Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 January 23 January >

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. This is a BLP nightmare, if not an outright BLP violation, as many of the contributors here think. If the subject is notable, she will still be notable weeks or months from now when we can better judge. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tnuza Jamal Hassan[edit]

Tnuza Jamal Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on previously non-notable person who at this point is accused but not convicted of a crime. Per WP:BLPCRIME, this sort of material should generally not go into BLPs, and under WP:BLP1E, its not certain she would get an article even if convicted. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The name of the university doesn't actually have the apostrophe-s in it.
  2. "Arson Attack" is descriptive, not part of a proper name, and should thus not be capitalized
  3. "Arson Attack" seems redundant. We wouldn't say "murder attack" or "robbery attack". --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article. Nominator NatGertler initially placed a {{prod}} on the article. When I left some questions, on their talk page, about their policy interpretations, they called my questions "badgering". I can't help noticing that this nomination is essentially the same as that used in the prod, even though I thought I had raised good questions over their interpretations of BLP1E and BLPCRIME. I find that disappointing. Geo Swan (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you care to restate your !vote rationale in terms of policy, rather than in terms of attacking me? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some people conflate civil and collegial substantive discussion over issues with personal attacks. I encourage you to make sure you don't make this conflation. It is not good for the project.
      • On your talk page I responded to the BLP1E claim you placed in your prod, yesterday. I reminded you that ALL three of the numbered subsections of BLP1E are supposed to be satisfied, before an individual is considered an instance of BLP1E. I drew your attention to the phrase "...is likely to remain, a low-profile individual."

        I explained that domestic terrorists, in the USA, are very rare. I compared US domestic terrorist to plain ordinary garden variety murderers. We never cover plain ordinary murderers. We cover a small number of murderers who are in some way exceptional. Ordinary murdeers are adequately covererd in our articles on murder, domestic violence, firearms, etc., because they are so similar.

        Domestic US terrorists are so rare that claim removed for BLP reasons Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

        • Domestic US terrorists are not all that rare, alas. The list you will find at Terrorism in the United States will show you many such incidents, and that is certainly not all of them. I have edited out your claims here about the subject of this article, who has not been convicted of anything and discussion about her is limited by WP:BLP guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename The event is potentially notable not the person. TheGreatWikiGeorge (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an article about a 19 year-old woman who appears to me to be having some form of breakdown. The incident has had no lasting impact on either the building or the institution. In the very unlikely event that this becomes something more than an unfortunate episode in a young woman's life, we can always recreate the article. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ms Hassan may or may not be having a mental health incident.

      Yes, the incident caused no actual casualties, and caused little physical damage. But, she appears to have waived her right to protect herself from self-incrimination, and willing made some damaging confessions. Anyone who actually read the article, or did their own google search and took even a minute looking at the articles covering her, will have seen she told investigators that she had hoped to burn the University to the ground, and cause extensive casualties.

      I suggest it is not her actual result that matters, but rather her intent. Many mass killers could also be described as young people who appeared to be having some kind of breakdown. Their youth or possible mental health issues do not keep them from being notable.

      You suggest this will likely be nothing "more than an unfortunate episode in a young woman's life". Geo Swan (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • I have read both our article and the sources used for it. I am aware of what she is alleged to have told investigators. She set eight small fires. "All but one of the fires were in trash cans," according to this report. Her actions and words do not align. At this point it is not known where Hassan was born or if she is a US citizen, yet she is being described here as "a domestic terrorist". This is irresponsible at best. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • There has been a bunch of problematic content involved. I just had to go strip out article claims that there was a list of charges of which arson was the worst (source only said one charge of arson); that she was still in custody (source, a Monday article, only said that she was in custody on Friday night); and that she would have her next hearing next year (reality: next month.) The net effect of demonizing her with false information is of real concern. That the same editor asserted today the suspect's guilt on another Wikipedia page keeps this a matter of severe BLP concern. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS / WP:TOOSOON / WP:BLP. The subject has not yet been convicted, and the article reads like a news story. No apparent lasting significance just yet. If the incident is still remembered in six months, then sure, an article would be appropriate. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like routine news-of-the-day, a minor campus crime incident. Nothing particularly notable about arson, no significant impact beyond the local region. ValarianB (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E are relevant here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E. We are not a police blotter for the reporting of minor crimes. Calling this an "arson attack" like it's some kind of coordinated terrorist plot is a hell of a stretch. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local, minor-crime story that wouldn't even rate a mention in a Minnesotapedia, if one existed. Whoever wrote this inflated nonsense should know better. --Calton | Talk 05:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local 1E crime. EEng 07:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and rename. This passes WP:RAPID and WP:NCRIME. LASTING can not be evaluated at this time.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I was recently criticized by the article creator for having edited the article while it was under AFD. As this is a BLP of a subject who is likely receiving more attention (and thus having this page referenced) than they ever have or will again, I thought it best to remove or correct statements that did not match sources, particularly those that painted her in a negative light. This included falsehoods and unsourced damaging claims that were added by the complaining poster after the start of the AFD (such as the claim that her next court date was more than a year away, that she had "charges" of which one was the "most serious" when the source listed just a single charge, and that she was "currently" being held in custody.) If anyone wishes to see the article's state before the AFD, it's here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also edited the article after it was nominated for deletion. I removed the categories "Muslim terrorists" (which is does not exist) and "arsonists". There is no source indicating that Hassan is a Muslim. She has not been charged with terrorism. She has not been convicted of arson. Geo Swan should probably be banned from BLPs. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic Tree Hound[edit]

