Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 February	9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nehemia Gordon[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. There was a broken link to a Jerusalem Post article, but the Wayback Machine couldn't recover it; searching for Gordon on the Jerusalem Post website didn't bring up anything. Google News didn't find anything better than this, not useful for writing an encyclopedia article about Gordon. Huon (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The bibliography consists of nothing but the subject's works and there are no references. However, searching Google News turns up some decent coverage, such as this one and apparently this one (behind a paywall but Google's excerpt suggests decent coverage). So even though the article does nothing to demonstrate notability, we don't keep or delete based on sources in the article, we decide based on sources available. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What the Daily Caller writes about Gordon is a paraphrase of his "about" page and the author profile of his blog post here. I do not think that's helpful for our purposes; to me it doesn't look like independent reporting. Regarding Israel Today, the Google excerpt says, "Nehemia is certainly one if not the leading Hebrew scholar in this regard. And certainly Yehovah the God of my forefathers wanted us to know his name and to say his name." - That's someone's personal opinion; opinion pieces of that kind are not reliable sources (except for the author's opinion). Huon (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it lacks independent sources. As far as Karaite Jews are concerned, Nehemiah Gordon is famous especially among certain Christian sects where he needs no introduction. But there are more notable people relevant Karaite Jews in the world especially for example Mikhail Kizilov, Yuval Warshai, Dan Shapira and Avraham Qanaï. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:11, 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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:RECENTISM, WP:EVENTCRITERIA, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. The deal, including relevant legal issues, deserves a short section at The Walt Disney Company at most. Ten years from now, will a separate article on this deal seem useful or relevant? Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the Wall Street Journal. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant antitrust issues into 21st Century Fox. I think the antitrust portions of the article are important, so I would hate to see it deleted completely. The rest of the article is a mess and probably should be deleted. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the arguments below. Also, Trivialist also did some good work trying to cut down the unsourced part of the article regarding transfer of assets, which made the quality of the article significantly better. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very significant acquisition and has the potential to drastically change the industry. I think it's worthwhile, in the same way that the Acquisition of NBC Universal by Comcast is. heat_fan1 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should not be deleted because it linked to many pages, on the main page on December 2017, well written, it is a well-known acquisition, supported by many sources (not all) and made well by Wikipedia users. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:6CA0:B3C4:772B:D888 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a complex deal between two of the world's most prominent media companies, and will actually have international implications beyond just the United States. The article can be improved. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division hadn't approved of Disney's acquisition of 21st Century Fox and its assets, yet. That's why this article should stay. Evil Idiot (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Ten Years Test backfired; it seems fairly obvious to me that ten years from now this is going to be a pretty important event worthy of study. 96.59.35.98 (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well-written, well-referenced. I agree with this comment above: it seems fairly obvious to me that ten years from now this is going to be a pretty important event worthy of study. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An acquisition like this is not only significant in and of itself, but it also has the potential to have far-reaching consequences for the entertainment industry and not only antitrust law themselves, but also how and when they're applied. I also agree with the two above comments regarding The Ten Years Test, in that this (proposed) acquistion (even if it fails) will likely be a case study. DJMcNiff (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails the not news test. The information can be discussed in the articles on both companies, but a seperate article on the topic itself is not needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This seems on the edge of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, however, the depth and breadth of coverage and significance of the merger seems to help it pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is going to be a very big deal, and will have implications whether or not it passes. I agree in the current state it's in there needs to be some work done to it, however. --Church ^Talk 22:47, 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 speedy keep , clearly notable. ... discospinster _talk 02:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia[edit]

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

Not notable enough to consist of its own article. Anitta Pitta (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Article is well-sourced and clearly passes WP:WEB. (Also, I note that I'm a former Wikia employee and am disclosing that COI.) --Sykes83 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Sykes83. Clearly a notable service. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dre Knight[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still just as non-notable as he was back in 2010.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nothing turned up in Google News. Citobun (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:58, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Watch Group[edit]

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

Promotional article. RedUser (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important note – The version of the article as it existed when nominated for deletion has been RevDeleted as copyright infringement. The present state of the article entirely differs from its state when it was nominated for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – does not appear to meet notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NORG Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 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) 00:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alli McLaren[edit]

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

no evidence of notability -- speedy declined because "has references" but none of them are sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This articles is terrible. Junk. no sources. Non RS refs. Listings. scope_creep (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of many articles created on non-notable subjects by the same user. Like the others, this one lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 14:46, 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) 00:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QPSoftware[edit]

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

References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half the article is highly promotional, and refs seem to be about company product, i.e. how to use it, rather than the company. scope_creep (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Clear lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NORG Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:01, 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) 00:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Jago[edit]

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

Not finding any significant in-depth coverage in independent sources. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – promotional article on individual who does not meet our notability-based criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Weak references and a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 14:52, 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. Drafts go through WP:MFD instead of AFD. The new deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kirorp Carrier Freight. clpo13_(talk) 23:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kirorp Carrier Freight[edit]

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

Lack of reliable independent sources to establish notability. Few Google hits, mostly advertising. Created by a local geographic WP:SPA. Possible WP:COI. Leaky Caldron 21:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest procedural close - Draftspace articles need to be taken to MfD, not AfD. --Finngall ^talk 22:05, 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 speedy delete. not notable, rubbish "refs", promotional tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wapbaze[edit]

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

Video hosting (pirating?) site with no particular claim to notability. I cannot find any significant coverage of the site (or its founder, also listed below) in independent reliable sources.

KellyChi

... discospinster _talk 21:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero coverage find via Google. The cited sources are affiliated or Top X lists, plus Alexa. Largoplazo (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you ought to have combined the deletion discussion for KellyChi with this one, but delete that too. The only claim of significance made for him is the creation of this unremarkable website. Largoplazo (talk) 00:27, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Bluestone[edit]

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

Sounds like a resume rather than a person of importance? PabloMartinez (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep For one thing, deletion is not cleanup, so the poor state the article may be written in now is irrelevant to whether its subject is notable, which I believe he is: the main reason I think this is that he holds a named chair appointment at Northwestern, which allows him to pass WP:PROF#C5 all by itself. Additionally, his h-index, for example, appears to be about 34 (going by Google Scholar), indicative of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Meets WP:NPROF(5) as the holder of a named chair at a major R1 university. Furthermore his GS h-index is 34, which is really high. Also, see the citations for his book The deindustrialization of America: Plant closings, community abandonment, and the dismantling of basic industry. There are more than 4000, which gives him NPROF(1) as well. This is a very clear keep.192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the findings by User talk:192.160.216.52. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep holds a named chair a Northeastern University, a regionally accredited U.S. university, and therefore meets WP:NPROF criteria number 5. Chetsford (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious from news reports that this page has been listed for deletion because of Mr. Bluestone's appearance in news articles condemning President Trump, and is therefore an attempt at censoring his beliefs, not because he is considered unimportant as of February 8, 2018; or that the article is poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.246.66 (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2018‎

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Van Epperson[edit]

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

Tagged for sources ten years ago with only IMDB as a source. Recent edit requests have offered non-WP:RS to support roles. WP:BEFORE discloses WP:USERGENERATED content, promotional pages, a few passing mentions, and professional directories. No significant coverage in independent sources is evident. No evidence that he meets the requirements of WP:ENT. If taken at face value, the article's list of roles demonstrates a professional working actor who has not "...had significant roles" nor "has a large fan base or significant cult following". The most significant coverage appears to be this article in Daily Mirror claiming that he is tied with two others for third "most underrated" TV actor after saying the actor in first on the list provokes the reaction: "Who the hell is Stephen Root?" Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: No reliable sources can be found for any of his appearences in movies and TV series. If you take a look at the guidelinies, he hasn't done something significant (based on sources that can be found) or a large fanbase. Based on that, you can't make any edits or edit requests because there are no sources you can quote to back the edit up. So there is nothing to add neither something to prove for the movies on his article that are already on his page. There is no other source than IMDb and a few other user-created content sites. Doesn't match the standards. 89.15.154.14 (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.137.50 (talk) [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. We have 6 keep vs. 4 delete / userfy opinions. This is more a matter of editorial judgment than of policy, so I can't decide this one way or the other by fiat. However, if the article is not improved, another call to drain the swamp may be made in the future. Sandstein 15:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swamp monster[edit]

