with all Julia creators- http://www.rce-cast.com/Podcast/rce-107-julia.html

ViralBShah (talk)

@ViralBShah: per this diff, shouldn't you state something in your !vote?

Regarding the sources you provided above were addressed in the nomination - the Wired interview (~4 paragraphs in an interview with him) as well as the waterstechnology piece (where he is mentioned a few times, mainly in list form, and So why the name, Julia? Is it named after a famous scientist? A wife or ex-girlfriend? Perhaps they're huge Julia Roberts fans? Shah just laughs and says there's no great story there: A friend of Bezanson suggested the name and the group fell in love with it and ran with it.. The rest of the media sources merely mention him in a list of founders. Speaking engagements, on Julia, in conferences do not confer notability, nor do interviews in podcasts.Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Yes, I did see that you noted the articles above, but I just thought I would provide a complete list of talks and articles. Even while some of the mentions are in passing, many of those articles are written based on collective interview (a clear example - the ArsTechnica one). Ultimately, I do not understand the the nuances of Wikipedia rules. I just wanted to make my case that as a creator of the increasingly popular Julia language, Jeff's wikipedia page should stay. I'm not sure what your question is in relation to the diff of my own Wikipedia page. ViralBShah (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, version 1.0 of Julia will be released soon (at least by June, probably earlier), after which I expect quite a few articles that will cite Bezanson. Even so, my guess is that Karpinski and Shah will continue to be more vocal and visible. Sanpitch (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Julia (programming language)#History. Wikipedia usually encourages people known for one notable thing to be added to that article. I'm not seeing independent coverage of him such as biographical info that would suggest he's independently notable. Since the company is just getting started, it does not have its own article yet, and this could just be WP:TOOSOON. A redirect allows the info to be salvaged in the future if appropriate. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:29, 15 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darmiyan Inc (Company)[edit]

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

Entirely based upon press releases and notices and other sources that do not show notability -- not clear if it has actually produced any licensed product. DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are finding nothing better than start-up coverage of the firm's proposition. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. AllyD (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find it on Bloomberg and Crunchbase, but no other third party sources other than a partial mention in this article (which is behind a paywall) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cait.123 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this an informative article. This article follows Wikipedia's main guidelines and policies: the company it's describing is notable for the respect it's received in the scientific community. Its core scientific methodology has been approved by Nobel Prize Laureate Medicine in 2000, Professor Greengard (WP:N). The records of the company being a member of Y-Combinator as well as SkyDeck is easily verifiable [91] (WP:V), and the content is by no indications commercial or biased with references to reliable sources (WP:RS). Other sources found on this article include:
- TechCrunch
- BBC
- Singularity Hub
- QZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.213.186 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are a noteworthy technology company, and their partnership with Y-Combinator (S17) is listed Here. Their membership with MBC BioLabs (QB3@953) is noted Here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masassali (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 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) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Studio[edit]

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

Not notable:minor awards, references are essentially press releasesor minor notices or inclusions in listings DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING This is promotion, written on behalf of Mason Studio. The list of "awards" is copied from http://mason-studio.com/recognition with the links removed to obscure their insignificance. The "Ryerson University Recognition of Merit" is not really an award, and things like an ARIDO Award of Merit is nothing more than the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario promoting its own members. Mduvekot (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like paid spam to me. - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm trying to learn here. No one paid me, I just randomly picked a well-known studio of my personal interested that is considered remarkable in the field. I did take the list of awards from their website, but included links to the original sources to back up the information. Thanks for the feedback, I've been making corrections as I get the messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPS86 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 7 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) 00:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness World Records in video game[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - You've not given any reason why these are nominated. Guinness Records are most honorable records, so records in various sectors can be added, there's nothing wrong with this. Ratsama (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Ratsama (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

See the responses below. It's a notable award, and that's why we've got an article about them at Guinness World Records. But us just regurgitating them in an article isn't how encyclopedia's work. Final Fantasy 7 is a notable video game too, but that doesn't mean we dump the game's script into an article called "Plot of Final Fantasy VII". Please read up at WP:NOT as far as many of the things that encyclopedia's don't do. This would be one of them. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratsama: Can you understand how it is problematic to essentially duplicate the contents of GWR here? GWR might not appreciate that as then people would have no reason to buy their books or consult their website. Eventually it would be seen as a copyright violation and be deleted anyway. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These articles aren't how Wikipedia entries are made. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I actually think it's a reasonably novel idea, but the current design doesn't even come close to suggesting the article is neccesary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is not a directory. I've suggested to the user that pursuing a category of subjects listed in GWR might be a better approach. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual Guinness entries would be appropriate on articles, but I would think that listing them all out in one place (which this list as the potential of) goes into copyvio territory as we have for things like Top 10 lists, since these are not purely "facts" (Guinness has to validate the record). --Masem (t) 14:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:COPYVIO. It is not our place to replicate all the Guinness World Records like this. They do that. That's their job. Not an encyclopedia's. If you want to find that information, go read their books or websites. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. MT Train^Discuss 06:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These are dangerously toeing the line of copyright violation at best, and there's not really a unified subject. Apart from being under the same basic medium, these records are only related inasmuch as they were all published in the same source.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Clear case of unencyclopedic subjects ☆ Bri (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Great idea, honestly, but awful execution. Title, content, sourcing, it's just all unencyclopedic. Deleting per WP:NOTDIRECTORY is fine by me in this case, but I do definitely foresee a future for an article somewhat like this, especially with articles like this, this, and this. ~Mable (chat) 09:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. TheDeviantPro (talk) 11:55, 11 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Singles[edit]

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

Simply does not meet WP: Notability. Unironically, President Trump's genitals have gotten more notability than this website. If anything it should be merged into Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, which itself does not meet WP:Notability either. KingForPA (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very substantial coverage in reliable independemt sources. Entry includes lots of cites to such coverage. This is an I don't like it nom. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FloridaArmy. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Bernie Singles website is defunct (and has been for most of this articles existence). If this were a notable websites, surely there would be sources noting and lamenting the loss. All of the information in the article is incredibly stale, and it can't be updated because after a brief flurry of media coverage the site retreated into permanent obscurity. Plantdrew (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NWEB and WP:NOTNEWS. A brief period of coverage does not translate into encyclopedic notability in this case, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of sources adequately covering this website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 14 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 consensus to delete as no one is recommending it. If someone wants to redirect, they can try doing it boldly, and if there is objection, take the discussion to the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Le Kov[edit]

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

Notability issue WP:N. I would recommend deleting it and redirecting to Gwenno Saunders. M A A Z T A L K 08:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why would need to delete it before redirecting it? And why didn't you try redirecting it before bringing it here? --Michig (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted opinions of other wikipedians before making any actions by myself. M A A Z T A L K 17:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ma'az: Be bold, redirect it. samee ^talk 17:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Fine. I'm redirecting it. M A A Z T A L K 17:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~But before I do that, can somebody plz close this AFD with the result redirect. M A A Z T A L K 17:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Comment. As nobody closed the AFD, so we will go by usual procedure. Voting will take place until a consensus is reached. M A A Z T A L K 13:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The procedure here has run off the rails a bit, so I also recommend redirecting to the singer's article for the time being. After the album is released, and if it gains some independent notability, the redirect can be reversed and that will be the appropriate time for an album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put (👍) . M A A Z T A L K 23:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably enough coverage to keep, certainly enough to make it worth having a go at expansion and taking it from there: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]. --Michig (talk) 19:44, 14 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) 02:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sia (technology)[edit]