Majestic Tree Hound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be an officially recognized breed. Found a couple tangential mentions such as "Majestic+Tree+Hound"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiyrzy2uzYAhWJ11MKHQokB4AQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=%22Majestic%20Tree%20Hound%22&f=false this, but the breed returns only 136 unique hits on Google and only one-sentence mentions in books. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Seems not to be recognized by the American Kennel Club [1], which has previously been used as a criterion for breed notability. Still I couldn't find any spelled-out WP guideline for these... any pointers? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It doesn't seem to be an officially recognised breed (nor are labradoodles or cockerpoos), but it does seem to be an established breed recognised by its own association.
I would have no problem with this being deleted if the WP:DOGS project holds the notability standard to be "recognition by one of a short list of national bodies". But I would see that as a poor standard to use, because of the labradoodle problem. There are crossbreed dogs which are notable by any sensible standard, despite them not being showable and outside the pure breed standards. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another TPH proposal for deletion which seems to me to meet WP:GNG (unless, that is, every cross breed is explicitly excluded from notability?). How many Google hits does it require for us to conclude that notability criteria are being met? 137+? I have added references to the article, (e.g. this including it being explicitly named by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in a list of types of dog requiring permits for hunting black bear. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Without looking for sources at the moment, can the nominator or the delete !voter explain why, at the very least, a redirect/merge to List of dog breeds is not a possible alternative to deletion? Regards SoWhy 16:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would we want a non-notable breed in that list? As that list is little more than a table of categories from the main kennel clubs, it would be an empty (and pretty useless) entry for this breed. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it was a question, since merging to a list is preferable to complete deletion. The nominator has admitted hat this is a term that is used in books, although I'm unclear how they arrived at 136 "unique hits on Google", when I can find 95,000 hits. including [2] and [3], which claims the breed has been registered in 1980. There seem to be also more GBooks hits which are unfortunately not available though. Regards SoWhy 17:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this comment made to the nominator's talk page might explain why they see a completely different version of the world via Google than the rest of us mortals. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC) .[reply]
I've got a theory. It could be bunnies... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nick Moyes. Yet another overzealous AfD.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per inclusion in the Minutes of the ... Annual Convention of the New York State Conservation Council. (search in the book). Not a ridiculous nomination, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV there is a whole book on the subject of Majestic Tree Hound, which seems enough to make it notable? Marshall, Keith (2016). Majestic Tree Hound Activities Majestic Tree Hound Tricks, Games & Agility Includes: Majestic Tree Hound Beginner to Advanced Tricks, Fun Games, Agility & More. Ocean Blue Publishing. ISBN 9781526921499. DferDaisy (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again, why does none of this EVER show up when I google? I search page after page after page, go all the way to the back of the queue, but find nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Chambers[edit]

Shirley Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To begin with, Chambers does not seem to actually have had multiple significant roles in notable films. Her roles all seem to have been minor, and most of her films seem to have barely been notable. The sources here are all subpar. One is a blog post, which after reading it, I could not figure out how it was a source for Chambers, mainy just the source for a film she was in. Another is the social security death index, which is a primary source for a person's death. Since it literally lists everyone for whom social security death benefits are claimed, it has no relevance to notability. The last is IMDb, which is specifically listed as a non-notable source by Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Sourcing is pretty much non-existent and her minor roles would not pass WP:NACTOR--Rusf10 (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found sources and added them. She had supporting (not minor) roles in a few features, including "Melody Cruise." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep improved version after Megalibrarygirl's stalwart work. PamD 10:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks for your work, Megalibrarygirl. Hmlarson (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG per sources now showing in the piece. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 29 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Eddinger[edit]