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

Appears to be a collection of listcruft that fails WP:GNG. The "description" section is full of WP:OR. Too vague to be a redirect and there are no direct title matches to justify a DAB page. Best to delete it and let search function do its job. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's "rescue list", here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is WP:CRUFTCRUFT – empty name-calling. What we have here is a broad concept article which is sensible in this case per WP:CONCEPTDAB which states, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it..." There's a clearly a variety of notable swamp monsters including the Honey Island Swamp monster; Swamp Thing; Jimmy Carter's swamp rabbit; &c. We need a page of this sort to help readers find what they are looking for. Andrew D. (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not seeing sources to pass WP:GNG for the concept itself. If the purpose is to aid navigation, why not create a simple list article such as List of swamp monsters? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident involved an ordinary swamp rabbit, not a legendary or invented "monster". So that example is irrelevant to the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Move to user- or draftspace: concept is simple WP:DICDEF – a monster that lives in a swamp – fleshed out with WP:OR. Rest of article is WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC) (edited 21:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC) per Hijiri88's recommendation)[reply]
- And a Milk bottle is a bottle used for milk, a Needle threader is a device for threading needles, and an Oven bag is a bag for roasting food in an oven. The fact that one can give a short definition of a topic does not make an article on the topic a dictionary definition. WP:DICDEF is meant for articles that are about the page title viewed as a phrase, rather than the concept referred to by that title. --Lambiam 23:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That argument might be valid if there were enough coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG. I am not seeing those, and WP:GHITS alone (as below) doesn't prove notability. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a convincing argument, especially when the pages linked are themselves poorly-sourced and marked as needing various types of cleanup. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I happen to expect that a diligent search will find many reliable sources. That expectation does not stem from simply counting ghits, but is informed by the observation that a Google book search yields many non-fiction titles discussing swamp monsters. But in any case, the criteria of WP:DICDEF do not involve the amount of coverage. My "argument" was simply that the purview of WP:DICDEF does not include the article under discussion, so that an appeal to WP:DICDEF has no merit. --Lambiam 22:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:DICDEF addresses the depth of coverage – in this case, the question is whether any RSes examine the concept of "swamp monster" itself, or whether they only use the term. Unfortunately, an expectation of finding many reliable sources is not itself proof of notability. Any suggestions for actual reliable sources would of course be welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The initial page content (unsourced) was in fact accompanied by this obvious definition: "A swamp monster is a monster that lives in swamps". The page seems to have been created almost as a joke that subsequent editors have taken far too seriously. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is entirely reasonable to have articles on various archetypal types of monsters, like Bug-eyed monster, Lake monster, Sea monster and Tickle monster. A Google book search on ["Swamp monster"|"Swamp creature"] yields very many hits – mostly fiction, but many others describing long-standing myths grounded in a Jungian archetypal fear. --Lambiam 23:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A possibly useful supplementary source for the comics section: Cooke, Jon B.; Khoury, George, eds. (2015). Swampmen: Muck-Monsters and their Makers. TwoMorrows. ISBN 978-1-60549-057-1. --Lambiam 23:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can rename it to have "list of" in the title if you want. These things do get coverage, and the article links to various pages about different swamp monsters. Dream Focus 04:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or draftify for the time being While I don't doubt the notability of this topic in theory, virtually everything in the article at present is unambiguous OR and much of it probably cannot be verified (several of the examples have probably never been referred to as "swamp monsters" outside Wikipedia). I therefore doubt anything here needs to be saved per WP:PRESERVE and think all of it could be safely removed from public view per WP:TNT, but if that's not done then it should at least be taken out of the mainspace so editors who are knowledgeable and motivated enough to improve the article can continue to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a reasonable option. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowblood: I should clarify that I noticed this AFD because it was posted at the Article Rescue Squadron, a page I recently added to my watchlist. I noticed several members of that project had showed up at this AFD and !voted keep, but without actually editing the article itself. I've also noticed a kinda disturbing trend where articles this project "rescues" from AFD wind up either languishing for years, or the delete !voters wind up having to fix the articles themselves after the AFD closed as "no consensus", with little or no input from ARS. I'd therefore wonder if User:Andrew Davidson would like to adopt this page in his user space and bring it up to par himself, seen as he saw it as meriting of the efforts of ARS; I'm sure User:Dream Focus and User:Lambian would also be happy to help. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not sure what draftifying the article will accomplish considering it would need a full rewrite anyway (even the sourced sentences use plenty of WP:SYNTH), if people think that the content of the article can be supported by reliable sources, then that is also an option._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Obviously I agree, but several other editors appear to believe, or at least appear to claim to believe, otherwise: that some or most of the content in this article is salvageable. I have seen these same users !vote down AFDs of articles with similar problems, then once the AFDs were closed leave it up to the "TNT delete" !voters to fix the problems. Telling them that if they disagree with what everyone else sees in the article, the burden is on them to fix it, seems like a better solution than trying to get more people to !vote for a TNT deletion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri 88, keep your nonsense accusations where they belong, don't drag the argument into an AFD. Not every article needs to be improved upon, and there is no requirement for anyone in any wikiproject to do so before commenting in an AFD. Dream Focus 02:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus:" nonsense accusations"? What do you mean? You didn't do anything to fix Mottainai's problems (I have been doing that); Andrew didn't do anything to fix Korean influence on Japanese culture (Nishidani and I, and some others who didn't participate in the AFD, did that) or Tanka prose (I and some other non-parties to the AFD did that); neither of you have done anything to improve this article (I've done more, but I'm definitely not going to commit to fixing it myself). Ironically, "nonsense accusations" is itself a nonsense accusation, and I would ask you to strike it per WP:NPA and please remain focused on content: are you interested in "draftifying" this article so you and the other ARS members can "rescue" it, or are you just here so you can "win" this "battle" by keeping the page in the mainspace despite the fact that every single sentence of it is OR? Because the latter is definitely not what the purpose of WP:ARS is supposed to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to win, the wikiproject is not there to canvas. The article is fine. Not every single article is improved upon, because it doesn't always need to be. Stop paging others and expecting them to "fix" whatever you imagine is wrong with this article. Dream Focus 03:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that having more time now, I have done some work on the article, linking to various examples in folklore/legend/mythology. Dream Focus 03:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/draftify per Hijiri, if someone feels motivated to fix this mess of OR/SYNTH and indiscriminate, poorly referenced/justified "examples". Failing that, delete, because it is completely unsuitable for mainspace in its current form. -- Begoon 05:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify this is clearly a list article, and always has been, how about we rename it to List of fictional monsters said to live in swamps? Google news search for "swamp monster" in quotes and you get 2,070 results, and without the quotes 35,400. Google book search for it in quotes and you get 9,520 results and without them 32,700 results. Google book search for "Swamp monster" and "folklore", both in quotes, gets 6,610 results. That's a lot to search through. Clearly though there is a lot of mention of monsters in swamps throughout history. So the list article is valid. Dream Focus 05:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wouldn't that be a change of topic? The article has clearly always been an attempt to describe the concept of "swamp monsters" (which is a real term, and no one is arguing otherwise), that happened to consist entirely of OR. Also, while the article before today, especially after my edit yesterday, could have been argued to be primarily about fictional monsters, you just came from adding a section about folklore (and mythology): such creatures may not actually exist, but there is a big difference between a mythological/folkloristic creature and a "fictional monster". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has mentioned briefly what a swamp monster was, then a long list of things. Its always been like that, even without my bit added. Someone just forgot to put the word "list" in the title. Dream Focus 06:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at the time of its original creation and for at least two months after, the article did not even contain a list.[1] At the time immediately before the AFD (I haven't followed your recent edits, so this may have changed), the first four paragraphs (disregarding the lead sentence) were not a list.[2] This all has nothing to do with the AFD, mind: what you are proposing is the deletion of this article and the creation of an entirely new article on a different, howsoever related, topic. If you want to "adopt" the page in your user space and turn it into that, that's fine: I suggested you or one of the other ARS members adopt it and do what you feel it needs to be fixed yesterday, so clearly I would have no problem with that, as long as you stop adding OR and confusing mythology with fiction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created in 05:03, 28 August 2006‎. For most of its existence its had lists of swamp monsters. Legends, myths, and folklore are all fiction. They were created to entertain. The small bit in the Description section still mentions examples, which is the same information on the lists. There is very little of the article which is not just a list. And WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. There are reliable sources referenced already that talk about swamp monsters. Dream Focus 14:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So... are you going to blank everything in the article that is not reliably sourced until you can find sources for it? Your first string of edits earlier today, which were textbook OR, do not look promising. And, again, you seem to be arguing for a complete overhaul of the concept of this article, which is essentially deletion and creation of a separate article, but arbitrarily maintaining the page history and past versions of a different article. I am not experienced enough in AFDs to say whether that is a violation of any kind of guideline or not (though no one ever called me out for what happened at uta monogatari), but it seems pointless at best, even if not technically prohibited. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at other list articles. They don't need a source for every single entry on them, as long as the information is in the linked to article. Nothing I did was original research. People add things to list articles all the time, because they belong there, it not original research. You obviously don't know what you are doing, so kindly just stop arguing nonstop all over the place. I have been in plenty of AFD before where the problem was people couldn't understand it was a list article, unless you added the word "list" to the name of the article, then it was fine. Dream Focus 16:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna touch the ad hominem except to say that I clearly know more about mythology and folklore than you so the projection is amusing. Anyway, per WP:LISTN, a list should be on a category that has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Going to a Wikipedia article, checking that it is a "monster" in some way associated with "swamps", and extrapolating from that that it is a "swamp monster" is original research, and if we posted that to WP:NORN literally everyone would agree with me. Your retroactively justifying this act by proposing we change the name of the article to "List of fictional monsters said to live in swamps" does not change the fact that you explicitly stated in the article that the Lernean hydra is an example of a "swamp monster". (BTW, my Greek mythology is a little rusty, but at least the way you wrote it, "said to live in swamps" still doesn't cover the hydra.) Again, if you want to userfy the page to radically reorient it by removing all the non-example content and make it into a simple list of monsters associated with swamps, I have no problem with that, but trying to retroactively recharacterize what the rest of us have been discussing is not cool. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"Google news search for "swamp monster" in quotes and you get 2,070 results" - Google news search for "cloudy weekend" in quotes and you get 4,130 results. This kind of "statistic" is meaningless, and I do wish you wouldn't imply that it has some bearing on notability of an article (not that we were discussing that anyway...). -- Begoon 06:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly reread what I wrote. I said "Clearly though there is a lot of mention of monsters in swamps throughout history. So the list article is valid." Dream Focus 06:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I "read what you wrote" just fine, and look forward to the upcoming List of cloudy weekends throughout history, which is clearly valid. -- Begoon 06:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. Once again, WP:GHITS are meaningless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar lists to this one include: List of reported lake monsters, List of Scottish loch-monsters, List of legendary creatures from Japan, List of alleged extraterrestrial beings, List of cryptids, List of Greek mythological creatures, etc. To get an idea on what to name it, and show how other list articles are. Dream Focus 05:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those have "fictional" in the title, though, and all were apparently created to be lists, not articles on popular culture topics that included lists. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference between modern fiction and fiction from thousands of years ago. Dream Focus 06:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's news to me, and will no doubt come as a shock to the folks at WP:RELIGION and WP:MYTH. In all seriousness, fiction is normally invented from whole cloth by an author with the intent of entertaining (or educating or other) an audience, who also recognize it as such, and is different (as a general rule) from myth/folklore in conception, content and origin. Whether a fictional event might have actually happened and a mythic one might not is really irrelevant to the distinction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you are volunteering to do the work of completely reorienting the article into a list of fictional monsters, in your user space, and then submitting it for approval, that's great. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems in line with similar pages. Rename to "list of...' if need be. Nessie (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A simple rename does not address the issue that none of the article is referenced, and the list is largely incorrect about what monsters are actually "swamp" monsters. It uses the Gill-man as its main example, but it is not a swamp monster, just a fish-man. Other errors abound, due to it using entirely original research._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there are problems on any list, you can edit to fix them. You don't delete an article because of problems which can be repaired. Dream Focus 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you are the one saying the article should be deleted and replaced with a different article, not me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content is the same, so its not a different article. It has been a list article for most of the 12 years its existed. Dream Focus 23:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @NessieVL: And what to do with all the OR? Just let it stand and hope that someone cleans it up later? I know AFD is not cleanup, but in this case literally every single sentence in the article at the time of nomination was OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly look at other lists on Wikipedia. If the information is in the article linked to, they don't need to bother copying a reference over from that article to each item on the list in the list article. Dream Focus 22:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of sure they do actually... nobody is going to waste time clicking all the links to make sure info is true or not._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they usually don't. Look at similar themed list at List of cryptids, List of legendary creatures from Japan, and List of Greek mythological creatures. Or thousands of other articles that begin with "list of". Dream Focus 23:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, you're pointing to a list of other blue linked articles. This list is not, it is a list of examples, none of which have their own articles. I see what you mean, but this isn't an example of what you're talking about. There is also no category of "swamp monsters", though there is already a List of piscine and amphibian humanoids which I'd assume overlaps strongly with "swamp monsters"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Different list, different things on it. I don't see anything from the mythology, folklore, or fiction sections lining up with this list article. Anything on this list that doesn't have its own article, or an article that mentions a swamp monster, needs a reference. I'll see what I can find. Dream Focus 23:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, List of legendary creatures from Japan (which I considered tagging as unsourced based on the above) is actually just a list of links to Wikipedia articles with almost no factual claims -- what would citations do? Verify that they are legendary creatures and are from Japan? (Yes, the few factual claims it makes are mostly questionable -- I worked as a CIR in the Iwate Prefectural Government and I never heard of "Anmo", so it's definitely not WP:BLUE but even in the linked article is unsourced. And the page is still an OR mess, as many of the entries are just the Japanese readings of the names of characters from China, like Sun Wukong, or are the names of divinities, like Raijin, or link, without nuance, to articles on Japanese words for common real-world animals, like kitsune.) Anyway, the solution proposed by Dream Focus wouldn't work for much of this article anyway: the One Piece character, for instance, appears to have been a minor monster of the week, and the linked article names neither Caribou nor Swamp Swamp Fruit. ~~@Dream Focus: Would you suggest culling that entry from the list as non-noteworthy, or would locating a citation for it be better?~~ Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda already answered my question. That said, I still find it very questionable to include in a list a random grab-bag of creature from myth, folklore and fiction who are in some way associate with swamps, and factual claims drawing those obscure links (see the hydra example) still definitely need sources, as they are not WP:BLUE. Simply linking the article with no factual claim would be better, but still would not justify inclusion in a list of monsters associated with swamps. And we definitely still can't call the mythological and folkloric examples "fictional": that term has a specific meaning that is much narrower than the sloppy "probably does not exist". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already tagged some as needing more information. Not sure what was a one time only thing of little significance or not. Someone familiar with the series can discuss it. I also deleted one that wasn't a swamp monster but a guy dressed up as one on a cartoon. I am going through the list now. A television episode of Family Guy, Business Guy, mentions the "swamp monster" in it, so that entry should stay. The Simpson's episode however doesn't seem to mention a swamp monster at all. Unless a reliable source mentions it in a review of that episode, it get deleted. Dream Focus 00:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"mentions a swamp monster"? I'm not sure if you watch Family Guy, but I'm an occasional viewer (more pre-2012 when I could watch it on regular TV) and I'm prety sure like half the content of any given episode is cut-away gags that aren't even really "in continuity" with the rest of the show. I haven't actually seen the episode in question, but our plot summary implies it is an almost-throwaway gag in the final act of the story. Wikipedia isn't TV Tropes. To paraphrase my original !vote, no one is arguing that "swamp monster" isn't a real term that is used outside Wikipedia, so granting more "must include" status to a Family Guy gag because it actually uses the exact phrase seems off-the-mark to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If its just a gag and not the main feature I suppose no point in it. Also I just looked it up to see if any reliable sources reviewed that episode and mentioned a swamp monster and only found one result. www.ign.com/articles/2009/12/14/family-guy-business-guy-review Seems to be a gag and not a real swamp monster, a guy dressed up as one instead. Anyway, discussing what should remain or be removed should be done on the article's talk page, not here. There are plenty of valid entries to fill the list. Dream Focus 02:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then we're back to the question of whether there is anything in the article worth saving, and whether the encyclopedia would be served by keeping what's there visible to non-admins in the long run. If this closes as "keep" (as opposed to "Move to draft"), will you keep working to improve it? That is ARS's purpose, and presumably why it was posted there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty worth saving. It meets all requirements for a Wikipedia article, so it will most likely be kept. And whether anyone works on it or not doesn't change that. AFD is not cleanup. That is a clear rule. Anything that can be fixed by normal editing practices should do so, with deletion as a last result. This article has been here since 2006, it not some new article that needs to be moved into a draft, that just ridiculous. If you deleted every article that wasn't perfect, most of Wikipedia would be gone. That's now how we do things here. See: Wikipedia:NOTPERFECT Even the articles that people consider perfect took a long time and many edits from many editors to get where they are at. If you want to help Wikipedia, edit articles and discuss how to improve them on their talk page, don't try to delete them. Dream Focus 03:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty worth saving. Care to venture an example? The entire "folklore" section needs to go, as it's just your OR. whether anyone works on it or not doesn't change that Then why was it posted at ARS, which is meant to encourage people to work on fundamentally broken articles on topics that may be notable, to prevent them from being TNT-deleted? When ARS members just show up to !vote in the AFD and either (a) do nothing with the article or (b) make it worse, then ARS is doing the opposite of its stated purpose. That is a clear rule. AFD is not cleanup. If virtually everything in an article needs to be deleted per WP policy (in this case NOR), there is no significant difference between essentially blanking the page and starting over (as I did on Ariwara no Narihira, Li He and Kakinomoto no Hitomaro) and actually deleting the page per WP:TNT. The former is good when an enthusiastic and interested editor or group of editors is already present, but the latter is preferable to just leaving a pure OR article in the mainspace indefinitely. Moving the page out of the mainspace is another option that can be pursued when an editor or WikiProject has expressed interest in improving it but don't seem likely to do so in a timely manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Destroying an article that developed over years doesn't make a new better one magically appear in its place. Most people have stated this article should be kept, and gave legitimate reasons for it to be. Do you think its original research for the articles linked to say something is a swamp monster in them? Would copying over a reference from those linked to articles to where they are on the list make any real difference? Most lists don't bother doing that, since there is no possible reason to bother with it. And will you stop your relentless idiotic attack on the ARS already? Focus on the article. Many have stated it passes WP:NOTABILITY, so it should be kept. Dream Focus 07:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most people have stated this article should be kept, and gave legitimate reasons for it to be. Oh, brother... No. Most people have said the same thing as me: the topic is notable and could be the basis of a decent article, but literally or almost everything in the article now is garbage and in the long term will need to go. I've seen this game be played before: if this AFD is closed as "consensus to keep", please refrain from reading (or pretending to read) that as a blessing on the article that is already there, or the content you added to it during the course of this discussion, or the nonsense title change you proposed. The OR you added to the "folklore" section needs to go, and it is completely inappropriate to refer to classify mythology and folklore as "fiction" anywhere on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two cited items in the "folklore" section - the Honey Island Swamp monster, and the skunk ape. Even if the rest of the folklore examples are removed, that is still enough to say that this is a concept found in folklore. bd2412 T 12:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. My concern is that a "keep" close will be used to justify preserving the OR, especially in that section, and to justify describe mythology and folklore as "fiction". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually want to delete an article because someone used the word "fiction" in the opening sentence of the article along with the word "folklore"? Do you want mythology to be in its own section? That isn't a reason to delete an article. You can edit the article like anyone else can, and use the talk page to discuss what should be in it. Dream Focus 21:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would suggest, as a start, putting {{citation needed}} tags on those points that need a citation. bd2412 T 21:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Actually, tagging content that was added recently following a discussion, and the editor who added it admitted that he did not have a source and was engaging in OR based on the Wikipedia articles describing things as "monsters" and being in some way associated with "swamps", would be pointless; we already know it is unsourced OR, so blanking would be better than tagging. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would diminish the possibility of a later editor who happens to have a source handy from coming by and adding it. I would be fine with moving questionable unsourced items to the talk page for discussion. bd2412 T 03:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, you and your amazing friends may think it is acceptable to make strawman arguments like "You want to delete an article" and just let them hang there, but it is not. I never said I want to delete this article: I said everything in it is an NOR-violation and needs to go, even if the topic is notable, so moving to the draft space where you and the other ARS members can do what your project says is its primary purpose and improve the article to meet our policy standards. And you or someone else (I haven't checked) has already added "sources" to the mythological entries that almost certainly don't use the phrase "swamp monster", after I was saying on this page they needed to go; this very strongly implies that if I try to remove them as OR (whether now or, even more likely, in the hypothetical future where this is closed as "consensus to keep") I will be autoreverted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shit. The cited source for the hydra actually does say "nine-headed swamp monster". Now we are faced with the question of whether it is okay to lump various creatures that RSes have somewhat broadly described as "swamp monsters" together in an article that was clearly always meant to be about a Creature from the Black Lagoon-type "swamp man" (a term we give as a synonym in the lead). I would say no, but ... ? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source calling the gil man from the Creature from the Black Lagoon a "swamp monster" also. Dream Focus 04:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you did. The reason I said that above is that I would expect the majority of sources discussing swamp monsters to deal with the Creature, since he is the archetypal swamp monster. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is there any more "lumping" here than with the general concept of a monster? That article says that monsters "are usually composites of different creatures, or hybrids of humans and animals" and names as well-known fictional examples, "Count Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, werewolves, mummies, and zombies". All of those examples are humanoid, but there is no question of whether it is permissible to include all of them under that topic. We could say almost exactly the same thing about swamp monsters. They are monsters, which are creatures that are often humanoid, or composites of different creatures. bd2412 T 13:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: "monster" already has a broad meaning by its very nature, but "swamp monster" as a concept refers to a specific type of semi-aquatic humanoid of the Creature of the Black Lagoon type, and that's what the article should be focusing on. Throwing in a grab-bag of unrelated creatures in some way associated with swamps (like the hydra) is not helpful, even if once in a blue moon an RS actually uses the exact words "swamp monster" to describe them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then have a subsection for non-humanoid swamp monsters. The term by its parts means a monster that resides in a swamp, having characteristics suited for living in that environment. bd2412 T 02:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures that are often humanoid, or composites of different creatures [...] having characteristics suited for living in that environment – citation please? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Swamp monster" as a concept refers to a specific type of semi-aquatic humanoid of the Creature of the Black Lagoon type – I'm not seeing clear support for this idea in reliable sources either – in fact, I think that's the essence of the AfD nomination. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have actually found a 2015 book directly on point - Swampmen: Muck-Monsters and their Makers (yes, the title is "Muck", not "Swamp", but the book describes is subject matter as "swamp monsters" numerous times throughout). This could basically inform the entire article. Do not make into a list; there is a basic concept to be expanded on. No objection to draftifying for a period of improvement. bd2412 T 03:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Sounds reasonable. I think if that is the kind of source being used, the article will need to be reoriented back to modern popular culture. Cooke doesn't seem to have any credentials in mythology or folkloristics so his views on those fields (if he expresses them at all in that book) should probably not be cited on Wikipedia if they do not agree with the views of professional scholars (and even if they do agree, we should just cite the scholars). Removing "folklore" and "mythology" from the article would also solve the problem of renaming the article to use the word "fictional". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also mentioned that book in my contribution above timestamped 23:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC). While it is devoted to swamp monsters in popular culture, I think that swamp monsters in folklore is also a legitimate topic, one that popular culture draws upon. --Lambiam 16:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambian: one that popular culture draws upon Citation needed? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A magazine from TwoMorrows Publishing (Comic Book Creator #6) devoted an entire issue to the concept, and I found other notable works that can also support an article. While I'm sympathetic to Hijiri88's concern about the article not being improved in a timely manner, I think there's enough decent material in the current article to preserve it until an interested editor comes along. I would not oppose someone going in and removing all the challenged/unsourced material, which is far easier than adding sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: I understand your logic, but what do you think about the "undecent" material in the current article? Arguably the worst of it (the OR related to mythology and folklore) was added in the past two days by one of the other "keep" !votes, so the chances of removing that content if this AFD is closed as consensus to keep, having supposedly been improved sufficiently since being nominated, seem slim. If there is consensus to keep the article in place, then there should also be either (a) a clear consensus to cut the OR or (b) a clear statement by the closer and as many of the "keep" !votes as possible that while the page can be kept much of the current content is forbidden by policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I don't think we need a consensus to remove OR regardless of the outcome here. If you remove it, then the onus is on the editor who wants to restore it to provide a source. If you'd like, I can add improving this article to my to-do list, but it may take me a couple months to get to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: If you remove it, then the onus is on the editor who wants to restore it to provide a source. You would think that, but no: I tried to tweak the wording of WP:BURDEN a coupla years back to add "the cited source doesn't verify the content" as a valid reason for continued removal of content that was previously challenged as unsourced and then a "source" was found, but I was shouted down. Since I wrote my first reply to you above, the questionable material has had citations added to it, and I find it very unlikely that those sources actually use the term "swamp monster", but now that the content "is sourced" it is very difficult to remove it unless you can either get a clear majority of editors to agree and a dissenting minority who thankfully recognize consensus. Even though WP:V and WP:NOR are on one's side. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I haven't encountered that level of pushback, but I usually work clean-up on articles that have been tagged for years, not days. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Care to enlighten the rest of us as to the identity of these "notable works"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: Consider yourself enlightened. All these were found using a Google book search. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly good, but note that the third one merely copies Wikipedia. bd2412 T 14:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I thought that one seemed a little too on the nose... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Creatures, like Modern Folklore, is from self-publishing company Lulu.com and therefore not reliable. The others merely describe specific, local legends or fictional creatures that happen to use the phrase swamp monster or swamp creature in the sense of its dictionary definition (a creature from a swamp). Real Monsters, Gruesome Critters, and Beasts from the Darkside is a compilation of unrelated "swamp creature" legends including the Honey Island Swamp monster, the Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp, the skunk ape, etc; Classical Myths and Legends in the Middle Ages and Renaissance deals with the Lernaean Hydra; TIME-LIFE Mysteries of the Unknown covers the bunyip; Haunted Ohio mentions a legendary creature from a local swamp called simply "The Swamp Monster"; and The Haunting of Louisiana individually describes the loup garou, feu follet, couquin l'eau, and will-o'-the-wisp, which are all believed to inhabit swamps but are not otherwise related. Icons of the American Comic Book is barely an exception; it discusses DC Comics' Swamp Thing in relation to the mythical Green Man, mentioning a "swamp monster archetype" without explanation. I don't see significant coverage of the concept of swamp monster itself in any of these sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you see it, then that's how you see it. I feel I could build a solid article from these, so I'm staying "keep". Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means add your contributions. Improvements to articles at AfD are encouraged. However, I doubt that there is anything here that wouldn't be better placed in the individual topic articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 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. No credible argument put forward that this is properly sourced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Wakeford[edit]