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

Just another non-notable cryptocurrency. Article is wholly based off press releases and other closely connected sources, and there is no mention of the technology in media reports other than incidentally. Fails the GNG. Kb.au (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Kb.au's assessment. First, Sia is regularly in the top cryptocurrencies in terms of market capitalization. With regards to sources, I think it's a little disingenuous to call Forbes and the International Business Times "closely connected sources". I don't understand why you'd nominate this article for deletion, yet not nominate Filecoin (which doesn't even exist yet-- it's just a whitepaper at this point) or STORJ, which isn't even in the top 100 coins. Of all the blockchain technologies which are poised to revolutionize cloud storage Sia is the biggest player-- I'd argue that's very notable. Richard☺Decal (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard.decal - do you have more WP:RS than the entry in a single Forbes list? We need more than that for notability and to write more than a stub. The IB Times source is an interview so not independent - it doesn't count for GNG. It justifies the entry in List of cryptocurrencies, yes. Widefox; talk 00:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (weak) sourcing is weak failing/borderline GNG. There's many sources which are primary, or non-independent. Widefox; talk 00:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wifefox: I've labeled the article as a stub to bring it in line with the STORJ and Filecoin articles. Is that sufficient to avoid deletion until better sourcing can be found? Richard☺Decal (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard WP:OTHERSTUFF , WP:ALLORNOTHING , WP:ARBITRARY (top 100 coins) are arguments to avoid at AfD. Labelled stub or not doesn't matter, it's about if there's sources out there (doesn't have to be in the article), but availability is enough and posting here or in the article allows evaluation. Widefox; talk 16:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify paucity of secondary sources without any turning up here appears to fail or be borderline WP:GNG. As it may just need more sources, nothing against drafifying & AfC. Widefox; talk 16:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wish people would do a simple Google News search and you will find that the premise of the deletion nomination is off base. Coverage by mainstream and notable sources are significant and susbtantial:
- Motherboard [97]
- Computerworld [98]
- Boston Globe [99]
- Ars Technica [100]
- Bloomberg [101]

Folks, the cryptocurrency crusade to round up and delete crypto articles is getting ridiculous. Yes, the mania around crypto in popular culture is irrational but that should not cloud our judgment around notability and verifiability. Remember, we do have an article about tulip mania. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one article, rather than one for each tulip colour, but I agree there's borderline stuff. The issue is WP:PRIMARYNEWS isn't it? Widefox; talk 22:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ding ding ding! This wins the poor analogy prize of the week. We have articles on multiple gold and precious metal rushes, so there is well-established precedent in addressing these individually. See: List of commodity booms -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fuzheado Why did you start the analogies "tulip mania", "gold"/"precious metal" "commodity booms" and the hyperbole/AGF "crusade" then?! It's WP:OTHERSTUFF anyhow, not "precedent". If you check my edit history, you'll see even the creator has notability doubts about their article creation flourish, and I'm here from scrutinising their edits to eliminate any COI/promo concerns coming from WP:COIN. That makes your anti-crypto POV pushing assumption AGF, and factually, provably wrong. No prize, put away the soap box.

So, my point is obviously that we already have Cryptocurrency bubble (and List of cryptocurrencies), and the granularity of what's a notable topic inside the bubble is debatable. Yes, we do have articles on companies in the Dot-com bubble, but even multi billion dollar market cap ones don't have articles. Is it WP:TOOSOON / WP:RECENTISM is the question, as there's sources, but I repeat PRIMARYNEWS. Take the Arstechnica source title Investors poured millions into a storage network that doesn’t exist yet (emphasis own), that source is arguably about notability for the Cryptocurrency bubble, rather than the vaporware (at time of publishing). Widefox; talk 13:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per Widefox's rationales. An article about something which ~~doesn't (yet) exist and which may therefore~~ is yet to demonstrate that it is notable in and of itself rather than as part of a larger trend is something which is clearly written too soon. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. You are cherry picking one old article. See the other ones cited. It does exist and is operating as you can see from the map of active hosts [102]. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale amended. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzheado, that's kind of my point - there's a paucity of qualify secondary sources telling about this interesting topic, Ars Technica Aug 2017 cited is out of date. Yes, only 6 months old. Computerworld 2018 updates - says 1,000 hosts in 50 countries. The Bloomberg source is about ICOs with this being an example, how can we build an article on so few quality sources for what this is? Widefox; talk 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Widefox. If anything, the sourcing here demonstrates how non-notable the subject is. Simply being mentioned is not the same as significant coverage, and it can be part of an example about a larger trend, which it is here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 15 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. Per Dom, as the sources don't seem to satisfy CORPDEPTH. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soybean Processors Association of India[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG part of a series of articles created by a WP:SPA with a probable undeclared WP:COI Dom from Paris (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search on news found significant number of references to the company/association which will satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. I agree with the observation of Dom from Paris regarding SPA. The article has to be rewritten from a NPOV standpoint. --Hagennos (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and I agree that the association comes up a good number of times in articles but from what I could see there was very little in depth coverage and most were "according to SOPA..." SOPA figures state that..." and this kind of thing. Most of the articles that I found are in my opinion information that has been fed to the sources by this organisation about soya. It is the significance of coverage that I am concerned about and not the number of GHITS. i had a look at a dozen or so sources and I couldn't find any coverage of the association itself. Could you maybe add some here? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per Dom's reasoning.I'm willing to change my stand, shall anything more significant is churned out.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:46, 11 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 keep. Issues resolved and nominaton withdrawal (non-admin closure) samee ^talk 12:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yevhen Zhovtyak[edit]

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

Notability issue WP:N. No sources mentioned to affirm notability. M A A Z T A L K 08:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, reconsider it. The article has been updated and all the issues were resolved. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am a little surprised that you being an experienced user created this page without mentioning any sources, etc. And then I added the tags for the past 3 days, and still the issues weren't resolved. Anyways, I see the issues are resolved now, and the article passes the subject specific guidelines, therefore I would like to co-operate with you on this and withdraw my nomination :). M A A Z T A L K 17:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing appears adequate as the subject meets WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a former member of parliament, which is sufficient for notability. --Michig (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The referencing does need improvement, I'll grant, but verifiably serving in a national parliament is a must-keep per WP:NPOL. So this can and should absolutely be flagged for {{refimprove}}, because even an elected legislator still requires more than just the primary source website of the legislature he served in before the article can be considered properly referenced or good, but there's no valid notability question. GNG only requires that solid sources exist, not that they're already all in the article as written, so there are certain notability claims which are considered important enough that an inadequately sourced article is still allowed to remain in place pending the addition of better sources — and verifiably serving in a national parliament is one of those. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 7 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Park (Bethel, Connecticut)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. There is no significant reliable source coverage. Even the town's website has virtually no information on the park. Rusf10 (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no proof of notability, and coverage is unlikely to exist outside of local sources. PROD was declined commentless, so we don't know why someone felt this was controversial. Deletion makes sense here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 15 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) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Park (Linthicum, Maryland)[edit]

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

A very small park, fails WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely not a small park. Includes several athletic fields, a recreation center and other amenities on 20 acres in a populated area. Covered in various books and official documents.

FloridaArmy (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC) FloridaArmy (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure what the editor who !voted keep was looking at, since they offered no links. Searches turned up virtually nothing except brief mentions or simple listings. Searches included using "Overlook Park" + Linthicum, Maryland and "Overlook Park" + Linthicum. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:GEOFEAT. And the size of the park is irrelevant (unless its size makes it notable, as in "smallest public park in the U.S., etc.). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of meeting GNG or any SNG. The directions are copied straight from [103]. Based on the overhead picture on their site, there's a baseball field, a soccer field, and two tennis courts, which is completely WP:MILL for a park. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:10, 14 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. Someone can create a redirect afterwards at editorial discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige Institute of Management and Research[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. It is unsourced and contains just 2 external links to the organisation's own web sites Dom from Paris (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did the nom do WP:BEFORE? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He did and all he could find was routine coverage and churnalism. If you've got some sources please don't hesitate to add them here or on the page. There has to be multiple in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding a tremendous amount of coverage "Prestige+Institute+of+Management+and+Research"&tbm=nws in a simple Google News search with dozens of articles covering the school, its academic programs, events and other issues. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite them.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya--Typical CORP-PROMO.Miles short of any encyclopedic coverage and thus, fails GNG.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing enough coverage. The Google hits are various cookie-cutter directories of colleges, which are likely designed to generate ad revenue. Here's the sum total of all the media coverage they've gotten, as linked to on their web site.[[104]] From what I can read in English, there's little indepth coverage of the school - it's just coverage of speeches or other events at the school. Fails WP:GNG. I'm unclear whether there's enough of a reason to redirect to Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya. The sources mention an affiliation but beyond that I can't tell. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:38, 14 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 Siva (director). J04n(talk page) 14:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viswasam[edit]