Pam Eddinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

president of a community college does not meet WP:PROF Cabayi (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that this educator passes WP:Prof. No other claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep A college with over 13,000 students is significant, whether "community" or not; being president of two such colleges in succession meets WP:PROF#C6. News coverage (a sampling of the better hits I found on a first pass: [4][5][6][7][8]) meets WP:GNG. Being an education expert for the transition teams of two successive governors counts toward WP:PROF#C7. XOR'easter (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a community college president is not automatically notable, but neither is it automatically non-notable; it needs additional evidence in the form of in-depth reliable independent coverage (WP:GNG). Sources 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the ones listed by XOR'easter provide that coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am in agreement with XOR'easter that being the president of Massachusetts' largest community college, larger than many universities in the United States, meets the requirements for WP:PROF#C6. — Pontius Aquila (talk)
  • Keep per @XOR'easter & @David Eppstein. Meets WP:GNG and several points of WP:PROF. The nominator should have done some WP:BEFORE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's another source: When Grit Isn't Enough. Andrew D. (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well done to all those above for finding more sources. I am convinced that she passes WP:GNG. 17:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardx (talk • contribs)
  • Keep -- 13,000 students is a significant institution of higher learning, whether it's designated as a community college or not. Meets WP:PROF, in my mind, + sources above. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep solely on the basis of Bunker Hill CC being the largest CC in Massachusetts per WP:PROF#C6. However, this really does need improved sourcing. Chetsford (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes the SNG for academics as head of a major academic institution. Carrite (talk) 12:51, 29 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Coyne[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Patrick Coyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, citations are insufficient. Fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Wilkie[edit]

Eli Wilkie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unsourced BLP for over 11 years, with only primary ELs. A search for sources didn't find any significant coverage nor indeed much coverage at all. Mattg82 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article has no secondary sources and nothing shows that he is notable. Harut111 (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing at all shows that this musician is at all notable. That this article has lasted so long with no sourcing is a sad commentary on over creation of articles in the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing anything in the first hundred returns of a google search that could bring this poorly written, unsourced biography into the realm of poorly written, sufficiently sourced biographies. Carrite (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Santilli[edit]

Joe Santilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:51, 23 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coalizione del Volere[edit]

Coalizione del Volere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. Nothing notable found in a before search. Domdeparis (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ross (ice hockey)[edit]

Adam Ross (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable player with ephemeral and unheralded career in the mid-minors. Article created by an editor under community ban from new article creation for such shenanigans. Ravenswing 23:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Michel Rizk[edit]

Jean-Michel Rizk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elgin Reid[edit]

Elgin Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D Glenn[edit]

D Glenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which discuss the artist in detail. Marked for improvement on this point for nine years. joe deckertalk 22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete appears to be a vanity page. No sources out there. Source in article is an archive of his/her own site.198.58.168.40 (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Glenn's website no longer exists; maybe Glenn has retired. Anyway, the July 2011 version of Glenn's "about" page has a moderate number of claims but not a single one of them is supported by a tearsheet or similar; and even if they're all demonstrably true, none of them is significant. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a published photographer in and of itself is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- fails to meet threshold of notability as photographer. Concur particularly with @Hoary. Quis separabit? 18:27, 28 January 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 J. P. Parisé. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Parise[edit]

Jordan Parise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:03, 23 January 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. We are at 16:7:7 with respect to keep/delete/merge opinions. This indicates that we have no consensus to delete absent a very compelling policy-based argument for deletion, which I can't see here. The discussion is basically about whether this is a POV fork, which we don't want, or a genuine spin-off subarticle, which are allowed. The distinction between the two is a matter of editorial judgment. But by the same token, we don't have a consensus to keep, given that about half of the participants consider this a fork that merits either merging or deleting, and we don't have a consensus to merge either. This leaves us at "no consensus, default to keep" for now, but editors are free to renominate the article after some time or to start a merger discussion on the talk page. Sandstein 08:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump–Russia dossier allegations[edit]