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

Promotional page created and for years maintained by Wakeford's business partner using the now COI/PAID-blocked accounts Rwearin and Telegirl7. No significant coverage has been found or is presented, cf. Source assessment below. Subject does not meet the basic notability guideline for people and is not notable under the additional criteria for musicians.

Article looked like this when I first met it, and finding a total lack of reliable, secondary, independent sources that describe subject in detail, I redirected it to Little River Band, one of the better known bands Wakeford has had a short tenure with. Redirect was reverted without addressing the sourcing issues, and I opened a talk page discussion.

Since then, material posted by the COI/PAID editor in Draft:Malcolm Forest Wakeford has been merged into the article, and lack of secondary sources has resulted in e.g. the / Early years / section being sourced with scans of passenger lists dug from the depths of the National Archives of Australia, giving us such subject-irrelevant and overly detailed information as "Ronald continued to work on the tanker Hamilton Sleigh and finally arrived on a Qantas flight on 9 June 1966." Nobody cares about the name of the ship the supposed father of Wakeford worked on, equally less do we care about which day or with what airline he arrived.

The merging of the COI/PAID editor's "update" in Special:Diff/823909029/823918970 is a verbatim copy paste from Draft:Malcolm Forest Wakeford (Special:PermaLink/823788578). Besides the introduction into main space of several sections with totally unsourced material, and free promotion of Wakeford's upcoming album, also unsourced, this selective paste-merge includes a source like

AussieRock (February 27, 2004). "Flying Emus - Postcards From Paradise (1989) + Bonus Tracks". Rock On Vinyl: Flying Emus. Retrieved February 7, 2018.

which is an anonymous blog post that consists of multiple copy-pastes from Wikipedia articles and copyright violations of other artists' sites. And is used as a "source" in the article to directly support a statement about Wakeford. WP:IRS, please.

You can't polish a turd, and while Malcolm Wakeford still is a possible search term and the most likely target for a redirect still is Little River Band, this promo trainwreck should be deleted before any redirect is created. Delete per WP:DEL8.