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

No indication of satisfying WP:NFF. Non notable Director. Completely unsourced. Barely a stub. David.moreno72 13:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Subject currently fails the notability guideline for future films. I added some sources that confirm the cast and existence of the film but the principal photography not yet begun, and is not scheduled until next month. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 06:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Siva till the shoot starts. Editor 2050 (talk) 17:00, 9 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 based on the strength of the arguments, which favour deletion in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric (Eliezer) Kornhauser[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Article "references" are single line entries or very, very brief mentions. reddogsix (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 15:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 15:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 15:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are four reasons for notability: 1. He is notable as a member of one of Australia's richest families, and manages the family funds, 2. The articles in connection to the Canberra community may have mentioned him only briefly, but in connection to every element of the community, painting a picture of someone who has backed the entire community centre and is highly involved, 3. He started his own school and installed himself as principal, which is well documented and in the mainstream press, 4. He seems to have his finger in the pie of many communal organisations, funding many elements of the Jewish community in Melbourne. I found many such sources but did not include them all for brevity, but will find them and include them. (Smellytap (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately these are not reasons to include an individual in Wikipedia. Please demonstrat how you think these items meet the criteria in WP:N or WP:BIO. The article lacks in-depth, non-trivial support. To be specific: item 1-Being a member of a rich family is not a reason for inclusion, even if the family is notable, notability is not inherited. Neither is managing someone's funds. Item 2-Backing a community is not a criteria listed in WP:N or WP:BIO. Item 3-Starting his own school and installing himself as principal s not a criteria in listed in WP:N or WP:BIO. Item 4-See the above items. reddogsix (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing very substantial coverage of this man and his activities in the articles cited in this entry. The father has been dead for more than a decade. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What I see are a number of single line entries and extremely brief mentions. The article lacks in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney. This article as just one example, is entirely about his role with his wife of establishing a school. It notes their very large net worth and includes a photo of the couple. It isn't about anyone else's work. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far from it. The only item close to "in-depth" is the first paragraph. The rest of the article talks about the dispute, the complaints against the school, and the school. reddogsix (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The school that HE started and was running out of HIS house. Who are yoi trying to fool? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fool? I suggest you assume good faith and quit looking for hidden meaning. At least if you wish to continue, leave the message on my talk page rather than clutter up the AfD. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" The school section that is his own pet project alone contains sources from a number of Chabad news sites, Fairfax (both dailies and Fin Review) and Murdoch in Australia. "significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" The various articles discussing the Canberra community show him as a principal funder of all the various elements of the community, and the various sources that have him as a patron show him to be a significant philanthropist in the community (Smellytap (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately single line entries or very, very brief mentions do not constitute significant coverage. reddogsix (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is building a clear picture of the person and his philanthropy which is undeniable. His relationship with the school is also notable in its own rights, also undeniable. The question therefore is what skin do you have in this game that you are so desperate to have this page shut down, because it seems an open and shut case to leave it open.(Smellytap (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Sorry for the attack, but it is frustrating where I have demonstrated that he is the principal funder of an entire community, and has started a school and installed himself as principle. It is hard for me to fathom how this is not notable. And you have yet to demonstrate how this is not notable, since it has been reported in mainstream and international Jewish press. There are numerous articles I have seen on Wikipedia based on fewer and lower quality sources. (Smellytap (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Being a principal at a school is not the level of advancement that allows presumed notability; non notable as a businessperson either. I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV under WP:ANYBIO. What comes up is minor controversies relating to the school and routine mentions of legal actions against the school -- that's insufficient material for a bio article. It's a "delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a quick glance at the sources reveals little indepth coverage of him personally. With the controversies, there's actually more to justify an article on the school than on him, but still not quite enough. I googled him to see if there's any sourcing that is missing, and couldn't find any. This is a textbook case of notability not being inherited. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:18, 14 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) 14:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answerbag[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable website. Whiterasner (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Cnet and TechCrunch articles cited, among others, give very substantial coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NWEB and significant RS coverage not found. I was unable to find the Cnet coverage. TechCrunch indiscriminately covers anyone; this source is not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No significant coverage by third party sources. I was able to find a lot of mentions in articles about other things, which is not enough to meet notability criteria. Cait.123 (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Basically per Cait.123, I tried and can't seem to find any coverage from third party sources. All of the Cnet sources from the last AFD are gone as well, --Church ^Talk 01:29, 9 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. Renaming is an editorial decision. Sandstein 10:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady of Bangladesh[edit]

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

This post fail WP:NOTABILITY, this post is not official and as far as my knowledge, except Rowshan Ershad, none of President's wife hadn't even addressed as First Lady Bangladesh . It is a pure unnotable invention. So, I think this article should be deleted. Ominictionary (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to List of spouses of Prime Ministers of Bangladesh, and purge of all the "First Lady" peacockery. I have just added the page to Category:Lists of spouses of national leaders which has many similar lists. The lists are of encyclopedic value, since the spouses have an (often unofficial) public role.
Unfortunately there a few editors who seem obsessed with imposing the United States title of "First Lady" on countries which use it neither formally nor informally. They even glorify the pages with infoboxes, complete with crests etc, to strengthen the false claim that these are formal titles.
I have done some cleanup (e.g. First Ladies and Gentlemen of Finland moved[105] to Spouses of Presidents of Finland and cleaned [106]), but many more remain to be done. However, the solution is cleanup, not deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The subject definitely is notable. Suggest renaming to Spouses of Presidents of Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911: Spouse of Bangladeshi president hardly do anything or get any significient coverage. They are not notable topic. Thanks. Ominictionary (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No professional historian or political analyst would advocate the deletion of this type of content. The role may be unofficial, but it exists, as do the individuals who have held it. And I also advocate keeping the unofficial title of First Lady here. Scanlan (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- A wikipedia article needs significant coverage. Can anyone show significant depth coverage for this article. Given citation in the article are all passing. So I would suggest my fellow editor who wish to vote keep, to present some depth coverage at the first place, in which bases wikipedia could think of keeping the article and then vote kor keep. Ominictionary (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, a valid list. My very best wishes (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BHG.Not being official is hardly a justification for deletion and many notable positions exist only by convention (e.g. most Prime Ministers in Westminster systems). A rename should be considered though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.UnteenthSense (talk) 03:47, 14 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 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 3. Sandstein 10:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Newman[edit]

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

Unremarkable person. No evidence given of notability. Challenging for the nomination for a state seat does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the page since she has a chance to defeat a sitting congressman in a closely watched primary election. I edited to article to include more sources as well as neutral sources. Many other candidates for public office have their own Wikipedia page, so this page being deleted would be unprecedented. Political Geek (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRYSTAL, notability cannot depend on what someone might do in the future. Does she have any accomplishments that warrant her being considered notable now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 3, which is what I did with it a few weeks ago. Her name is a reasonable search term for someone looking into Lipinski's challenger. But, she's not notable per WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. She might win, but yeah, that's WP:CRYSTAL (and an uphill battle against an incumbent with second generation name recognition). Deleting this page because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not "unprecedented". It's common going into U.S. House elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to the election article. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet non-winning candidates in future elections — we're an encyclopedia, not a repository of campaign brochures — and being prophesized as having a chance to defeat the incumbent is not enough in and of itself to make her special, because every candidate in any election could or would always at least try to claim that. Non-winning candidates can still clear the bar if (a) they already had preexisting notability for some other reason independent of the candidacy (e.g. having already held another notable office, already having cleared our notability standards for their other pre-political work, etc.), or (b) the amount of coverage they get explodes far beyond what any candidate in any election could simply expect to receive (e.g. Christine O'Donnell, whose witch fiasco got her so much nationalized and internationalized coverage that she actually has a longer and more deeply sourced article than the guy she lost to does.) But neither of those things are true here. So no prejudice against recreation in November if she actually wins the seat, but nothing present here already qualifies her to have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the race, she has received National press coverage from major outlets such as CNN, the Chicago Sun-Times and the HuffPost.^[1]^[2]^[3] Political Geek (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Newman is not the subject of any of those pieces, and the Chicago Sun-Times is local to her own district and so its WP:ROUTINE local coverage of local races doesn't assist. A candidate does not get boosted above the notability bar just because sources have namechecked her existence in the expected coverage of congressional races — every candidate in any congressional seat at all could always point to a handful of that. If CNN had switched from focusing on the race to focusing specifically on her, then that would count for something — but getting namechecked in a blurb on "ten races to watch" does not make her the subject of that coverage, and the Chicago Sun-Times giving the expected local coverage to the congressional races in its own local coverage area does not assist the notability of the candidates at all. We need nationalized sources to give her substantive coverage about her, not just to mention that she exists, before they contribute notability points. The coverage needs to explode significantly beyond what any candidate could simply expect to receive before it makes her candidacy special — and getting mentioned in a "ten races to watch" listicle is not at all outside of what could simply be expected. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for the time being. If she wins the primary then restore. MB298 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree to the page being deleted and if she wins the primary on March 20th, I will recreate it. I’m sure if she wins, she will meet likely meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia.—Political Geek (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, even winning the primary isn't grounds for a Wikipedia article. To qualify for inclusion, she will need to win the general election in November, not just the primary to become the general election candidate.

Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If she wins the primary, she would receive extensive press coverage from many National media outlets. But that’s a discussion we’ll have at a later date if she wins the primary.—Political Geek (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Unseating of an incumbent in a primary is something that happens only very rarely, so I'd suspect that such a victory would be notable enough to have an article about. I doubt it will come to that as I don't think she will win the primary, but we'll see. MB298 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't be notable in and of itself. It may be rare, but it's definitely not unheard of, so it's not in and of itself enough to make a candidate permanently notable just for the fact of being a candidate per se. For one thing, even if the coverage of that fact did go national as Political Geek predicts, it would still only make her a person notable only for a single event. She still has to win the general election to earn inclusion in an encyclopedia that measures its topics by the ten-year test for enduring significance rather than the current newsiness test. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/democratic-primaries-to-watch-2018/index.html
^ https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/schakowsky-gutierrez-endorsing-lipinski-democratic-primary-rival-marie-newman/
^ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ten-democratic-primaries-to-watch-in-2018_us_5a4d652fe4b0b0e5a7aad4d5

Redirect and maybe partially merge the non-copyright-violation parts (if any) to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 3. WP:POLITICIAN and WP:COPYVIO problems. She'd be pretty much inherently notable once sworn into Congress, but that's 10 months and two elections away. (To be fair, if she won the primary, she'd probably win the general, because the "Republican" on the ballot is Art Jones, a straight-up Nazi.) In any case, the resulting article would have to be re-written from scratch, because the only versions so far are basically just Wikipedia:Copy-paste from campaign advertising: see source #4 below for example. Using the criteria from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject":
1. Newman's campaign site, so doesn't count for notability.
2. Independent, "Meet the progressive Democrat taking on one of her party's most conservative Congress veterans": This article is an item of significant coverage about Newman, independent of the subject, apparently published under the Independent main masthead content (not a blog), and certainly can't be mistaken for "local" in scope.
3. Joliet Herald-News, "Q&A: Marie Newman talks run for Congress against Dan Lipinski": borders on "significant" and "independent" — but it's the (major) local paper her area — but it's perhaps marginally more than "routine" local coverage
4. Chicago Tribune, Daily Southtown newsletter, "Slowik: Lipinski facing Democratic challenger Newman in March primary": Covers both Lipinski and Newman. It's probably the kind of coverage that the Chicago Tribune would give to any congressional candidates in the metro, but it does go into some detail on her. It also contains the line: "I am a small businesswoman, entrepreneur, national nonprofit executive, author and rights advocate," which exactly matches every version of this Wikipedia article, so it's probably a copyright violation from day one.
5. Chicago Tribune, "Morning Spin: Lipinski facing challenge from progressive Democrat in Southwest Side congressional district": About Newman's announcement that she's in. Not significant: it's just the first short item of many in the "Morning Spin" article that comes out every weekday.
6. YouTube: Newman's campaign, so doesn't count for notability.
And the sources given in this deletion discussion:
1. CNN, "9 Democratic primaries to watch in 2018": Title speaks for itself; short summary of 9 different campaigns around the country. Not significant coverage of Newman specifically.
2. Chicago Sun-Times, "Schakowsky, Gutierrez endorsing Lipinski Democratic primary rival Marie Newman": Metro newspaper. Covers a bit about Newman, and a bit more about Lipinski. Probably the sort of coverage the Sun-Times would feel duty-bound to give any candidate; however, the news in this case was a bit unusual, in that two nearby Democratic members of Congress endorsed Newman, which is the same as saying the incumbent congressman on their own ticket should lose the primary. Might marginally count as significant.
3. HuffPost, "10 Democratic Primaries To Watch In 2018": Title speaks for itself; short summary of 10 races. Not significant coverage of Newman specifically.
To me, that doesn't get us there — most losing candidates with some kind of shot would still get that much coverage, and that coverage is due only to the election, which makes the person a subject that is not separately notable from the event. --Closeapple (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is basically a campaign advert. Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 3 per Closeapple. The election is notable, even if the subject may not (yet) be. --Enos733 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 3 - I agree that she will likely meet WP:GNG if she wins the primary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update A note to say I started putting the entry in order for the sake of trying to make up my mind about this AfD, and so far I've identified 7 10 national or international secondary sources outside Chicago/Illinois writing about her. I'll see what else I can turn up, but I find this increasingly borderline... ETA: the entry's becoming more and more substantial, based on independent secondary RS, which is of course WP:WHYN in the first place. Moreover, there's more to add that I have not yet, with a great many of these sources holding up the subject as an important example of broader historical phenomena. I'm leaning toward keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable, unelected candidate for congress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 13 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. Sandstein 10:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shining Days[edit]

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

Not a valid disambiguation page; only includes Chinese TV shows and episodes which don't have stand-alone pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DABENTRY says:

"Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily."

"Primary" is not "only". This implies other purposes exist for disambiguation pages besides finding other articles. That said, I still linked to articles, even if the TV series do not have articles yet, they are award-winning and their actors do have pages which mention the series. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Disambiguations can have links that are actually redirects to existing articles for valid reasons. An example is Great White (disambiguation). Leo1pard (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:21, 7 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. Sandstein 10:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Budeikin[edit]

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

The subject of the page does not meet WP:GNG. Majority of sources are not Reliable Sources and the subject receives a trivial mention and not at all in some sources. Subject is known for one event and is covered adequately in the Blue Whale (game) article WP:NOPAGE 8==8 Boneso (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, does the Blue Whale game classify as a video game? Or can I remove it from the list of Video Games AfDs? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue whale is not a video game. I think it should be removed from that category. This article is about Budeikin & its claimed that he is a video game programmer so I thought I would let the let the consensus decide. The Blue Whale (game) page had a video game infobox at one stage but ie was deleted, never to return. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fall into BLp1E territory. If it's redirected it should be to Blue Whale (game)#Russia. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't provide any proof that he is a video games designer at all. Just says he is. If his only known works is as part of the Blue Whale game, then he's no video game designer. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Whale (game)#Russia. This article started out as a redirect to Blue Whale (game). It was expanded into something like its current form a few months later, but the text adds virtually nothing that doesn't already appear in the target. The original idea of redirecting to the article on the game was the right choice back then, and it remains so today. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue Whale (game)#Russia as there is a precedent but I would also consider a delete if the consensus falls that way. The subject matter comes under WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:SINGLEEVENT, and is barely covered by reliable sources, the subject is already more comprehensively and better covered on the Blue Whale page, which includes summary of the reliability of the reports about the individual’s actual involvement and a broader overview of the social phenomenon. Mramoeba (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Budeikin is known for creating a game that exists only as an urban myth. He is named as being a curator of death groups in Russia by a single source. All news articles relating to Budeikin and the creation of the Blue Whale (game) are traceable back to that single source being Novaya Gazeta. He is known for a single event that did not happen. A quick look at WP:NOT#NEWS shows that Budeikin fits item 2. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. and item 3. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. No-one will remember who Budeikin is in 4-5 years. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is already covered in the Blue Whale article at sufficient length, which points out that Budeikin's actual involvement is suspect in the first place. I totally agree with Boneso's assessment. No way does this rate a separate article. RobP (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically agree with everything Boneso said. In fact even despite knowing his name I didn't put two and two together when I saw this pop up on AfD. Much better suited to the Blue Whale article page instead. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought the Blue Whale Game page explained that it is not real, only a urban legend? So how can there be someone who started the "game"? How can there be a page for someone who was arrested for creating something that does not exist? The majority of these citations do not explain why Budeikin is notable enough to have a WP page.Sgerbic (talk) 06:20, 12 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. Sandstein 10:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asato Ikeda[edit]