Note: article was moved to List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations 22:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trump–Russia dossier allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFORK spinoff of Trump-Russia dossier. Noncompliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE as the unsubstantiated allegations are clearly defamatory against a BLP which subjects it to BLP policy. Atsme📞📧 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: - if this article is kept, then the main article, Trump-Russia dossier, should be deleted as it is only notable because of the allegations that comprise its context. This POVFORK is an exaggeration of the NPOV issues that have been challenged at the main article. Atsme📞📧 13:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - Per this diff dated Jan 24th, the subject article was moved and the format changed to list. As a list, it should be deleted and this AfD snow closed as the changes make it noncompliant with several policies, including WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and in this case, cherrypicked unsubstantiated allegations in the highly controversial Trump-Russia dossier with POV commentary by editors which makes it unequivocally a POVFORK and a violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Atsme📞📧 10:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Atsme, those are all patently false allegations. You really need to calm down. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This list is noncompliant with WP:NOR because it involves a selected list of allegations - editors are making the selections and writing the commentary. That is OR whereas in article form it is a summary of the dossier and editors are simply writing what the sources say about the allegations. Big difference. Atsme📞📧 18:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add - I don't see how you possibly say this is not an attack page. The dossier itself is opposition research which means it was commissioned for one purpose - to attack and denigrate the opposition candidate. Worse yet, in this one, the vast majority is unsubstantiated. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Atsme📞📧 01:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one calling it an attack page, and just because no one has responded to that ludicrous claim does not mean "you...say this is not an attack page". Sheesh! Learn what an attack page at Wikipedia means. An attack page in the real world (the dossier sorta qualifies) is something else, and we MUST document it if it has received notable coverage in RS. That's our job. Sure, such an article will have lots of content from one POV, but that's because it is an article documenting one POV. Such articles are allowed, but they must also include any significant countering POV, if they are from RS, and not just from fringe or crank sources.
Summary: An attack page at Wikipedia and an attack page in the real world are two different things. We don't write the first, but we do document the latter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was already formatted as a list page before the move. It was in a bulleted format already. The move just clarified this is a list article rather than a prose article, per agreement between several editors. also, this is not a selective list per editor's opinions. It is based on what has recieved coverage in multiples of reliable sources. This is how it has been decided what goes on the page. Saying "selected list of allegations" is either an oversimplification or inaccurate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, Steve Quinn is correct. I tried different formats, even using a table, and the bulleted list framework, with prose content, served the purpose best.
Above you wrote: "indiscriminate collection of information, and in this case, cherrypicked". BS. It was not "indiscriminate" nor "cherrypicked". The choice of allegations was determined quite deliberately, not randomly, or by my wishes or POV. RS made that decision for me. I chose ONLY the allegations which numerous RS wrote about, and I have searched high and low. The dossier contains even more allegations, and if we find RS coverage of them, they will likely get added. You are welcome to help do this. If no secondary RS covers an allegation, then it would be OR to include it, because editors are not allowed to cherry pick from primary sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, this is not a policy-based way to push your mission at Wikipedia to squash anything negative about Trump, regardless of how well sourced it is. It's odd that you mention WP:PUBLICFIGURE, when the article actually is protected by exactly that section of BLP. Have you even read it? Public figures have less protection than normal people:
  • "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." (Emphasis added.)
Before mentioning BLP, you need to read it. BLP forbids "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced", and this is extremely well sourced, every single day, in pretty much every major RS. It's the "road map" for the FBI and the Special Counsel investigation. That's pretty notable. Stop trying to squash it. This is a frivolous AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a POVFORK that breaches BLP policy and should be speedy deleted. The material is not just contentious, it is highly defamatory based on unsubstantiated allegations in memos by anonymous sources that have spawned conspiracy theories. WP does not spread gossip to defame or discredit a BLP, and it does not promote political advocacies or conspiracy theories to defame a political opponent. You need to read the policy again, BullRangifer - "contentious", not defamatory, material belongs in the article" not deserves its own article. We already have the main article which is based entirely on the same unsubstantiated allegations. Atsme📞📧 08:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge clear POV fork. Billhpike (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear - you think the content of this article should be included in the other article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the content does not belong, but there might be a few sentences worth keeping. Billhpike (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So that's really a delete vote masquerading as a merge vote, because, given the extensive coverage in sources, "merge" sounds more reasonable? Why is it that "most of the content does not belong"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SarekOfVulcan, it's a WP:SPINOFF because its size may create an undue weight situation. Deletion is not the solution, but putting it into the main article might be, but then we'd have to spin it off fairly soon