Source assessment

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
ACE. "ACE Repertory". ASCAP. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. Retrieved February 6, 2018.	?		Merely a database entry	✘ No
"FreeBMD Entry Info". FreeBMD Home Page. Retrieved February 6, 2018.		His name is mentioned in a scan of an index of births in July–August–September 1950. The FreeBMD web page itself says "Births Sep 1950", and this is used uncritically as the month of birth in the article. The COI editor who started the article, Wakeford's business partner, gave the DOB 13 July.	Merely a database index entry, wholly unacceptable in a BLP	✘ No
"Item details for: K269, 22 Jan 1962 Canberra – Incoming passenger list to Fremantle Canberra arrived 22 January 1962" (PDF). National Archives of Australia. 20 March 2009. p. 60. Retrieved 4 February 2018.			Merely a scan of a passenger list in the National Archives of Australia	✘ No
"NAA: K269, 9 JUN 1966 [QANTAS] QF732 – Incoming passenger list to Perth Airport [QANTAS] QF732 arrived 9 June 1966". National Archives of Australia. p. 1. Retrieved 4 February 2018.			Another passenger list - nothing actually connects Malcolm and Ronald	✘ No
"NAA: A1197, VOVOTE-WALKER L – Incoming passenger cards - Jan-Jun 1966 - VOVOTE-WALKER L". National Archives of Australia. p. 1513. Retrieved 4 February 2018.			Yet another scan from the National Archives of Australia, supposedly regarding the father's arrival in Aussie.	✘ No
"1972 Joint Electoral Roll for the Subdivision of Caringbah North". Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 3 February 2018 – via Ancestry.com.au. (subscription required)	?	?	? Hidden behind a subscription wall; assumably some primary source that documents the family lived in Caringbah.	? Unknown
McAvinchey, Dan (January 2002). "Interview: Stephen Housden". Guitar Nine. 22 (5). Retrieved 4 February 2018.	Interview with friend Stephen Housden		Trivial mention	✘ No
Australian Rock Database entries: Stephen Housden: – Holmgren, Magnus; Warnqvist, Stefan. "Stephen Housden". hem.passagen.se. Australian Rock Database (Magnus Holmgren). Archived from the original on 4 April 2012. Retrieved 4 February 2018. Stevie Wright Band (197?): – Holmgren, Magnus; Goldsmith, Glen; Ashton, Gwyn. "Stevie Wright". hem.passagen.se. Australian Rock Database (Magnus Holmgren). Archived from the original on 1 April 2012. Retrieved 4 February 2018. Note: incorrectly lists last name as "Wakefield". Redgum (1990): – Holmgren, Magnus; Clarke, Gordon. "Redgum". hem.passagen.se. Australian Rock Database (Magnus Holmgren). Archived from the original on 2 April 2012. Retrieved 4 February 2018. Little River Band: – Holmgren, Magnus; Reboulet, Scott; Warnqvist, Stefan; Birtles, Beeb; Sciuto, Tony. "Little River Band". hem.passagen.se. Australian Rock Database (Magnus Holmgren). Archived from the original on 23 October 2013. Retrieved 4 August 2015.		?	Trivial mentions in a defunct database, nevertheless used to "document" no less than 10 facts in subject's career.	✘ No
McFarlane, Ian (1999). "Encyclopedia entry for 'Stevie Wright'". Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop (1st ed.). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86508-072-1. Archived from the original on 3 August 2004. Retrieved 4 February 2018.			Not mentioned	✘ No
Spencer, Chris; McHenry, Paul; Nowara, Zbig (2002), Who's who of Australian rock (5th ed.), Five Mile Press, ISBN 978-1-86503-891-9			? Not available for assessment – I'd be surprised if it talks about subject in any kind of detail, if at all.	? Unknown
"'Party Girl' at APRA search engine". Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA). Retrieved 4 February 2018. Note: For additional work user may have to select 'Search again' and then 'Enter a title:' &/or 'Performer:'			Yet another trivial database entry	✘ No
McFarlane, Ian (1999). "Encyclopedia entry for 'Little River Band'". Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop (1st ed.). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86508-072-1. Archived from the original on 15 June 2004. Retrieved 4 February 2018.			Again not mentioned	✘ No
"'Falling' at APRA search engine". Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA). Retrieved 5 February 2018. Note: For additional work user may have to select 'Search again' and then 'Enter a title:' &/or 'Performer:'			And another trivial database entry	✘ No
Little River Band; Housden, Stephen; Birtles, Beeb; Goble, Graeham (1983), The Net, National Library of Australia, retrieved 5 February 2018			Trivial mention in the National Library of Australia database as co-author of 1 song	✘ No
"Take it Easy on Me". Sault Star. Retrieved 1 February 2018. Other members wouldn't last long at all; 1986 was drummer Malcolm Wakeford's sole year of service.			Trivial mention	✘ No
Apter, J. (2016). Playing to Win: The Definitive Biography of John Farnham. Schwartz Publishing Pty, Limited. pp. 136 pp. ISBN 978-1-86395-880-6. Retrieved February 7, 2018.			Wakeford is not mentioned	✘ No
Forbes, Clark (1989). Whispering Jack The John Farnham Story. Milsons Point: Century Hutchinson Australia Pty Limited. pp. 98–99. ISBN 0 09 169441 8.			? Not available for assessment. Source is not about Wakeford, but about a musician Wakeford played with. I'd be surprised if the source talks about Wakeford in any kind of detail, if at all. Source is not used in the article to directly support a fact about Wakeford.	? Unknown
Allan, Monika (1988). The Tamworth Country Music Festival. Cammeray: Horowitz Grahame Pty Limited. pp. 10, 52–53. ISBN 0 7255 2046 9.			? Not available for assessment. Source itself is not about subject, and I'd be surprised if it talks about subject in any kind of detail.	? Unknown
Redgum; McDonald, Hugh; Spicer, Michael; Truman, Verity (1987), Roll it on Robbie, National Library of Australia, retrieved 5 February 2018			And another trivial mention in the National Library of Australia database as drummer on a Redgum song	✘ No
"Flying Emus". Country Music Hall of Fame. Retrieved 5 February 2018.		?	Trivial mention as a member of the Flying Emus – Wakeford played drums on 1 of their albums.	✘ No
AussieRock (February 27, 2004). "Flying Emus - Postcards From Paradise (1989) + Bonus Tracks". Rock On Vinyl: Flying Emus. Retrieved February 7, 2018.	? Personal blog site	Blog entry is made up of multiple copy-pastes from Wikipedia and multiple copyright violations of other sites lacking a proper CC licence. Wholly unacceptable source.	Trivial mention	✘ No
Watts, Derek (2008). Country Boy: A Biography of Albert Lee. North Carolina: McFarland & Co Inc. pp. 207, 218–219. ISBN 978-0-7864-3658-3.			? Source itself is not about Wakeford, but about a musician Wakeford played with. Wakeford gets no mention on page 207. Page 218–19 are not available for preview, but I'd be surprised if Wakeford gets more than trivial mention, if any mention at all.	? Unknown
Morris, Helen. "Albert Lee". Tamworth Rage Page. Retrieved 5 February 2018.		Personal web page	Trivial mention	✘ No
"Live at the Basement – Albert Lee ABC1 Television Guide". Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). 17 April 2008. Retrieved 5 February 2018.			Wakeford is not mentioned in the source, despite the source being used to verify a fact about him.	✘ No
"Not Really The Blues". Dean Thomas. Retrieved February 7, 2018.	Dean Thomas' own web site	Personal web page	Trivial mention in the band line-up. Credited as Mal Wakeford. Further searches for sources on Mal Wakeford returns nothing significant and reliable.	✘ No
"Greyhound to Mecca". Dean Thomas. Retrieved February 7, 2018.	Dean Thomas' own website	Personal web page	And another trivial mention in the band line-up. Credited as Mal Wakeford.	✘ No
"Big Island". Dean Thomas. Retrieved February 7, 2018.	Dean Thomas' own website	Personal web page	One more trivial mention in the band line-up. Credited as Mal Wakeford.	✘ No
"The Band". david mason-cox. Retrieved February 7, 2018.	David Mason-Cox' own website	Personal web page	Trivial mention	✘ No
"Sophie Hanlon - About". Sophie Hanlon. Retrieved February 7, 2018.	Musician Sophie Hanlon's page on Music Glue	Personal web page	Wakeford is not mentioned.	✘ No
"Quintessence, Didgeridoo Sound Healing and meditation". Phil Shiva Jones. Retrieved February 7, 2018.	Musician Phil Shiva Jones' own website	Personal web page	Trivial mention in the band line-up	✘ No
"MITCHELL ANDERSON". MITCHELL ANDERSON. December 21, 2015. Retrieved February 8, 2018.	Musician Mitchell Anderson's own website	Personal web page	Wakeford is not mentioned.	✘ No
"NO REINS (1986)". Graeham Goble. March 27, 2016. Archived from the original on March 27, 2016. Retrieved February 8, 2018.	Musician Graeham Goble's own website	Personal web page	Wakeford is listed as drummer on one track.	✘ No
"the huge Little River Band fan page". www.lrb.net. April 25, 2017. Archived from the original on April 25, 2017. Retrieved February 8, 2018.	? Some fan site		Wakeford is listed as drummer on one track.	✘ No
"the huge Little River Band fan page". www.lrb.net. February 4, 2018. Archived from the original on February 4, 2018. Retrieved February 8, 2018.	? Some fan site		Wakeford is listed as co-author of three songs.	✘ No
"Byron Bay Bluesfest – Phil Jones & the Unknown Blues". Byron Bay Bluesfest. Archived from the original on 27 September 2011. Retrieved 5 February 2018.	? Festival site	Normal promo	Usual trivial mention as drummer	✘ No
"The Bar-Tones » What's On". liveat.thepbc.org.au. 9 March 2017. Archived from the original on 9 March 2017. Retrieved 8 February 2018.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)	? Promo for a gig			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Sam Sailor 20:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 20:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 20:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Sam Sailor's thorough assessment of sources. I considered this subject might be notable per the criteria of having been a member of multiple notable bands, but upon investigation found his roles were generally that of a journeyman session player or touring member on various projects rather than that of a significant, ongoing part of the ensemble. Although the subject seems accomplished it's not more than run-of-the-mill existence and absent significant third party recognition I say delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dispute the nominator's assessment of many of the article's sources: some of which I supplied for the article.

The subject was a substantial contributing member of two (or more) notable bands – more than just a "journeyman session player or touring member" – he was recorded on their releases, he co-wrote material with other members, he toured nationally and/or internationally as a full member of these groups.

The article was redirected by the nominator without any consensus with other interested editors: it was disputed by another editor and was reverted.

Notability issues have been muddied by conflation with the COI situation. The fact that a major contributor(s) had a business relationship with the subject is now known: this was not self-declared and WP:Assume Good Faith requires other editors to accept another's material at face value. The COI 'plate was placed about 36 hours after I had started editing this article. I have no problem with the blocking of those two accounts.

In editing this article I have added citation needed 'plates, removed self-serving refs and trimmed the External links section, including the removal of the subject's business concern: interestingly the nominator added that link in the infobox as their "Official website", which it is not.

The article certainly requires clean up: both for COI issues to neutralise tone, remove biases and self-promotion; and for removal of redundancy and repetition of sections.

However, the subject, himself, passes WP:MUSICBIO despite the nominator's claims otherwise.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Australian editor above disputes my assessment of many of the article's sources, but does not disclose which.

In Special:Diff/823737175/next they introduced the unsourced birth year "c. 1951". Subsequently in Special:Diff/823920807/next they violated WP:BLPPRIMARY and introduced based on a misreading of this primary source the birth month and year to "September 1950". If we are to believe the article's creator and main contributor, Wakeford's business partner, Wakeford was born 13 July. Secondary sources on his DOB have not been found.

Concurrently they removed {{BLP sources}} an {{notability}} despite the article being an under-sourced COI/PAID job.

They then in Special:Diff/823955826/next used this annonymous blog, which consists of copy-pastes from Wikipedia, to source a fact about Wakeford. This is a simple WP:REFLOOP mistake, but it does illustrate the near impossibility to find reliable sources about Wakeford, and a profound misjudgement of sources.

The editor contends that Wakeford was a substantial contributing member of two (or more) notable bands, but as the article stands now, this is entirely based on original research that stitches together one trivial mention in databases after the other. There are no reliable, secondary sources to back this up. Rather contrary, of the three bands Wakeford had short, less than 1-year tenures with, Little River Band (LRB), Redgum, and Flying Emus, LRB remain the most prominent, and as one single source added by me states in regards to Wakeford and LRB: "Other members wouldn't last long at all; 1986 was drummer Malcolm Wakeford's sole year of service." In fact, Wakeford was in use only for the short seven gig April 1986 tour after Steve Prestwich had left LRB, and Wakeford only plays as an additional musician on one single track of the album No Reins. He is not a substantial contributing member.

Redirecting an article does not require prior consensus, please read the relevant policy that states:

Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly blank the page and redirect it to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect.

We write articles based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent from subject. That is not the case here. Here whole chunks of COI/PAID text is regrettably copy-pasted directly into main space, and the text is then bombarded with bottom-scraping sources that is misused. The fact that it is done in part by someone who "know most of the original members [of LRB]" is worrying. Sam Sailor 13:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't like the nominator's tone: it is overly abrasive, accusatory and misleading. There is no need to be uncivil.

It seems that the nominator agrees that the subject's birth year is 1950 (which surely is c. 1951?) but why cite a banned account for his birth date? I can live with removal of September, leaving born in 1950.
The nominator is able to trawl old edits of the article: he provides them with no hesitation. However he implies that I removed the templates while the article was labelled as COI (PAID was not mentioned at that time) however his research would show the COI 'plate was not placed until about four hours after the edit he directed us to, above. Why this misdirection?
In another accusation he claims that I used an anonymous blog. However, I had reworded the sentence "He played drums on their Postcards From Paradise" to "He played drums on their third album, Postcards from Paradise (1989)" and hadn't even checked the source at that time. For my next edit I added a template {{Better source|reason=Citation is a personal blog website; there must be more objective sources for this.|date=February 2018}} for that source. Now the nominator is accusing me of using the blog: again this is misdirection and unfair accusation.
Nominator contends that subject "is not a substantial contributing member" of LRB. I disagree. The nominator believes that sources supporting his membership and contributions are "original research" while the only source the nominator likes is his own. I dispute his interpretation of many of the sources in this article and believe the subject has been shown to be a substantial member of two (or more) notable bands.
Redirect policy is quoted, there was a dispute over how "useful" the applied redirect was. Consensus is not obligatory for a redirect: sure, this is in that policy, but why not seek consensus when the article is being actively edited by other users? It was disruptive to those editors in the way it was applied.
In the final ¶ above the nominator talks about "whole chunks" being "copy-pasted". The implication is that I had something to do with these. However the edits were made by a different editor. Likewise the nominator cites a talkpage entry by that other editor. This additional ¶ is a misdirection as it applies to another user but the nominator gives the clear impression that it belongs to me by adding it to the previous ¶¶.
In his nomination pre-amble he directs us to WP:DEL8. We find there a caveat, "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page." I attempted to improve the article by what I believe to be reliable sources; now I'm being accused of various forms of poor editing and my reputation is being tarnished by someone willing to misdirect others to support his belief.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Refocus on notability. So far nobody claims that Wakeford passes WP:BASIC/WP:GNG.

A musician may be notable under WP:MUSICBIO #6 if (s)he "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". I added this source that says "Other members wouldn't last long at all; 1986 was drummer Malcolm Wakeford's sole year of service." Bring on the sources that say Wakeford was a prominent member of two or more bands. Sam Sailor 08:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – does not appear to meet notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Per the above assessment, does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wakeford was a member of Little River Band and Flying Emus, and therefore is "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Generally speaking, in a small ensemble, all people are reasonably-prominent" per MUSIC BIO #6. Hence the subject satisfies a criterion for inclusion. WWGB (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect WWGB, how deep was your research into this? Re: Little River Band has had over 30 members through out its 43 year career. He was with the group for 1 year during the duration of recording a single album among their 17 career album output. I certainly wouldn't characterize this as a "reasonably prominent member" per wiki criteria. He appears to have played a bit larger role with Flying Emus, but even there he was not among the founding key members per the sources, nor as a bluegrass band is a drummer typically an essential part of the ensemble. ShelbyMarion (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, "in a small ensemble, all people are reasonably-prominent". That's Wikipedia talking, not me. LRB never had more than seven members at any one time, so it was always "a small ensemble". Hence, "all people [including Wakeford] are reasonably-prominent". We don't have to agonize over our own thoughts on prominence, Wikipedia has made the decision for us. WWGB (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, that is a common WP:INHERITED fallacy:

Wakeford was a member of Little River Band and Flying Emus, and therefore is "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Having been a member of a band does not equal to being "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member". The onus to demonstrate through reliable sources that the musician was indeed a "reasonably prominent member" lies with the editor making the claim. Just making the claim is not enough. Wikipedia:Notability (music) makes no fuss about it:

To meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make unsourced or poorly sourced claims in the article, or to assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed.