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

Article was de-PRODded with comment that AfD can hash it out. So I ask, does this person meet WP:NPROF? Doesn't seem to to me -- assistant professor, no evidence of great scholarship to meet criteria. Two of the six sources (#5 and #6) are about a single exhibition that they curated, not about the subject. One is standard university CV (#1), another is standard staff directory listing (#2). Another is about an upcoming book (#4). Where's the beef? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations are very low, the highest apparently 8; Art and War in Japan and its Empire has been cited five times. The 'third gender' exhibition received coverage (not surprisingly); its curator did not. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Observations here are consistent with why PROF does not generally consider entry-level academics to be notable. Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - This is just wrong, she is positively notable. She is the author of two volumes on subjects almost nobody else is writing about in English. Secondly she created and curated an important exhibition which originated at a National Gallery that of Canada. To then take that as a point of departure and use the word associate as in associate professor as the operative term of paramount insignificance when what is of importance is her accomplishments elsewhere regardless of that it is just words. Next people's placement within a hierarchy includes many variables which account for nothing as per the rest of their totality. Thirdly she is a Japanese woman operating in the West in the forefront of her field as an art historian and art professional bringing rare knowledge of precious antique Japanese art to the public and writing about it in notable publications. She is notable.38.81.108.227 (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, she's doing the type of work typical of an academic. Every research academic is an expert in their particular field. What is lacking is notice/impact of her work. This rarely comes at the asst level. Agricola44 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- What on Earth does her curating an exhibition at a museum or wiritng a book have to do with her being an assistant professor it makes no sense one has nothing to do with the other. Why are you set on stereotyping academics what is your fixation on hierarchies as sell-fulfilling determinations of notability it is just absurd. The effect my dear debate acquaintance is that she brought the appearance of the third gender the intersex persons in historical Japanese art to the public by curating the exhibition in major venues and writing. She is writing about art from one hemisphere in another one entirely different culture in another. She is helping to extend our notion of who humans have been what roles they have played at different times in different societies and some who are looking for it to mirror changes now here. She is also essaying other topics like Japanese and armor and japanese contemporary art,, she is bridging gaps and building perspective and that is one of the ways in which we learn. Her speaking on the exhibition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM1vThzF6Rw and here almost 25,00 views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3iHjynkM3o 38.81.108.227 (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us here know a great deal of how academia works. You are oversubscribing the significance of "novelty" and "discovery" of her work in the following sense. All scholarly work, by definition, generates "discoveries" (scientific, artistic, mathematical, etc). It is the minimum by which one retains their position. What is required here is that these discoveries are "notable", as opposed to incremental, unimportant, etc., etc. "Notable" can mean many things, a reasonable summary of which is contained in WP:PROF. What my !vote is based on is the fact that, as the nom summarized, there are no obvious signs that this person is anything beyond an average entry-level professor. May be notable in the future, but that would remain to be determined. Hope that soothes and clarifies. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-I just put she is also a post-doctoral fellow38.81.108.227 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cat-in-tree videos get 25,000 views too [107]. Doesn't make the incident or the rescuer notable. Ditto for postdocs: there were 68,000 of them just in biomedical fields in 2014 [108]. It is highly unlikely either one of these criteria are relevant in this debate. Unless this is to become an indiscriminate collection of cats in trees and tens or hundreds of thousands of postdocs. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Userfy I don't think she quite clears the bar, but with some coverage of her curating work already and a solo-author book apparently on the way, I could see that changing over the next year or so. The article as it currently stands does not look overly promotional to me, so we might as well hang on to it in draft or user space. As a side note, I think this is a case where we're far enough into the humanities that GS citation metrics won't be very illuminating. Per WP:PROF, "in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries)". XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. That's why we've long used WorldCat and DGG's rule-of-thumb of at least 2 good books from reputed publishers to make judgements under the PROF umbrella in this area. Agricola44 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the work here comes even close to meeting notability criteria. Holders of post-doctoral fellowships are rarely notable, and nothing here suggests otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 12 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. Sandstein 10:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Sufian[edit]

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

The cited sources for this contemporary poet (active 2016-present) are: two group blogs (Hall of Poets and Poem Hunter); the publications in which his poetry has appeared (6); an interview in one of those publications (Scarlet Leaf Review); a newspaper story announcing one of those publications, based heavily on an interview; and, in external links, what appears to be a press release regarding that same publication, repeated nearly verbatim in several outlets.

All of which show he's published, and perhaps has a publicist, but not that he has gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Searches of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project MUSE, and Questia found nothing that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Worldbruce (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is Wikipedia:TOOSOON. Maybe he might be notable in the future but it's too early in his career.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blogs are not the type of sources we need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Non notable. Should be deleted as A7. - Mar11 (talk) 18:21, 10 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. Sandstein 09:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Chen[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF. Assistant professor; citations given by the article are all primary sources (his research) by the subject or his university. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delte Does not meet any of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 13 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. Sandstein 09:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Augustine of Canterbury Church[edit]

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

The parish history discloses the typical story of a RC parish started in the 1950s: a building of no special note, a school which has been forced to retrench after the baby boom, and a series of pastors, none of them of particular note. No other claim of notability is made in the article. Mangoe (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Only third party coverage of this church that I could find are notifications of events (funerals, weddings) that are to take place at the church. I could not locate any articles or significant mentions anywhere other than the website about the church itself. Cait.123 (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- A typically NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we want to create article on every Catholic parish in the world, there is no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 14 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. Sandstein 09:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Asimov[edit]

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

Non-notable writer and academician; does not meet WP:GNG, nor the specific guidelines WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. The entire basis for notability is that she was the second wife of Isaac Asimov. Isaac, of course, is very notable, but his notability does not extend to a family member who does not herself have any basis for notability independent of her spouse; see WP:NOTINHERIT.

I PRODded it, but it was removed with the comment "wrote her own novels", which misses the point. There's no indication that her novels were notable or that she is a notable novelist. TJRC (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak keep. A couple of her books (not in collaboration with Isaac) have been reviewed (poorly,[109][110] but that and her association/collaboration with her husband is just barely sufficient IMO). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the plethora of mediocre reviews uncovered by XOR'easter. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Repeatedly reviewed: [111][112][113][114][115].

Gene Shaw, in a review for the Library Journal, remarked that [Notes for a Memoir, 2006] is “a fun read for Isaac Asimov fans,” but also acknowledged that the author’s writings about Isaac’s death and her resulting grief are poignant and moving. In a contribution for Booklist, reviewer Carl Hays opined of Janet Asimov: “She impresses with her knack for entertaining while informing.” A reviewer for the Analog SF Web site called the book “an eloquent reflection on life and love with Asimov and the importance of imagination. Bardi, writing for the Humanist, concurred, stating that “one concludes that these two writers learned muc from one another, shared an immense understanding, and filled volumes in the other’s heart and mind.” [116]

Elsewhere, a Kirkus review says, "This Asimov writes more smoothly than the other one, but does less playing with ideas" [117]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another review of Notes for a Memoir: "Her work stands with his: holding hands, perhaps, but on its own feet" [118]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly strong keep with the evidence provided by XOR'easter . Sadads (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An absurd nomination and PROD as it is easy to find detailed coverage including the SF Encyclopedia and Contemporary Authors. Andrew D. (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I understand the nomination, with almost all the current sources being from works closely connected to or by Asimov, it is clear that her body of work and outside sources show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 13 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. Sandstein 09:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yohan Poonawalla[edit]

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

Does not pass notability for WP:NBIO as per norm this article to be deleted and merged with the company. Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 02:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best claim of notability in the article is "billionaire businessman". Even with that statement, this fails WP:NBIO. Brad v 05:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Also appears to have been created by the subject himself: Special:Contributions/Yohan_Poonawalla & edited by a promo sock farm, which is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MediaTribe. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 11 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. Sandstein 09:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manami Yoshii[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, passing mentions, industry PR materials, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our insanely over braod notability guidelines for pornographic actresses. Do not get me started on how many more articles we have on Japanese ponographic actresses than Japanese women poets, the discrepency is sickening.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually meant to cite Category:Japanese women judges, which has 3 to the pornographic film actresses 112. The Japanese women poets category has 80 entries, not quite as out of line, but still less than the pornographic film actresses, and still a point of gripes for years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 13 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) 13:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Levido[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. The player still has not played in first grade. No significant coverage found either. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for rugby players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 12 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. Sandstein 09:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kia Provo[edit]

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

No sources for over a year. Page creator seems to have abandoned it. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most notable thing about this vehicle is that the DUP didn't like the name. Not enough content in the article that it would be a loss deleting it even if we were able to demonstrate notability down the line. (Vermont mentioned this AfD on IRC) -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 00:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to my draft space This appears to be the concept that inspired the Kia Stonic, I can find a number of sources online which shows its debut plus another on Kia's own web. If it is moved to my draft space I can work on it as and when I find the most appropriate info for it. Nightfury 08:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User:Nightfury/sandbox/Kia Provo could work, as long as it's not abandoned. _{Vermont | reply here} 13:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 14 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) 01:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahfuz Alam Beg[edit]

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

The cited sources are passing mentions of his name, usually in lists, e.g. "... and many other freedom fighters" and "among those who participated in the fight in the region were ..." Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project MUSE, and Questia find him mentioned every December in the sentence "The collaborators [in the city of Barisal] surrendered to Nurul Islam Manjur, the then district Awami League secretary and organiser of liberation movement in Barisal, and Mahfuz Alam Beg, sub-sector commander, without any bloodshed on December 18 [two days after Pakistani forces surrendered in Dacca]." This extent of coverage does not meet WP:BIO or WP:SOLDIER. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking through the Hindi sources, all of them give Beg only passing mention. The article contains a small amount of OR (I don't see in the sources that he was "Sub-sector Commander in Sector -9", nor that he "trained up men and women", for instance), and the sources do not clearly let the article overcome NPOV concerns. His membership in the so-called "hardcore of sergeants" (হার্ড কোর অব সার্জেন্টস) which is supposedly discussed in a book titled "সীমাহীন সমর" could lend notability,[119] but I don't find any information about that. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone who feels there might be notability in Beg's connection to "hardcore of sergeants" should take note of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard Core Sergeants. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to confirm notability or some of the information in the article. Sector commanders receive plenty of coverage which he has not received. Trying to find news articles or searching google book showed nothing to demonstrate notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:35, 9 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juan E. González[edit]

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

Can't find any indication of notability. Natureium (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn't have a GS profile, but counting manually, I get his h-index as 26, just a bit higher than the one that SCOPUS computes — they put him at 24. This isn't the most slam-dunk pass of WP:PROF#C1 that I've ever seen, but it's arguable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter's findings.--IndyNotes (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per XOR'easter's assessment. González's works have an impact in his field as shown in the citation rates in Google Scholars. Thsmi002 (talk) 00:28, 7 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) 13:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Sanbrooke[edit]

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

Clearly self-written; included details about own garden shed. Now local newspapers removed, no longer verifiable, that is, unsourced in large parts. –Sb 2001 11:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I previously tidied up this page and massively reduced the amount of redundant detail or stuff that seemed to be self written. Or exaggerations that he is a well known charity figure and businessman because he made a donation once and ran a town hall scare zone for a bit (all unsourced obviously). I don't see what can be learnt from this page to be honest.Woombamillio (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep local news sources are reliable sources and should not be removed just because they are local. I've restored them and if you remove them again will ask for admin intervention. There is no evidence it is self written and the shed details are part of his youtube content and well known. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306: local newspapers are tabloids, which are not considered reliable. If you have a problem with me removing them, take it to WP:RSN. Otherwise, ask for intervention, if you like. Your threatening of it is enough for me to ask for action against you, so it is not going to get anywhere. His garden shed has no place on a Wikipedia article; I have removed that again. I have some strong concerns about your tone in these discussions. I shall review some of your other contributions to AfDs, talk pages, etc. –Sb 2001 17:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not consider local newspapers to count as tabloids in the sense of being sensationalist and scandal mongering. Regarding my tone I apologise as I thought you were removing them without a reason. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306 and Sb2001: You're both wrong and behaving terribly. On the one hand, local media is not inherently unreliable, and simply being local is not sufficient reason to remove a source; there need to be other indications that a particular source isn't reliable. On the other hand, removing a source on that pretext once, though wrong, is not sufficient reason to threaten escalation. Get a grip, both of you, BRD, and go beyond. —swpb^{T go beyond} 15:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see anything of note that makes Sanbrooke any more notable then others on youtube, if his channel is notable then that should have an article, as a subject he is a bit like a BLP1E MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable youtuber. Article cites only local coverage. Sandstein 09:47, 14 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 Alberto Frigo. J04n(talk page) 20:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tebahism[edit]

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

I very much doubt that the subject is in any way notable, and the listing of dead individuals such as August Sander as belonging to the 'movement' really sets of the (polite word) nonsense detector bells ringing. Whether the perpetrator, one Alberto Frigo is notable is, of course, another matter. If there is any substance to this movement I am sure it can be contained in the biog. TheLongTone (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While editing the Alberto Frigo wiki page I realized that the discussion revolving around his Tebahism idea was way too long to include within it. I therefore begun sourcing out what he meant with it. Alas i am not done going through his publication and exhibitions he has curated with contemporary artists on the subject. I think I can improve this tomorrow, or do you or anyone have other recommendations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turekka (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done more research and updated the page with further references. There more work to be done however and I do get TheLongTone comment concerning whether or not to use the word 'movement'. One could better use the word 'phenomenon' or 'theoretical framework' however it came to my mind that Outsider Art is also a movement where artists are not enlisting to. The association with a movement might occur posthumously. Tebahism in this respect is a valuable way to look at artistic practices especially from a media standpoint. I am trying to do further reading on the subject. There is a confusion of terms life-stowing, minor data, self-tracking etc. but will try to pursue the research as I find it a valuable way to look into present and past art. I have other reading on my list. Turekka (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Alberto Frigo where this is covered. Reads like patent nonsense, which is perhaps the point because of art and so forth, but the nonsensicality of the content makes it very difficult to determine any notability. Certainly there don't seem to be any obvious reliable sources associated with this topic. Google throws up only stuff related to Frigo and deleted Wikipedia articles. Sandstein 09:44, 14 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. Sandstein 09:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Mankowski[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable author with no actual coverage anywhere to be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Worldcat lists the authors books in 140 libraries, and a recent title was given a New Writing North award yesterday which will increase that. Will mention this in references if I can be bothered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.22.140.252 (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Clear Keep. Subject meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Significant proof in a range of reliable secondary source’s (Northern Echo, Journal and two Huff Post articles) and I note the article is well linked in a range of other Wikipedia pages. I have added further references from a book citing his work, an extensive interview with 3:am Magazine, a TV interview on the North East Arts and Culture Show and other secondary sources (externally edited reviews by Louder Than War and The Glasgow Review Of Books) Claracalderwood (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC) *Strong Keep. Article gives plenty of indications of coverage and notability and subject meets meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Slightly surprised at the suggestion by the nominator. A quick search shows a rich spread of coverage in reliable sources on Google Search, Google Scholar, from Huffington Post to The Journal. CameronPage1 (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons mentioned above. Harut111 (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. About to add reference to recent New Writing North award which is what me brought me here and so must suggest independent coverage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.225.114 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A good range of secondary, independent, extensive and edited links here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.208.63 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
Commment I'm going to lump my response into one single comment. If he's as notable as the keepers here claim, please provide at least 2-3 independent sources which are non-trivial and cover him in-depth and I'll gladly withdraw my nomination. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note So far not a single keep argument has shown or supplied evidence of notability via significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If this were closed currently it would be deleted. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Below are the multiple, independent and reliable sources. How are the first five in particular being so blithely dismissed? Are they not secondary, edited, independent, extensive and reliable? What exactly is it that is wrong with these sources? Am looking to escalate this concern if the points raised are not going to be treated fairly as this is starting to look a lot like a foregone conclusion, with a lot of thoughtful points being dismissed. It is becoming rather suspicious as to why this response from the general community is being ignored. If the decision process is not democratic, does that make it okay for it to be overruled by one claim that assumes non-notability, rather than acting in good faith to find evidence of notability? Can CHRISSYMAD explain what is so insufficient about the below, having read them? What efforts have been made by the nominator to review these respective sources and consider the evidence presented? Particularly given the effort that has clearly gone into creating and maintaining the article and then in finding further references during the debate. Autocratically ignoring the feedback from the community and deciding halfway through the process a decision is just not in the spirit of this site, even if overlooking the democratic voting process is understood. As someone with no dog in this fight, there is surely better use of time invested by Wikipedians so far, who after all are interested in sharing rather than destroying information.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniela-quaglia/an-honest-deceit-a-story-_b_11764362.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-phillips/give-us-back-our-heroes-h_b_6061840.html
http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/archives-pain-holy-bible/
https://glasgowreviewofbooks.com/tag/guy-mankowski/
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8971163.The_write_stuff/
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/culture/arts/preview-letters-yelena-dance-city-4401485
http://narcmagazine.com/local-interview-how-i-left-the-national-grid/
http://louderthanwar.com/how-i-left-the-national-grid-book-review/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.20.158 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I note that when CHRISSYMAD rejected a draft article of a book by the author I recently submitted she acknowledged that a Huffpo article cited proved notability. So I'm unclear why two Huffpo articles here don't denote two notable articles at the very least? I'm new to Wiki and assume good faith BTW! Thanks StarlaMeaux (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: StarlaMeaux and CameronPage1 are socks of Claracalderwood. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Claracalderwood.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of linked sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 06:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Declaration of interest: I was Guy Mankowski’s PhD supervisor.