I still invite new sources, but without them, the MUSICBIO#6 criterion has not been proven true. And right now, there are none. Sam Sailor 20:26, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dazexiang uprising[edit]

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

No sources, Acts as if an apocryphal story is fact Zubin12 (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - nomination fails WP:BEFORE. The article is poorly written, but the uprising, China's first peasant rebellion which eventually overthrew the Qin empire. is a seminal event in Chinese history. It is by no means apocryphal, and well recorded in the contemporary history Shiji. The nominator has not done even a cursory search on Google books, as there are thousands of academic English sources describing this event: see search results. -Zanhe (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chen Sheng per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As far as I can see there's nothing on this page that isn't already covered by Chen Sheng, and I doubt additional material can be found that doesn't directly pertain to Chen Sheng or Wu Guang (e.g. social/economic effect of the uprising, but that information wasn't recorded in history for this period). This isn't the case of Taiping Heavenly Kingdom where rebels established a somewhat functional and durable government with a variety of historical sources that we can use. Timmyshin (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep name/title for Redirect to Chen Sheng. Kierzek (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zanhe. I would rather merge Chen Sheng and Wu Guang into this article than merging the article on the rebellion to the article of one of the leaders. But there's no reason why all three can't have articles. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the improved sourcing demonstrates notability. Whether the articles about the leaders Chen Sheng and Wu Guang could be merged here can proceed outside of AfD in the normal couse of editing. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:21, 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 speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. No prejudice against speedy renomination with a valid deletion rationale. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa AlAbdullah[edit]

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

Per nominator. IamIRAQI (talk) 20:07, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:19, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Movie League[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. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've massively reduced the size of the article by removing about 180KB of tables of trivia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 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 02:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:18, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against another nomination. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia[edit]

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

No indication this organization meets WP:ORG. BEFORE shows many local sources mentioning this, but none that discuss it in detail, and nothing from out of Washington. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. John from Idegon (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this page as part of a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of legal history and legal aid organizations in the United States. Right now, aside from the 800-pound gorilla of legal aid (the Legal Aid Society of New York), there are only a few pages on random legal aid organizations with no apparent rhyme or reason, in particular Legal Aid Society of Louisville, Colorado Legal Services, Wyoming Legal Services, Inc., and Legal Aid Society of Cleveland. The Legal Aid Society of D.C. is the largest and oldest legal services organization in D.C., a large and growing city with a large population of indigent residents who rely on it for legal representation and advice. It has an excellent reputation inside and outside D.C. and does high-quality and cutting-edge work. (I don't work there and have no affiliation with it.) Sfeldman (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 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 20:18, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DigiHive[edit]

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

Lack of reliable independent sources to substantiate notability. Few Google hits, mostly unrelated. Created by a WP:SPA, Google strongly indicates WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 01:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 02:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:18, 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 speedy delete per Cullen328. (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Konbini (company)[edit]

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

Reads like an advert. No assertion of why this company is notable. Fails WP:CORP. fish&karate 10:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitta Pitta (talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unambigous advertising. Despite the article's length, there's nothing in it that's not promotional, such as "Konbini aims to bring fresh perspectives and creative responses...". It goes downhill from there. In addtion, fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance Sydney[edit]

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

The organisation has very little coverage in independent sources, with that that exists being incidental. Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Kb.au (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 12:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to LGBT rights in Australia#Christianity. Slightly notable,[3][4][5][6] as an organization, not enough for WP:ORGDEPTH though. Lorstaking (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG & significant RS coverage not found. I don't see a reason to merge it into the suggested article; the content would WP:UNDUE there. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 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 20:11, 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 no consensus. Despite the large number of editors !voting to keep, I don't see a single argument which is supported by policy, nor any sources analyzed which meet the definition of WP:RS. Most of the arguments here are based on Alexa rankings and the like; these arguments have no place in a WP:N discussion.

The Dawn reference (Facebook provides free internet access to Pakistani citizens) certainly seems like a WP:RS, but doesn't even mention UrduPoint, so I don't see why it was brought up.

There was some shenanigans, as described on the talk page. I've largely disregarded the comments from both editors involved. I'm also assuming there was some canvassing going on.

With all that, we end up with, other than the nominating statement, nothing I can use to base any kind of consensus on. In theory, I suppose I could close this as WP:SOFTDELETE, but I'm sure somebody will ask for it to be WP:REFUNDed almost immediately, so that seems like a waste of effort. If somebody wants to bring that back for another look, WP:NPASR. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UrduPoint[edit]

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

No in depth coverage in RS. globally ranks 1,082 on alexa. namechecking is not enough to satisfy the notability. The page on Urdu Wikipedia cites similar sources and nothing substantial so I assume there is no in depth coverage in Urdu RS as well. Saqib (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Global ranking of every site goes ups and down on different times. UrduPoint is the Pakistani based website. Sometime ago Urdupoints's global rank was also 419 but this time it's global rank is 1073, as per Alexa this site is 6th most visited website of Pakistan. In Saudi Arabia this is the 93rd most visited website, in the United Arab Emirates, this is the 57th most visited website. As per web traffic in Pakistan, Google.com.pk is 1st, YouTube.com is 2nd, Google.com is 3rd, Facebook.com 4th, Yahoo.com 5th, Urdupoint.com (Subject site) on 6th and Wikipdia.org (this platform) in on the 9th number. This stats show UrduPoint is Number 1 Pakistani Website in Pakistan, with 8.4+ million Facebook follower (if you consider facebook followers). Alexa is the most reliable source on Wikipedia, every website template has also an entry about Alexa rank. The subject website is also considered an RS on WP. As far as about coverage in other news sources, I think nobody can show me coverage of Daily Jang in Nawa-i-Waqt or some other newspaper coverage in other newspaper. Hope you will remove the deletion template soon.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan two cellular companies, Telenor Pakistan and Zong Pakistan, are providing free internet access to the people of Pakistan living in urban and rural areas with the partnership of internet.org / freebasic.com. User of both companies can freely access only two and three dozen websites. Urdupoint is among these sites. UrduPoint can access free with freebasic by Zong and Telenor. These external links show that subject site has in-depth coverage across all Pakistan.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of UrduPoint has already discussed and Contested on Talk:UrduPoint. Further, I want to say that above-mentioned tools like JSTOR etc., does not support the Urdu Language, while UrduPoint.com is world's most visited Urdu website, so this is unjustified to check this website with tools that do not support the Urdu Language. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)--Ameen Akbar (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as this is one of the top 10 visited websites of Pakistan, and one of the largest in Urdu as per above. Mar4d (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable --Tahir Mahmood (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a second-relist to allow this AFD a full span of seven days, due to the now-voided premature closure.Participants are reminded to read WP:ALEXA which states:--Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability and existence of reliable source material if so. A highly ranked web site may well have nothing written about it, or a poorly ranked web site may well have a lot written about it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above comments. Störm (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. :O M A A Z T A L K 18:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ditto. samee ^talk 18:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources mentioned for notability, so i'm also keeping. M A A Z T A L K 18:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete--Fails our general notability guideline as well as our our subject-specific guideline.All keep voters are asked to explain about how this website passes the specific set of criterion for web-content, rather than throwing about arguments bordering on Alexa rank is proportional to encyclopedic notability, other crap exists, and others borrowed from our guideline of non-sensical AFD !votes.Furthermore, no-body is using JSTor to evaluate the notability of this website and that's a straw-man.I have heavily pruned the article.Also, AFAIK, there's no restriction on !voting by a relister.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, it is mentioned several times in research [7]. Also dawn news mentioned it [8]. Aaj news mentioned it. So it does pass WP:GNG. M A A Z T A L K 08:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That it was mentioned in some research-papers (which are of the poorest qualities) in the most trivial manner is an utterly nonsensical argument.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - All press coverage falls under WP:SINGLEEVENT. --Saqib (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that too, in the most trivial-est of manners, as name-mentions.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there any tool which show only highest quality reseach? UrduPoint is showing while checking scholar.google.com. So, subject is fullfilling this requirement.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep UrduPoint is one of best and one of the most visited website of Pakistan. Arif80s (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UrduPoint is one of best and one of the most visited website of Pakistan. Since Alexa quoting is not viewed reliable in this round of deletion request as mentioned above, I take back my previous argument. Instead, I would like to quote a number of other websites which highlight the significance of Urdupoint - take this for example, which rates UrduPoint @ # 3. --Muzammil (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. samee ^talk 17:57, 16 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) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MediaBrix[edit]

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

Non notable company. Run of the mill source, with no real coverage. Unremarkable comapany with sources which fail WP:ORGIND scope_creep (talk) 16:00, 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 19:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH with sources being WP:SPIP and / or routine funding news. Unexplicably kept at the first AfD; should have been deleted then. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:18, 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shamila N. Chaudhary[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOLAR. Störm (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly news sources were not checked before this nomination. Mar4d (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Article could use a bit of cleanup + expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed the article needs cleanup, but I do see secondary sources with discussion of her life, her work, and how she's affected the field. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:07, 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 speedy delete. as a hoax RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Santiago Augusto Castillo[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet any notability criteria, including WP:NBOX. None of the information in any version of the article seems to be verifiable, and the amateur boxing record table is just a portion of the table from Sergio Martínez (boxer) with some of the names altered. Dancter (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 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 Ladue Horton Watkins High School. Apparently already merged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ladue Horton Watkins High School people[edit]

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

unneeded content fork John from Idegon (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep list as separate article and remove list from Ladue Horton Watkins High School. In this case, the list is long enough where forking the notable people from the High School page and placing into separate list makes the main article about the school look cleaner, with more focus on the main subject, which is the school. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't think this discussion really needs to be at AfD: no one would reasonably dispute that the list of alumni is appropriate to Wikipedia's coverage of the high school, and there will be no requirement to delete (as opposed to merging) the list and its edit history. Whether the list is long enough to warrant a separate article is something that could have been (indeed, still could be) discussed at Talk:Ladue Horton Watkins High School, with reference to the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Alumni. On the merits, however, I have to agree with the nominator: generally, only the very longest high school alumni lists end up as separate pages. So, for example, we have separate articles for really long lists like List of Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School alumni or List of Old Harrovians or List of Punahou School alumni, but not for something reasonably long and well-cited like the alumni content at Central High School (Tulsa, Oklahoma). For the present, at least, the Ladue Horton Watkins list is not long enough to need the separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WP:PROD would have been the better option, but if people insist this should a freestanding article, we can go though AfD. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content is already merged. I do not oppose a redirect. I PROD'd the list when I merged it back, and although I will not oppose a redirect here, I think creation of redirects like this will be is not a good idea. That's why I didn't just boldly merge it back leaving a redirect. John from Idegon (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment a comment above regarding the "reasonably long and well-cited like the alumni content of Central High School (Tulsa, Oklahoma)" refers to a list that has 23 entries. Some would say a list of 30-35 entries is about the number for forking, albeit also the size of the article is also a consideration. I believe this article has much potential for expansion, since there are 33 people in Category:Ladue Horton Watkins High School alumni. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Ladue Horton Watkins High School without prejudice to recreation if list gets much larger than it currently stands, as FM promises. JFI has already done most of the merging needed for now, but I can't tell if there are any discrepancies. Alansohn (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ladue Horton Watkins High School. This is an unnecessary content fork and a separate article for just a few names is not required. Ajf773 (talk) 22:37, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Weber[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate for elective office who has not yet won elective office. All of the coverage about her is due to her campaign, and she therefore doesn't meet WP:GNG. Marquardtika (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP:POLITICIAN guideline says Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". And there's plenty of coverage: in-depth coverage here, a third of this magazine article, primary focus here,in-depth here, in-depth here, and in-depth here. She's won major party endorsements which are also confirmed here. Further, she's notable as a business executive also confirmed here. In sum, easily meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a person with significant in-depth coverage.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Lonehexagon (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/meet_the_newest_challenger_to_njs_lance.html
^ http://www.njbiz.com/article/20170831/BREAKINGGLASS/170839974/weber-on-campaigning-njs-infrastructure-and-advice-for-women-in-todays-political-climate
^ https://www.tapinto.net/towns/berkeley-heights/articles/twenty-five-influential-women-leaders-in-politics
^ http://cnycentral.com/news/matts-memo/liverpool-high-alumna-announces-run-for-congress-in-new-jersey-matts-memo

Keep as indicated above and in the article, there are plenty of reliable and verifiable sources with in-depth coverage about her to meet the general notability criteria. Alansohn (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weber fails WP:NPOL. The coverage of her run for congress is all local sources. The ABC News story only mentions her. It is the congressional race, not the candidate that the media is covering. So, she still might be notable for her business career but the only coverage of her business career that anyone has produced is one sentence about her in a short Reuters article. So also fails WP:GNG--Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tomwsulcer and others. Djflem (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-winning candidate for office who fails WP:NPOL does not get an automatic free pass over WP:GNG in lieu just because some coverage of her campaign for office exists — every candidate for office always gets some coverage of their campaign, so every candidate would always clear GNG if that were enough in and of itself. Rather, a candidate gets an article in one of three ways: (a) she wins the election and thereby becomes a holder of a notable political office, (b) she already had a credible and properly sourced notability claim independently of her candidacy, such as already having held another notable office or passing our notability standards for her primary career apart from politics, or (c) she received so much coverage for her campaign, expanding significantly out of scope to what every other candidate also got, that her candidacy itself can be credibly claimed as significantly more notable than everybody else's candidacy (the Christine O'Donnell test.) But A isn't true, and this article as written is demonstrating neither B nor C. Tomwsulcer isn't a user whose assessment of sources I put much stock in, considering that he once tried to argue that a television reporter had cleared our notability standards for journalists because her existence could be referenced to a letter she had written to her local newspaper's food columnist asking for a kale recipe. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You mean you have a rule; we (the community) have rules clearly specified by WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG -- please read them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have my own special personal rule for determining the notability of politicians outside of existing Wikipedia practice — every word in my comment was and is correctly reflective of Wikipedia's established consensus about how a non-winning candidate for office becomes notable enough to have a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate. It is not sufficient to point to how an article technically meets the letter of a Wikipedia inclusion test — rather, you need to be familiar with the corpus of how AFD has actually responded in similar situations: campaign-related coverage always exists for all candidates, but we do not automatically accept all candidates as notable for that per se, so the coverage does have to expand significantly beyond what every other candidate could also show before it makes mere candidacy an includable notability claim in and of itself. NPOL is significantly outdated, in fact, and requires a significant rewrite that just hasn't been undertaken yet, so the fact that it doesn't already explicitly say that doesn't mean it's not true. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you, Bearcat, know the correction interpretation of WP:NPOL, but the guideline as written, is wrong. Seriously?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all what I said. For one thing, not one syllable in NPOL suggests that anything I said is even slightly wrong in the first place. And for two, I'm not expressing a personal opinion that differs so much as one iota from established consensus about unelected candidates. The simple fact is that Wikipedia does not automatically accept an unelected candidate for political office as notable just because some campaign-related coverage exists, precisely because every candidate for any office could always show some campaign-related coverage. The key to making a candidate notable enough for an article because candidate per se is to show that she's significantly more notable than the norm by virtue of having generated outsized coverage that goes significantly above and beyond what every other candidate could also show — not because I said so, but because AFD consensus established that years ago. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the NPOL wording: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I don't see anything about outsized coverage needed. The wording is clear.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and since every candidate for any office always gets some coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the article, if that were all it took we would always have to keep an article about every candidate for anything. But we don't, because campaign-related coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL. So the key to demonstrating that one particular candidate would qualify to have a Wikipedia article, when most candidates don't, most certainly is to show that that the volume or depth or breadth of coverage involved is significantly out of the ordinary. Because again, if all we had to do to make an article about an unelected candidate keepable was to show that the normal and expected volume and depth of campaign coverage existed, but that volume and depth of campaign coverage never, ever, ever fails to exist for any candidate in any election, then we would have to always keep an article about every candidate — which, again, our rule is very explicit that we don't. Accordingly, yes, to make a candidate notable enough for an encyclopedia article just for the fact of being a candidate per se, it does take more than what every other candidate in every election could also show. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat is correct. The coverage is of the campaign, not the candidate. The campaign may be notable, but not the candidate. For the candidate to be notable, there must be in-depth coverage of her outside of the campaign. See WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, Linda Weber is notable for one event only and therefore does not get an article.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weber is notable as a (1) business executive and (2) cancer fund-raiser in addition to her (3) running for Congress.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not showing the sources needed to make points 1 or 2 notability claims — they're not sourced to coverage about her business career as such, but to coverage about the campaign which merely mentions her business career by way of background. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is routine for a political candidate, not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is coverage of a woman business executive, credited for developing online banking platforms, who raised millions for cancer research, who decides to run for Congress, routine? Don't you mean you just don't like it?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since those claims aren't being sourced to coverage about her doing those things, but to "background info on the candidate" in coverage about the campaign. That's not how you make a business executive notable for her business career — a business executive becomes notable by showing media coverage specifically in the context of her business work, not by showing that her routine campaign coverage mentioned her background the same way it would mention any other candidate's background. To make those valid notability claims, you would need to show sources which covered her because business itself, ideally not even mentioning the candidacy at all — sources which covered her because election campaign, while adding an "oh by the way business" blurb in the middle but not being about her business career per se, don't cut it for making her business career a notability claim. Election coverage always mentions the prior career backgrounds of the candidates, that's just the nature of the beast — but that coverage does not, in and of itself, mean that they get to claim notability for their prior careers just because the election coverage mentioned their prior careers, if they weren't already garnering a GNG-satisfying volume of coverage in those prior careers before becoming a political candidate.
    The way to demonstrate that a political candidate was already notable enough for an article under some other notability criterion for her prior work is not to depend on the campaign coverage as the sources for that prior work — her notability as a businessperson cannot depend on the campaign coverage, it has to depend on coverage that she was already getting as a businessperson before she was a candidate for anything. The way to make a candidate notable enough under some other inclusion criterion for her pre-political work is to take the candidacy, and all candidacy-related coverage, completely out of the equation, and write and properly source a fully keepable article without depending on the campaign coverage. Then, once that's done, the campaign itself can be added back in as a minor extra detail — but the campaign-specific coverage cannot be the crux of the sourcing: if you expect her business career to count as preexisting notability that got her over our notability standards for businesspeople, then you need to show sources which covered her specifically in that context, not just sources which mention it as background while covering her in the context of the political candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is substantial coverage as found by Tomwsulcer and Lonehexagon. Davey2116 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in any election could always show campaign-related coverage, but Wikipedia has an established consensus that candidates are not notable enough for Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates per se. The coverage shown here is not marking Weber out as a special case who's more notable than most other candidates for any reason. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with above comments that a few routine news stories in local press are not enough for the "significant coverage" required by WP:NPOL Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:41, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Pringle (activist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate for public office. The coverage surrounding him is primarily about his campaign and he doesn't meet WP:GNG independent of his political campaign. Article also has problematic promotionalism, including "Pringle has shown robust knowledge of the nuts and bolts of both state and federal governance." Marquardtika (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While he is running for a public office, that is only part of the article. He has worked as an environmental activist for many years, as is well-documented.Djflem (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An article with this title was nominated at AfD on 22 December 2017 and was deleted as a result for lack of notability. It was recreated in January 2018 and I nominated it for speedy deletion under G4, as an article that had been recreated after deletion, but that was rejected. The article is overly promotional and the subject is no more notable now than he was at the last AfD. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was initially nominated for deletion in December because, while his activism was robust, his campaign was new and had limited coverage. Since then he's seen a lot of independent coverage, including in Politico, The Observer, and many NJ papers. That combined with his large public record of activism should qualify this page as sufficiently noteworthy. If his page is too promotional, it can be edited to remove that. Lebanonman19 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- just being a candidate does get him pass WP:POLITICIAN and his activism only gets local coverage. And then there's also the fact this was just deleted about a month ago.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Which version of the article is referred to in "the fact this was just deleted about a month ago"? How similar or different is this in contrast/comparison?Djflem (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is, it doesn't matter. The article was deleted because the subject fails notability requirement and he still does not pass them now.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't matter, why mention it then? And why to continue to ignore the fact the the article mentions the candidacy but is NOT based on he candidacy, but his work as an environmental advocate?

I mentioned it because I answered your question. None of the sources prior to the campaign are actually about Pringle. They are about environmental problems in the state and they quote or two from Pringle. That's not significant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as indicated above by DJflem and Lebanonman19, and as seen in the article, there are plenty of reliable and verifiable sources with in-depth coverage about him to meet the general notability criteria. Kudos on the expanded article with ample sourcing; any claimed issues re promotional content are poor excuses for deletion and excellent arguments for discussing and editing the article. Alansohn (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete continues to not be notabile. Candidates for public office are almost never notable, and nothing suggest he is an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the candidacy but is NOT based on he candidacy, but his work as an environmental advocate. The nomination is based on a false claim: the coverage is NOT primarily about his campaign.Djflem (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Djflem. The subject is notable because it is not a 1E article about his congressional campaign but rather focuses more on his environmental activism. Also, articles should only be deleted if they're beyond any hope of improvement; this is very far from the case here. The delete !voters have very weak arguments as seen above. Davey2116 (talk) 04:38, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PowerSchool[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A real software product, but of unclear novelty, innovation or notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 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 17:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication this product is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 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. Nakon 05:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NayaTel[edit]

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

Promotional with nothing significant in WP:RS. Clear failure of WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Notable telecom company and provider of FTTX. Covered in news refs [9]. Bad nomination -- Mar4d (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d Company announcements, MoUs, namechecks don't come under coverage which is needed to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Raise your standards for voting, 62% matches only?. Very bad. Störm (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: Last time I checked, it wasn't me who's editing under formal restrictions on AfD nomination limits. You clearly need to revisit your source checking methodology and raise your AfD'ing standards:

Etisalat eyes takeover of local internet provider Nayatel

Bahria Enclave signs landmark deal with Nayatel

Undersea cable fault strangles internet services

Govt should strike balance between censorship, security: DRF

Nayatel Deploys DNS L-Root Server in Pakistan in Partnership With ICANN

All the news refs clearly mention it as one of the major operators. And you have clearly not checked news sources. Mar4d (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No need to lower the tone by making personal comments or bringing up editting restrictions that have zero impact on this AfD. Also it appears that you may not be familiar with the criteria for establishing notability as opposed to the criteria to evaluate sources used for incline citations. For example, articles based on company announcements or that extensively rely on quotations from company officers or connected personnel - essentially references that are no intellectually independent - fail the criteria for establishing notability.

Etisalat This tribue.com.pk reference relies extensively on quotations and comments from the Nayatel chairman with no intellectually independent opinion, fails as a PRIMARY source for the purposes of establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
This pakistantoday.com.pk reference is based on an announcement and is also a business-as-usual deal announcement, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
This dawn.com reference is a mere mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
This nation.com.pk reference is a mere mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
[This thenews.com.pk reference is a based on a business-as-usual company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND.

Can you find any references that are intellectually independent? That don't rely on company annoucements or interviews/quotations from related sources? HighKing⁺⁺ 09:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Nah..Typical business-spam-sourcing.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked any references mentioning it as one of the major ISPs? There are only ten odd in the country, this is one of them. Please see above. Mar4d (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not RS. 2402:3A80:8C5:785F:F4BB:A87D:E98F:82BA (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is not RS? Mar4d (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It's a notable and major teleco in Islamabad and other major cities of Pakistan and a major competitor of ptcl. At present, article needs to be re-written, almost all subheadings contain non-encyclopaedic and intricate detail. I would say it'd be better to fix the article. samee ^talk 10:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing is major or notable about this spam article. 2402:3A80:8C5:785F:F4BB:A87D:E98F:82BA (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC) — 2402:3A80:8C5:785F:F4BB:A87D:E98F:82BA (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep it seems to satisfy WP:GN. I'll even put a friendly search suggestions template on the talk page.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As it is mentioned in few media sources like the news[10][11], DailyTimes [12], Nation[13]. M A A Z T A L K 16:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After looking at a number of possible additional references shown above, I want to 'keep' and improve the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, run-of-the-mill business with a run-of-the-mill news-production conveyer belt of PR releases, interviews, etc. None of the sources are intellectually independent and they fail the criteria for estblishing notability. Article fail GNG and WP:NCORP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:38, 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II Stadium (Enfield)[edit]

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

I can't see why this non-League football ground is notable enough for its own article when it can be covered at Enfield Town F.C.#Ground. There are indeed references, but any new non-league football ground will have coverage in the local press – we don't need separate articles on all of them. Number 5 7 16:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I wouldn't call this a stadium as such, I haven't been down there in a long long time since it closed, but it had a few shops, swimming pool. It's more of a historic building in Enfield than anything. There is a lot there and I wouldn't dismiss this. Govvy (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments Also the guy that designed it (Frank Lee Borough) may have been an associate of Charles Holden, I can't see you finding much on the web considering the age of the building, but it gives credence to the importance of the building in the history of Enfield. Govvy (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The stadium is used as the home of Enfield Town F.C., is one of the home tracks used by Enfield & Haringey A.C., and has been selected as one of the venues of the 2018 ConIFA World Football Cup, amongst its current sporting uses.Hammersfan (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources which show notability. Giant Snowman 13:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After Hammersfan updates I think there should be enough there to satisfy WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be a Grade II listed buildings according to council documents and has a history way before football took an interest. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grade II listed buildings are usually kept Atlantic306 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points raised by MilborneOne and Atlantic306 and the current referencing and content of the article. Hmlarson (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GEOFEAT. Fenix down (talk) 13:49, 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. Nakon 05:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Shames[edit]

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

Edward Shames served as both an enlisted man and officer in the 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II, fighting in all the regiment's battles. He did not rise above lieutenant on active duty and, although he was eventually promoted to colonel in the Army Reserve, he performed no acts to qualify him as notable under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, Shames has led a quiet life with no activity to qualify him as notable. His role in the Band of Brothers miniseries was minor and he is minimally present in the book. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respect your judgment through your work in MilHist, but aren't the WTAJ, KHON2, and East Valley Tribune articles not something towards the GNG? Thanks,
Keep ~~Delete~~ per nomL3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC) per below L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 15:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people do not become notable because of brief treatments in a miniseries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @L3X1:, I didn't see anything in the three articles that draws me to Shames as a person but I'll read through them again when I'm fresher.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If these are the references: WTAJ, KHON2, and East Valley Tribune then they're mostly observations about events by Shames. The one where Shames criticizes Band of Brothers and Ambrose's response might make a good source on either the article about the book or Ambrose or both. (I'm glad I never took history from Ambrose.)--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the breakdown, Gaarmyvet. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 19:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is the subject of the Ian Garner Book, Gardner, Ian (2015). Airborne: The Combat Story of Ed Shames of Easy Company. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1472804856.. He is also somewhat active as a speaker about his life and easy company, see https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22Edward+D+Shames%22&offset=4, https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22Ed+Shames%22&dr_year=2002-2014, and https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22Edward+Shames%22&dr_year=2002-2014). I agree that members of Easy Company are not necessarily suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia based on their characterization in the series of books about them, but I think that those who have received in-depth coverage in other sources as a result of the books and tv series as well as those who are the main subject of one of the books should not be discounted. I also think that Gardner may be a more reliable source than Ambrose, and thus coverage by Gardner may be more reliable and give better evidence that an article passes WP:V than coverage by Ambrose. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Smmurphy has nailed it. There are enough sources about Shames to meet GNG and write a decent encyclopedia article. It's not the most conventional route to notability, but there seems to be an enduring interest in some of the men of Easy Company.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion above establishing substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Verifiability alone is not enough to guarantee an article, and the GNG is not a right to inclusion, as WP:N makes clear. We have to use common sense and discern what coverage is substantial and what isn't, and that includes looking at what the coverage is about. Since the subject did nothing in his life that is noteworthy, and the biggest coverage is because of the book/miniseries, it is reasonable for us to discount the other sourcing as routine or being about the company as a whole. The one line keep arguments here are pretty weak, as is the assertion that passing WP:V is enough to have an article. On the weight of the policies and guidelines, this article should not exist, and I'd encourage the next person looking at this to close to look past the nose count and at the very least consider another relist. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:notability isn't the same as Wiktionary:notability. Osprey is a reliable publisher of military history, and Gardner's book was, I think, held to higher standards than Ambrose's. So it seems to me that Shames was the subject of a pretty legit microhistory. As a result of his inclusion in the BOB universe, his life is frequently covered in depth by other sources. He may not have done anything we think is notable, but the editors at Osprey and of many newspapers found him interesting enough. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not enough for notability under our standards, and even if it was, notability is not a guarantee of inclusion. The coverage must be substantial and have depth. The newspaper links you have shown above don't work for me, but from what I can make out of the search results that are shown to the paywall, they are all local or regional coverage at best, which is a strong argument against notability, not one for it. You are arguing for WP:V to be the inclusion criteria, which it is not. We have to look at depth of sourcing, and basic coverage in microhistories by someone who is utterly unimportant in the grand scheme of things is not enough for a Wikipedia article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I disagree, but I just wasn't clear what you were saying. By the way, I highly recommend checking out WP:The Wikipedia Library, which is how I have access to newspapers.com. TWL gives wikipedia editors with at least a small amount of experience gratis subscriptions with many different partners. My favorites are ProjectMUSE (I am the account coordinator there) and newspapers.com. ProjectMUSE and another partner, Questia, give full access to numerous academic books and journals (although not this one, I think); newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com do what you would guess, and other popular partners include Fold3 and JSTOR (which has a waiting list). Depending on the areas you primarilly edit in, I highly recomend it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with almost everything Tony writes. This article is an example of why WP:N is a guideline - we need to go beyond the GNG and exercise editorial discretion as to whether this subject should have an article. The interest in Shames is largely an accident; there are many soldiers who did as much (or more), but didn't have the good fortune to be part of this "microhistory". However, we do have this enduring interest and good quality of sources, and I see those two elements as the backbone of notability.Mojo Hand (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER and the coverage offered above is insufficient. Routine coverage in the context of a larger story does not equate to encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Mixon[edit]