The deletion proposal states: “Non-notable author with no actual coverage anywhere to be found.”

Notability would presumably be under the “Books” or “People” guidelines. For Books it is sufficient to meet one of five criteria. Point 1 is:

“The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.”

Mankowski’s novel “How I Left the National Grid” was covered in Glasgow Review of Books and NARC magazine:

https://glasgowreviewofbooks.com/2015/05/26/in-recovery-guy-mankowskis-how-i-left-the-national-grid/

http://narcmagazine.com/local-interview-how-i-left-the-national-grid/

These are non-trivial articles in independent published sources.

For “People” the criterion of notability is “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. Mankowski has coverage in independent sources other than the two I have listed, so would seem to meet the required criterion.

Perhaps there is an argument to shorten the article, but I don’t see how it would be helpful to delete it.

Andrew Crumey (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Just. The article is far too long for the subject. But further to the above the 3:AM Magazine piece is also “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. It seems the subject's work was adapted for stage too, with the piece in The Journal offering some evidence.

http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/archives-pain-holy-bible/
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/culture/arts/preview-letters-yelena-dance-city-4401485 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.14.147.61 (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is some coverage that satisfies WP:SIGCOV. There doesn't seem to be any coverage e.g London Review of Books or any of these usual sources that would reviews in, possibly because of the types. The ref's offered by 149.14.147.61, half of them blogs, are not WP:RS. Lots of refs on the main are scrap, and need to come out, as they are not RS. But does seem to be an established publisher. scope_creep (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed all the dead refs, non RS blogs, promo language, plain adverts for the books, stuff nothing to do with it. That should give a better view of it. scope_creep (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a convoluted sock confused discussion, however we got here I've looked at the refs and they check out. Szzuk (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject appears wholly notable. And after the edits by Scope creep I fail to see what guidelines this article is infringing upon. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 19:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how he meets GNG when almost all of the sources are basically interviews or primary. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:45, 11 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. Sandstein 08:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss National Sweetheart 2011[edit]

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

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Sweetheart.

if there are other individual year articles, they should be deleted also DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Sweetheart, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss National Sweetheart 2012 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss National Sweetheart 2013 —MT Train^Discuss 10:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage for a stand alone article. The winner was already listed in the main article, National Sweetheart.--Richie Campbell (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the notability of the pageant is questionable enough, the yearly incarnations of it clearly are not notable enough to justify articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 14 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. Sandstein 08:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss National Sweetheart 2012[edit]

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

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Sweetheart The individual years have even less notability DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Also related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Sweetheart, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss National Sweetheart 2013 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss National Sweetheart 2011 —MT Train^Discuss 10:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for a stand alone article. The winner was already listed in the main article, National Sweetheart.--Richie Campbell (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, just merge all the individual years into sections of the main article and redirect. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 19:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all annual articles -- insufficiently notable for stand-alone pages. There's nothing to merge, as the main article already lists the winners. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the notability of the pageant is questionable enough, the yearly incarnations of it clearly are not notable enough to justify articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 14 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. I originally closed this as "no consensus", but it was pointed out to me that the article cites zero third-party sources (or indeed any sources), and judging by this discussion, there don't seem to be any obvious ones that could be cited. The article is therefore unverifiable (WP:V), which, particularly in the case of a WP:BLP, makes deletion mandatory. Sandstein 18:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Sandstein 18:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Pencheva[edit]

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

[See below for relistings]

Probably not very far below the bar: a professor at a major Bulgarian university, who has briefly held the local equivalent of the post of vice-chancellor (just short of WP:NPROF #6) and has published a decent amount (by local standards), but without having the kind of impact that would confer notability (according to google scholar her most cited work has received 13 citations). If the article is kept, it won't end up being very flattering to the subject: her major book has turned out to have featured some rather massive plagiarism [120]. – Uanfala (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find it strange that this article which was created in 2007 should suddenly be put up for deletion now. The cited essay on plagiarism by Lilia Ilieva dates from 2009; it is certainly not a new discovery. I have looked it through quite carefully and see that it is not confined to plagiarism but is critical in general of Pencheva's understanding of the linguistic phenomena she discusses in her book. Without having the full text of Pencheva's work (and especially its footnotes), it is difficult to assess the importance of Ilieva's paper. By contrast, Pencheva herself is considered to be one of Bulgaria's foremost experts in linguistics. While Ilieva has published a number of books, she does not appear to have gained anything like the importance of Pencheva. I would point out, for example, that Pencheva's Ahmed Dogan and the Bulgarian ethnic model (which has little or nothing to do with linguistics) has been a best seller in Bulgaria and widely read in English, commenting as it does on the achievements of Ahmed Dogan, one of Bulgarian's most successful politicians. She has also held the post of professor in a field which is certainly not one of major significance in Bulgaria. The citations in the article and the works she has written certainly provide the level of general notability required for inclusion. The article should be kept but could usefully be expanded.--Ipigott (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahmed Dogan and the Bulgarian ethnic model was authored by Ivan Palchev; Maya Pencheva is only credited as the translator into English [121]. All the "citations" in the article are links to pages on the university website that verify she's held such and such positions. There's no coverage of her, the only thing I could find is the plagiarism paper linked above, but being accused of plagiarism doesn't make one notable. – Uanfala (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've browsed through the first 70 or so results of a google web search, and the only content about her that I could find is one paragraph in a news report about her election as a vice-dean [122] and a few sentences about her dismissal (allegedly for political reasons) [123]. One of her books is held in 43 libraries according to worldcat [124], but it seems to be an introductory textbook on the history of English, so that's not really a high number. – Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I'm willing to give this article the benefit of the doubt. Pencheva is a late career academic and it's difficult to look for sources in Bulgarian. Worldcat is biased towards English-language sources / Western libraries, so I don't think it would present the full picture of Pencheva's holdings. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked for sources specifically in Bulgarian, and the paucity of material to be found is already reported above. – Uanfala (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relistings[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pencheva has published substantially in English, as the article shows, but GS shows very low citations for her overall body of work. I would take issue with K.e.coffman's insinuation that WorldCat is too biased to be considered here. It lists 34 of her works, including under various ethnic spellings of her name, but none of the holdings are above mediocre double-digits. I think the more parsimonious explanation is simply that her work hasn't had much impact. I'm glad to change positions if new info comes to light. Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also noting that the majority of these 34 works are ones where Pencheva is either the translator or an editor. – Uanfala (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that if she's considered notable in her homeland, we might have a channel to search for more info. But bg:WP had no entry under either her full name, Майя Стефанова Пенчева, or without her patronymic, Майя Пенчева. But the name wasn't even recognized:

Вероятно имахте предвид: майк пенчев

for which Google Translate returns

You probably meant: mother Penchev

--Thnidu (talk) 20:12, 11 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. Sandstein 08:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss National Sweetheart 2013[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Sweetheart MT Train^Discuss 05:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Also related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Sweetheart, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss National Sweetheart 2012 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss National Sweetheart 2011 —MT Train^Discuss 10:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for a stand alone article. The winner was already listed in the main article, National Sweetheart.--Richie Campbell (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all annual articles; fancraft & trivia -- WP:SIGCOV not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the notability of the pageant is questionable enough, the yearly incarnations of it clearly are not notable enough to justify articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 14 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. Sandstein 08:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Kirk (businessman)[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Article is an orphan. Edwardx (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Single ref to his business is not acceptable. scope_creep (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 7 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) 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galleria d'Arte Maggiore[edit]

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

I don't see how this is notable by our standards. Like many other commercial galleries, it gets a good number of passing mentions, in news as in books, as part of its routine business of buying and selling artworks. There is substantial in-depth coverage in this book, but that is published by Youcanprint and so is not a WP:RS. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ I think the number of important artists they handle justifies notability (yes I know about NOTINHERITED< but it has to be used with judgement. It primarily means that given a notable gallery, not every artist they handle is notable.Given notable artists, their primary gallery on the other hand is notable. Some commercial galleries do have a quasi-meuseum nature, and this is probably one of them. I' unfortunatley not in a position to look for better sources, so I hope others will help here DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that I follow your reasoning here, DGG. A car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies. How is this different?

Anyway, to test the hypothesis that this gallery might be significant in the history of "its" artists, I looked at the biographies in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani of two that the gallery claims to handle, Leoncillo and Morandi. Both pages mention several galleries (La Cometa in Rome and Il Fiore in Florence are mentioned in both), but neither mentions this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most galleries are not notable,but not based on the above reasoning. Some places do become notable based on what they sell. Yanase car dealership actually has a Wikipedia page here. Schwartz's delicatessen is famous, and notable for its meat. And then there's this large List_of_barbecue_restaurants.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at it again, I think that my argument was not correct in this case, and deletion would be appropriate DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Galleries are in an awkward intermediate position where coverage regarding exhibited and associated artists tends to fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. In this case, Justlettersandnumbers's detailed analysis above has sought to bridge that gap, and my own searches are finding nothing better to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete available source (in both article and search) do not point to notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:33, 12 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) 01:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kishori Ambiye[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR I checked out the blue linked films and none are notable all are unsourced except for IMDB (not a source for notability). All have been nominated for deltion for this reason by myself. A google news search turns up just some passing mentions Dom from Paris (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing shows that any of her roles have been in notable films. I have to say that in both articles on films and actors, we have strayed far from any reasonable measure of notability. We sometimes seem to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable actor; fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:42, 9 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. Sandstein 08:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L. Pierre Bottemer[edit]

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

Well, we have a biography here all right, but except for the one ref which establishes his somewhat weak claim to notability (namely, he was a sketch artist at the Hauptmann trial), everything else is a primary source, making this one big piece of original research. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total violation against the rule on orginal research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:10, 7 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. Sandstein 08:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Marquette[edit]

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

Delete - No evidence of notability. Just a journeyman actor with about 9 non-extra/stunt-double roles in 9 years ending 2011. No major roles. No coverage in newspaper, magazine articles, etc. The only source is his own resume. Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 7 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. Sandstein 08:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Penrose[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Amazon is not a reliable source, and the CM Archive source is only a primary source. The article was recently deprodded. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Worldcat shows substantial library holdings here including one of his works that has had 9 editions and is held in 428 libraries, another is in the late 300s Atlantic306 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That is a lot of books. scope_creep (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the publication history and appearance on Canadian TV is sufficient for having a biography on this individual. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:07, 7 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. Sandstein 08:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matti Leshem[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. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete First three refs are on affiliate sites. First one is Forbes sites domain which is anybody can write for and do 2,3,4 are of a similar type. 10th is the collections subdomain of the la times, which anybody can write for. All these are not WP:RS. The other refs are name ref, and reinforce the advertising aspect of the article. Changing to strong delete. scope_creep (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 7 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. Sandstein 08:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason King (journalist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The previous deletion discussion is an example of why Wikipedia has way too many articles on non-notable people. The keep arguments were A-he had a few articles published in respectable publications. Well, there is no publication that being published in gives someone an automatic notability pass so that is a failure. 2-he is a professor at NYU. Well, there is no university where are faculty members are default notable. Does not pass any notability guidelines and falls far short of passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, though I find the links listed at "sources" to be somewhat misleading quite a great number of them are secondary sources establishing notability, so why the re-nomination? --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 19:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Journalists do not get an automatic notability freebie just because they happen to write for notable publications — they have to be the subject of media coverage, not the author of coverage of other things, to clear our notability standards for journalists. But the references here are all primary sources and Q&A interviews in which he's speaking about himself and his own work, not reliable source coverage about him. I'll give the original discussion a pass, because we were much stupider in 2006 than we are today about what counts as adequate sourcing for a Wikipedia article and what doesn't, but JPL's right that our past stupidity is in large part why we're still cleaning up crap that's 10 or 15 years old. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 13 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) 01:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Tryon[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. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a likely COI/paid editor. Edwardx (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the Mail article, none of the sources are much more than web pages and trivial mentions. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much in terms of sources, although I'd count this article in the Daily Mail as counting towards the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:19, 9 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) 01:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowhead-like matrix[edit]

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

Not verifiable. No references in the article and none found. Not to be confused with Arrowhead matrix. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without any references, this article is well beyond my paygrade to assess. Nothing found on Google scholar. Surprisingly, nothing in the WP:Daily Mail, either. Lots of other scary stuff found in Category:Matrices. I'm not a believer in stamping on insects (or articles) because we're scared of them and don't understand them. I have no idea what this is. Why not a redirect to Arrowhead matrix if all else fails? Like=similar. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm in the same camp. Quite impossible to assess for me without any sources. Absent any enlightenment in this regard, that redirect might be the best option, because currently it mayyy not be that useful for the vaunted "general audience". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The mathematics appears to be valid, but the lack of sources and references indicates this is OR. The topic is somewhat related to Arrowhead matrix, but insufficiently so to justify a redirect. --Lambiam 19:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and unmotivated WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 13:12, 9 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) 01:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Degree World[edit]

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

Not a notable company. Coverage appears to be press releases or trivial mentions regarding some of their (not particularly notable) websites. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article describing a firm's business without indication of notability. The Los Angeles Times Brand Publishing item on one of the firm's branded websites is a launch item lacking detailed assessment of the parent firm. Nor are my searches finding better: fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 7 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] Cristalis, Irena; Scott, Catherine; Andrade, Ximena (2005). Independent Women: The Story of Women's Activism in East Timor. CIIR. pp. 70–71. ISBN 9781852873172.

[2] ttps://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/democratic-primaries-to-watch-2018/index.html

[3] ttps://chicago.suntimes.com/news/schakowsky-gutierrez-endorsing-lipinski-democratic-primary-rival-marie-newman/

[4] ttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ten-democratic-primaries-to-watch-in-2018_us_5a4d652fe4b0b0e5a7aad4d5

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]