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

A new user tagged this as A7 and while I declined this request due to the amount of credible claims of significance in the article, I cannot verify any of it. No sources can be found on GNews, GBooks or Newspapers.com with the full name and those hits I found for "Christian Mixon" clearly are for another person with the same name. Considering the amount of extraordinary statements, this might even be a case for WP:HOAXLIST. Regards So Why 16:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Looks like it is entirely original research. No sources provided, and none found in search. Nothing to establish notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability and significant (or any) coverage not found. Could be a hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It is high time we make having only IMDb as a source a speedy delete criteria that can only be overcome by putting something else down as a source. IMDb is not reliable, but too many editors treat it as if it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows etc. A list of appearances as an extra, however long, doesn't cut it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 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 speedy delete. obvious spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Night Addict[edit]

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

Appears to be more PR than notable company. PabloMartinez (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:SPAM. So tagged. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for nominating for Speedy Deletion. I'm a bit new, but wanted more seasoned wiki editors to look at it. - PabloMartinez (talk) 16:45, 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 redirect and protect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonite[edit]

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

Article seems to be reaching heavily for notability. Most of the mentions in reliable secondary sources are extremely minor. I would argue that it fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's "rescue list", here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect and protect per BRD. WP:POKEMON is a quite well-established precedent, and the page was a redirect for four years until a few days ago when someone showed up and reverted the redirectifying of the page. This is a simple procedural matter; there needs to be a clear consensus that the topic is notable rather than a random editor showing up and unilaterally overruling the previous consensus-supported merging. And for full disclosure, I've actually been an on-and-off Pokemon fan for twenty years; this is just a Wikipedia procedural process for me, and not about me having any problem with the particular fandom some people might accuse me of "attacking" for this !vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:28, 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) 00:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reykjanes Art Museum[edit]

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

I looked thru the information I could find in gsearch and I don't think the nobility of the museum is beyond local one. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked through as best I could too and couldn't find anything other than passing mentions in a couple books and very very short descriptions on Icelandic travel sites. In terms of English references it's lacking, perhaps someone with access to Icelandic articles/papers can improve? SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too had a look and as far as I can tell, it's actually a craft-type museum that uses other museums like the Duus Museum to show its works. Not enough sources are out there, although I added two to the soon-to-be-deleted article.104.163.148.25 (talk) 08:00, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5KPlayer[edit]

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

Unambiguous advertisement. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG nor WP:NSOFT with a quick browsing of english-language sources. AtlasDuane (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 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) 01:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ahmed Vohra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG... --Saqib (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly & in detail; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced BLP. samee ^talk 14:31, 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 Rename. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

French Guiana women's national football team[edit]

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

No senior women's national football team for this country seems to have existed at any time. Fram (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research. Lorstaking (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 'Women's football in French Guiana', keeping a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Rename - to Women's football in French Guiana or at worst merge content into Football in French Guiana. Notable topic, or at worst a notable element of a wider topic on football in French Guiana, plausible search term, though probably don't need the empty table. Fenix down (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Women's football in French Guiana A notable topic 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) 13:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Women's football in French Guiana. Hmlarson (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move Until they actually have a senior team, I reckon this should be a move to Women's football in French Guiana. Animation is developing 00:15, 16 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. Content found on Holy Ghost Fathers is not a copy violation since the source, Catholic Encyclopedia, is in public domain in the United States (as the text was published before 1923). (non-admin closure) Jiten^talk_contribs 14:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation of the Holy Spirit[edit]

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

The page was a redirect before the recent edits, why I suggest that the page should once again, after copyrighted content is deleted, be redirected again, like before. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The content that replaced the redirect has been copied from Holy Ghost Fathers, so this is not a copyright issue but a cut-paste move. I'm going to be bold and revert the cut-paste and notify the person who did so. I think the AfD nomination should be withdrawn. Jiten^talk_contribs 13:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry I beat you to the revert. There is still a copyvio issue I will transfer the tags over including that for this AfD.PRehse (talk) 13:26, 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 Speedy delete. per G4 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 18:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RajDlitaP[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN : no mention of having held any major office or national level party position. Also page is completely misnamed, seems someone's USer page has been promoted too early. Spike 'em (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Articles for Creation request on this article was rejected, but seems to have been promoted anyway and CSD request was removed. Spike 'em (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Despite the article title, this is about one Subhash Ware, the subject of a previous AfD deletion, a CSD G4 and protected against re-creation. AllyD (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references for the current article are later than the previous AfD, so CSD G4 may not be applicable. The recent Firstpost item quoting the subject as "a social activist from Pune", one of several quoted, is not indicative of notability. The 2015 Indian Express item about the subject's resignation as president of a dissolved party unit is more specific, but not in my opinion a role sufficient for the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:59, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mishu Shrestha[edit]

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

The sources are all interviews, don't discuss her at length, or 404 compliant. A Google News search turns up bupkis. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:18, 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) 11:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Park (Longboat Key, Florida)[edit]

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

Municipal park, fails WP:GNG, no significant reliable source coverage. Rusf10 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:42, 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]

Delete per WP:GEOFEAT. I can find nothing notable about this park. I'd suggest a merge to Longboat Key, Florida but there is nothing of note to merge.--Pontificalibus 09:27, 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) 07:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most municipal parks are not notable, nothing suggests this one is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USHUD.com[edit]

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

Not enough coverage. Fails WP:NWEB Störm (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:54, 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) 07:38, 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) 05:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-Garden[edit]

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

I don't believe this is a notable company and I think it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The article creator has set up what looks like a single-purpose account and likely has an undeclared conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:59, 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) 07:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability, references are either passing mentions (or don't reference the company at all), or rely on quotations from the company. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGING, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Warlitner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has changed since a "No consensus" close of the first AFD in 2013: we have a Daily Press (Virginia) obit here and we have a short follow up a few days later on the day of his funeral also in the Daily Press here saying e.g.: "Newport News resident known in the local show business community as an expert stagehand, died on Sunday, Sept. 23." That's about what we have of reliable sources. I have searched for additional sources, but I find none to add. Subject still doesn't pass GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 11:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Legacy.com is a self-published service anyone can submit an obit. 'Stagecraft mailing list' is unreliable. Kiss Dynasty Tourbook is a primary/connected source. This leaves the second obit in the local town newspaper Daily News and a very brief mention in a trade magazine. There is nothing about him while he was alive just these two weak obits, from a notability perspective (local newspaper and trade magazine). I'd like to see more about him while he was alive and not just a couple death notices. -- GreenC 15:58, 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) 07:37, 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) 01:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nijjar[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Most of the refs are about a soccer team which Mr Nijjar happens to own and not about Mr Nijjar. All the other claims to notability are entirely unsupported except by the most tenuous documents. Not helped by recent COI editing.This fails WP:GNG by a mile. Would have been a possible candidate for speedy deletion in 2015 when it first surfaced. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any SNG that this individual meets and there doesn't appear to be significant independent coverage of him to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:44, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheenlac Paints[edit]

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

Seems to fail a number of criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 05:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Nothing other than coverage of it's set-up of a joint-venture with Jenson & Nicholson Paints Pvt. Ltd.Fails CORPDEPTH.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bitter Price of Love[edit]

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

Long-unsourced article consisting entirely of plot summary. There is no indication of notability in the article or anywhere else I could find. Reyk _YO! 06:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:04, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Byron Sheardown[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions, apart from local press coverage of WP:BLP1E in 1988. Proposed deletion contested by article creator. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about coverage of him here in BC Business magazine, available online via Pressreader. There are also several article cited regarding his prior business activities. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that BC Business article. That's the first substantial profile I've seen of him yet. But the local news articles from '88-'89 about his legal troubles as a teenager while running the youth centre don't amount to substantial secondary coverage, and apart from donating to some good causes since then, his career doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria in WP:BIO. If I've missed any other substantial profiles in WP:RS, I'd be happy to reconsider. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:30, 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! 06:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. One profile piece is insufficient for encyclopedia notability. The article has the hallmarks of COI-based editing with attention to insignificant detail & "Awards & Recognition" section detailing nn honours. No value to the project on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 16 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 ~~University of Wisconsin–Whitewater~~Wisconsin–Whitewater Warhawks football. Merge into main college article Nakon 05:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Wisconsin–Whitewater Warhawks football team[edit]

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

Unremarkable Division III football season. All sources are boxscores. JTtheOG (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main team article. Division III team seasons should be limited to the absolute most noteworthy, which typically only includes the DIII national champion. Wisconsin-Whitewater didn't even make the DIII playoffs in 2017. This is the best non-routine source I could find (and the only one on the first 5 pages of google search results for Wisconsin-Whitewater football). Lizard (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge Division III season can be noteworthy, but this one does not appear to be. I suggest the enthusiastic editor merge to a season article for the conference or to either a team page for the program or the athletics page for the program.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:13, 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. J04n(talk page) 15:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Blu[edit]

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

Promotional article written by an apparent undisclosed paid editor, previously deleted as G11 and G12, and recently declined for G11 deletion. This incarnation avoids the copyvio problems. Sources describe him in terms such as "rising" but Wikipedia doesn't have articles on up-and-coming artists; an artist must have already arrived. It isn't clear exactly what criteria in WP:MUSICBIO this person meets. His works (many of them remixes not original works) appear to be self-published, on his own label. Sources are brief mentions or directory listings, and sources that go into reasonable depth appear to be sources dedicated to reviewing obscure artists. These sources remind me of Wine Spectator which reviews 10,000 wines per year, so the chance of any wine getting a review eventually approaches 100%, making Wine Spectator reviews worthless for judging notability. Rightly or wrongly, I get a similar sense from the sources that cover this artist. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the instigator of the speedy deletion nomination of the previous version of this article, I await the creator's disclosure of his conflict of interest. I believe the subject fails WP:GNG, as per Anachronist. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as an advertisement by a blatantly financially-connected editor – we don't allow advertisement. Even if notability could be established (and I don't see that it can), we would not want this as our page on him. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:17, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yūho Iwasato[edit]

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

Completely unsourced BLP. While there are a number of external links, they are all either self-published/social media or fan-sites. Not one of them would be considered reliable, and a Google search doesn't turn up any other suitable sources on the subject. Brad v 04:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sources to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Kejriwal[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP (such as YourStory.com), or not independent of the company. The latter is non notable itself and has been deleted via a deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games2win. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 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) 15:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goemans Appliances[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY, as tagged since February 2016. No significant coverage found. The article was deprodded by DocDuru, who also removed the primary sources and notability tags from the article. I have restored those tags. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the articles cited give the business and its founder very substantial coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable appliance retailer. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Looks to be a tribute page. Sources used in the article are either local, not meeting WP:AUD, or self-citations, failing WP:SPIP (LinkedIn; company's web site, etc). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill appliances retailer. Some might think that the references provide "very substantial coverage" but you get what your marketing budget pays for I suppose - I wouldn't get too excited over getting interviewed by niagarathisweek.com or the Hamilton Spectator. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:16, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Yemini[edit]

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

No case made for notability. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Blackmane (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, so not notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not entirely sure that the politician standards are the ones by which Yemini should be judged (I'd heard of him, but not of his political ambitions until I read the article). To my mind, he's an activist, or perhaps a "controversialist", if that's a word, attempting to move into politics, and may just get over the line on something more like GNG for that reason. That said, the sources currently out there don't seem to get him there, and neither does anything I can find not currently included in the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per BigHazs rational. Also, isn't there kind of precedent for deleting minor "celebrities" with a weak threshold for WP:GNG who clearly don't want an article here, especially if it is a magnet for WP:BLPVIOs and sourcing violations such as were already removed from article earlier? If he ever got famous enough it could always be brought back.He iro 05:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know the kind of thing you're thinking of, but I can't find it specifically (possibly just a long day on my part). Most of the time, things seem to work the opposite way - in that if someone just gets over GNG/specific guidelines, they have an article but we need to make sure nobody writes something ridiculous in it, rather than the subject being able to say "don't write about me at all". I'm almost tempted to say that in this day and age, if someone makes public comments enough (and I don't propose to define "enough" right now), they must surely expect that there'll be a Wikipedia article about them sometime. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it ever became anything "official", I've just seen it happen before. And by "a weak threshold for WP:GNG" I meant that grey area of is it not meeting/meeting GNG, like this one seems to be in. After re-reading my comment, though I might clarify that. He iro 06:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, and thanks for the clarification. I suppose that's where GNG comes in, really. If enough take the view we have (that he doesn't meet it), then no article, sort of thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of WP:BIODEL? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it, been several years since I paid attention to an AFD, so memory is fuzzy. Subject has not technically asked for deletion, they just disapproved of the article and sent their minions here to disrupt it (of which quite a few complied). Also at least one person contests deletion, so I am assuming this does not apply after all. Thanks, He iro 08:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may also be the distinction between the subject "not wanting the page" and the subject "not wanting this page". Just as anyone who turns up in the public sphere enough should probably expect there'd be an attempted Wikipedia article on them, they should also be aware that they can't have the final say on the content if the page stays. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP: POLITICIAN. Otherwise, he is just another run-of-the-mill opinionated extremist. If he is elected to the provincial parliament, the article can be restored at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete daily mail ref and all. oy. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ive taken out all the Daily Mail refs. Nightfury 13:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not written about a politician. He is a high profile member of the alt-right in Australia who is regularly quoted in the mainstream media and is a regular commentator on Sky News. The politics is incidental, and only mentioned because he is otherwise notable. He is not dissimilar to Mohammad Tawhidi from a Jewish perspective. The premise for the delete is not accurate. (Smellytap (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
- Rather than measure him as a political figure he should be measured as a person of significance within the Australian Jewish community, who also has a profile in the mainstream media. (Smellytap (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep For my mind the article meets WP:GNG as the subject has has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I also agree it fails as WP:POLITICIAN, but the article is not about a politician as much an critic/activist/celebrity. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yemini is one of Australia's most significant far right figures and a cause of great debate and consternation in Australian Jewry's peak bodies (Executive Council of Australian Jewry, The Anti-Defamation Commission, and The Australian Jewish Democratic Society, as well as throughout the broader community. He has submitted to a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. As of time of writing, Yemini has over 120,000 Facebook followers. He has orchestrated a number of demonstrations in Melbourne, requiring a very large police presence, some of which resulted in violence and arrests. He has appeared extensively in - or has been reported on by - the Murdoch Press (The Australian, The Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, the Fairfax press (The Age, Sydney Morning Herald), The Guardian, New Matilda, the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Sky News, Channel Seven (and its affiliate, Yahoo News), Channel Nine, Channel 10, 2UE radio, 3AW radio, Overland Journal, The Australian Jewish News, Plus61J, J-Wire, the Times of Israel, The Canberra Times, and Stuff. He was also a subject of a chapter in John Safran's bestselling book, Depends What You Mean by Extremist. (MorkMan74 (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Most of this was inadvertently copied whilst an editor was voting - excess votes removed, no further changes have been made. Nightfury 09:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Per "keep" !votes above, Yemini is a media profile, has 120,000 facebook followers, etc, . But was has he actually done that's notable? According to the article, he "announced that he would be running for the Victorian Legislative Council" (but did not do so). He "attempted" to do this, was "involved" in that and "active" in the other, and is an "aspiring" politician! There's absolutely nothing notable by Wikipedia's criteria in any of these attempts and aspirations, as long as they don't bear fruit. Wikipedia is not for helping raise anybody's profile. Bishonen | talk 10:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- As mentioned above, his notability is not his political aspirations, that is a side point. It has been introduced here as a red herring. His notability is surrounding his activities in the Australian Jewish community, especially in pushing his far-right view into the communal mainstream. (Smellytap (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information on this page on Avi Yemini is biased and mostly incorrect. The author(s) are not painting a balanced picture of Avi Yemini and his activities. They are willfully trying to make him look bad. They leave out essential information. As it is now, it is impossible to form an honest opinion on this man and what he does. I would like to see this page removed or rewritten in a honest way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martina Theuns (talk • contribs) 10:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC) This user has made no edits outside this AfD. Nightfury 13:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This is not about the article's accuracy, which is all sourced. It is about whether Yemini is a notable individual who should have his own page. The content is a separate discussion which should take place on the talk page. (Smellytap (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, as the article subject has of yet only announced his intent to run for office.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biographies need actual substance about notable persons. This person does not meet the general notability standards nor those for politicians. "Interviewing a notable person" does not confer notability on the interviewer. Sorry - I try to find reasons to Keep, but failed in this instance. Collect (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Bishonen. Home Lander (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yemini has been the subject of extensive non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, thus meeting WP:BASIC. That's pretty much it. Whatever we may think of him he meets our guidelines and the coverage clearly rings the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am struggling to find anything of any weight that was not obviously prompted by his own efforts to generate exactly that coverage - i.e. churnalism. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to find it because the ability to edit the article has been switched off. There is a *plethora* of *good* information about the millions of dollars spent on police presence because of demonstrations Yemini has organised. There has been a *deluge* of coverage of the man's attempts to gain power, his violent associates, his campaigns that have resulted in a Muslim media commentator having to flee Australia, while a number of left wing Jews have been physically threatened by Yemini's hundreds of thousands of followers. Frankly, how do you think people attain power? Only through 'good works'? Are there no other media 'personalities' covered on Wikipedia? If the editing ban gets lifted, I assure you all this information from meticulous sources such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission, The Guardian, and the Fairfax press will all be included. MorkMan74 (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing is only locked for brand new or IP editors. Regular editors with an established history can still edit. New SPA accounts like your can take any WP:RELIABLE sources they have to the articles talk page, here Talk:Avi Yemini, and start a discussion for including them in the article. He iro 01:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Talk page for an expanded list of non-trivial sources which back arguments for Yemini's notability. MorkMan74 (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Just a collection of attention-seeking comments. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians. Any political candidate is going to be spoken ill of by their opponents. Any will get some coverage. We do not accept that just being a candidate is enough for notability, so notability is not passed here. Wesather he is actually running for office, or just says he intends to, but has not formally entered the election, is not even material. Short of winning the election he will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea why people are fixated on the politics section. That is entirely incidental to the article, and could be deleted without majorly effecting the article. He is notable primarily for the impact he has had on the Jewish community pulling a number of community opinions to the far right, and more incidentally for his presence in the far right of Australia today. At the moment, this article is in danger of being deleted under false pretences. Perhaps it requires a re-write to better reflect the primary reason for notability. (Smellytap (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Because being "far-right" isn't a claim to notability. Being a politician, is. He fails to meet any real notability threshold, and is only marginally known for being controversial. Notorious, not notable. On top of that, the political career section is the only part of the article asserting notability. Feel free to rewrite the article, that's about the only thing that could swing the outcome of this AfD. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume having a network of 120,000 people on his Facebook network is not notable. Let's assume his place in Australian politics is not notable. Where is notability? Lyle Shelton is only a right wing commentator. Any number of people in the community are 'only commentators'. Let's also leave aside the millions of dollars he has cost the Victorian police in protecting rallies that he organised. But let's leave all that aside and pretend that is not notable. He was instrumental in the setting up of the AJA, the far right Jewish group, and has been central in a number of significant moves in the Jewish community over the past couple of years. (Smellytap (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

In order – (1) Facebook network: so do thousands of other non-notable people, incl. twitter, youtube, instagram, and every other site. (2) Notability of politics: already been discussed above by everybody. (3) Lyle Shelton: (a) WP:ATA, specifically, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and (b) I think you mean Lyle Shelton (lobbyist) and not Lyle Shelton the aviator who set a world record. (4) The AJA: WP:NOTINHERITED. The notability of a group does not transfer notability to its founder. Although, I don't think the group has an article either. Anything else? As I've said, the only snowballs chance this article stands is for a substantial rewrite that would demonstrate notability. You're not presenting a convincing argument here. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this is feeling increasingly bizarre. Have you read the Talk Page associated with this entry? The case for notability is laid out there with meticulous sourcing.
How is it reasonable to claim that someone is not 'notable' when he has received tens of thousands of words in newspapers and hundreds of hours of radio and TV coverage?
How is it reasonable to argue that someone is not 'notable' when he forces both State and Federal governments to spend millions on security and arrests connected to demonstrations he has organised?
How is it reasonable to argue that someone is not 'notable' when his actions so clearly frighten the entirety of Jewish Australian leadership that at least three peak bodies have felt the need to issue media releases condemning him?
How is it reasonable to argue that a person capable of mobilising over 100K people to rally, donate money, and issue death threats is not 'notable'? MorkMan74 (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Between Smellytap and MorkMan74, this getting very close to badgering. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been significantly edited, to emphasise his activities in the Jewish community. Much of the discussion above is now not relevant IMO. (Smellytap (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Maintain prior !votes as not being invalidated. The discussions above remain relevant, and massive use of a limited number of sources does not affect actual notability, which is the primary issue. In fact, I fear the use of such sources may verge on UNDUE in stressing a small number of facts. Collect (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is based on his failing to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Are you willing to concede that that is no longer relevant, and that all the votes that mention his political career as the primary focus for delete is no longer relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smellytap (talk • contribs) 22:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't concede that, no. Anybody who has voted can change their vote in light of changes to the article, and you are welcome to ping them. Most people who vote will check back later to see if the article has changed and may change their vote accordingly, but mine remains the same. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Morkman has placed a large list of sources on the article talk page. I've gone through about half of them and, to sum it up, it's basically a WP:COATRACK from what I've seen so far. Of the sources I've read through so far only 1 focuses on the subject, most of the remainder give him a passing mention along the lines of "there was this protest/event and this guy appeared". Blackmane (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is demonstrably false. You admit you haven't gone through all the sources, so why on earth would you level such an accusation? There is no coatracking here at all. Yemini is most certainly the subject of almost all those articles. If he is mentioned in any of them tangentially, it is only because there are so many other matters of enormous consequence to be reported on.

It really does seem like there are some here scrambling for literally any reason to get rid of this article. One user, (talk, openly assured Yemini on his Facebook wall that she would move heaven and earth to get this article deleted. The thought that Wikipedia's content could be so easily manipulated is deeply upsetting and really troubling. MorkMan74 (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page and will provide a summary of my views on each source if I'm able to get time before the end of the AFD. Lunar New Year is approaching and I may not be around for a few days due to RL commitments. If the AFD ends and the article is deleted, but you still want to discuss the sourcing, then feel free to save the links and we can discuss at length. Blackmane (talk) 04:59, 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 15:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hipmunk[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable tech startup; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine, WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. Has been acquired by a much larger Concur Technologies where the subject is not mentioned, so not a suitable redirect target. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete yep, advertorial is the right word for it. bunch of self-sourced stuff aimed at selling ads on the site. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG (article cites non-trivial coverage from the New York Times, VentureBeat, TIME etc.). I just cleaned up the article a little regarding tone issues; a bit more can be done still in that regard, but this doesn't warrant outright deletion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- the coverage, such as it is, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is largely PR-driven. Some samples:

The NYT source is a blog, which is insufficient for notabily.
The Time article is "The 50 Best Websites of 2011" -- being on a list with 50 other sites is not WP:SIGCOV and is a strong indicator that, at that time, it was WP:TOOSOON for an article.

Other sources are likewise unconvincing and / or routine notices, such as:

"Hipmunk's profile on DoubleClick Ad Planner" -- obvious advertisement.
"How does hipmunk get their flight data?" from Quora.com, which is user generated.
Venturebeat is so indiscriminate, as to not count for notability.
Etc.

Yes, the startups generate a lot of press, but we need to look at depth of coverage, which is lacking here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per K.e.coffman, Listing articles are generally not RS and the rest are a mix of blogs. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH and specifically WP:ORGIND per the refs. scope_creep (talk) 10:44, 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.

Plenty of notable coverage now that it’s too late, e.g. https://www.sfgate.com/lifestyle/travel/article/Hipmunk-the-site-that-revolutionized-airfare-14980702.php — FlashSheridan (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Maxson[edit]

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

No significant coverage WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per nom. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG either. Imzadi 1979 → 03:07, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Pavkovich[edit]

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

Can find little or nothing on him beyond passing mentions. Not a notable person. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. I guess that is the reason, the ref is 50 photographers you should know, which is a business listing anway. scope_creep (talk) 01:04, 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 15:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Record360[edit]

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

Either a commissioned work or spam written by an employee. Non-notable company. All the sourcing fails WP:ORGIND or WP:CORPDEPTH as recycled press releases and the like. It's excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM, and also fails WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If considered as an article about the company, the text and references are no more than routine funding coverage. Nor is notability clearer if it is considered as a software product, despite inclusion in occasional lists such as "Put These 9 Smartphone Apps on Your Packing List" – via HighBeam (subscription required) . Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has received significant coverage in third party sources. Cait.123 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No it hasn't (we don't count inclusion in lists like mentioned above), and that isn't even the primary reason for deletion here, which is NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage includes well-known entities such as Forbes and Entreprenuer, as well as niche websites of the company's target market like ForConstructionPros.com. I'm not sure why these aren't considered notable. And for the record, I was neither paid to write this article nor am I an employee of the company. ColoradoHunter (talk) 20:46 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  - Forbes Contributors is a blogging platform that is not considered a reliable source. Trade press that you mentioned is also virtually never intellectually independent, and thus doesn't meet the standards of WP:SPIP or WP:ORGIND. For the record, the article shows all the signs of a COI/PAID piece. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Forbes Contributors isn't exactly blogging platform like a Wordpress.com or something that can be thrown up by anyone who wants to post. They have an editorial review process and editors can remove posts. If you are to immediately dismiss every Forbes Contributor article, then you need to do the same for sites like Huffington Post. That said, I do see the greater point you're making. But Forbes isn't the only known website to mention the company in question. Other sources were already mentioned. Is your argument for "No" more that the article is a Stub rather than not being notable?ColoradoHunter (talk) 3:45 13 February 2018 (UTC)
      - We do dismiss everyone who uses the HuffPost as a forum for self-publishing without editorial oversight, just like Forbes, where the contributors publish directly without paid editorial staff reviewing it. All the other sources you mentioned have already been addressed above: trade and niche industry press tends to lack intellectual independence and does not establish notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. What's present is WP:SPIP / passing mentions not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - they've gotten some coverage in minor niche trade pubs, but it's not enough, based on my experience. Fails WP:GNG TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:11, 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.

[1] ttp://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/meet_the_newest_challenger_to_njs_lance.html

[2] ttp://www.njbiz.com/article/20170831/BREAKINGGLASS/170839974/weber-on-campaigning-njs-infrastructure-and-advice-for-women-in-todays-political-climate

[3] ttps://www.tapinto.net/towns/berkeley-heights/articles/twenty-five-influential-women-leaders-in-politics

[4] ttp://cnycentral.com/news/matts-memo/liverpool-high-alumna-announces-run-for-congress-in-new-jersey-matts-memo

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]