anyway. What we have had is an article about a document which did not describe the contents of the document. That's absurd. This resolves that problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge obvious fork is obvious Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is all well sourced, notable, and perfectly compliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We can not really judge if the allegations were "the truth" or very strongly substantiated. We can only judge if the allegations were published in multiple secondary RS and belong to the subject of the page. Hence this page should not be deleted. Should it be kept as a separate page or merged to Trump–Russia_dossier#Allegations? I think it should be kept separately simply because Trump–Russia dossier page is already large and and this page is also large and expected to grow because every individual allegation needs to be described as "disputed/admitted/denied/whatever" - as described in numerous RS on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A question: is this page actually a "WP:List"? Probably it should be. If so, this is an additional argument against merging. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main framework is definitely a bulleted list, and the choice is based on the MoS advice for this type of subject matter. It's the only way to do justice to each allegation, and it's much easier to work with as an editor and understand as a reader. Prose works fine under each bulleted item. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But then it should be probably renamed to the List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations? It should also provide criteria for inclusion, which is trivial in this case (simply all allegations noted in the dossier). You are probably using more strict criteria (an allegation should be also discussed in secondary RS), which is probably a good thing. My very best wishes (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting proposition. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keerge (keep the content but in the main article) - The article easily meets WP:GNG and given the international coverage of the subject does not appear to violate WP:NOT. On the other hand, I think it may serve our readers better if it were in the main article in collapsible sections. I know thats a bit of a deviation from convention, but let's let WP:IAR rule the day.- MrX 🖋 23:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
^_^ - a first MrX. Atsme📞📧 03:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork, poorly sourced, and several BLP issues. PackMecEng (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out the BLP violations you see here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
As discussed on the talk for Trump-Russia Dossier the golden shower accusations, especially in Wikipedia's voice. In fact since every allegation is in Wiki's voice that is a problem. Also going into the poor sources litter throughout for some of these crazy claims. PackMecEng (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before you criticize it, you should read the dossier. We must document its allegations, and the "salacious" one seems crazy, but that's what it is. NPOV requires that we not censor or alter it. We must present it as it is. The majority of the allegations are not salacious, and it's not in Wikipedia's voice. Attribution is used for the small amount of commentary, and the rest, which is straight presentation of what the allegations actually are, is very well sourced to very RS.
It's not a forbidden POVFORK, but a standard WP:SPINOFF because its size may create an undue weight situation. This is completely normal procedure. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, all the statements appear to be well-sourced and attributed, so I don't see a BLP violation. The Dossier has attracted enormous attention and is of unquestioned significance, so an article that documents its contents is more likely to clarify the public discussion of it for our readers. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: If by well-sourced you mean almost 1/3rd of them being opinion sources or not RS then yes it is well-sourced and attributed. PackMecEng (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have no way of knowing which of the allegations may be true, but we do know what the Dossier says and we do know that the allegations are widely disseminated in mainstream press. By all means we can remove anything for which we don't have secondary discussion to establish noteworthiness, but the question here is whether there is substantial secondary coverage per GNG. "Keep" is rather a low bar, right? SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a low bar, which is why we already have an article on the dossier. A second article, at this point, seems unnecessary. But we will see how this turns out, I could even be wrong. I think that has happened before. PackMecEng (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Telling about the existence of the dossier is the basic "duh" we have to do, but the public needs to know "what's in it". That's the part of interest to everyone. That's the part that has played a role in indictments and arrests. Having an article about a book's cover is somewhat pointless without describing the book's contents. That's the most important part. Due to the nature of the contents, Trump and some editors don't want Wikipedia to document those contents, even though myriad very RS write about the contents every single day. Even Fox News does it! Well, they are not going to stop us from doing what policy demands of us. "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per my comment immediately above. Gives our readers a good detailed summary. The main Dossier article gives larger context, history, and related events. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that debunk specific allegations should be included on the page, and it should be clearly stated which allegations have been debunked. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, I agree. That will be coming. The confirmation status of each allegation will be added as soon as RS reveal it. The ongoing Special Counsel investigation takes these allegations seriously, treating them as a national security threat which risks impeaching Trump. There is already enough evidence to have resulted in the convictions and indictments of several of his closest advisors. Trump supporters attempt to treat these as frivolous allegations but they aren't. This isn't gossip from the National Enquirer. It's intelligence from top experts in these areas and is treated seriously by American and foreign intelligence agencies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "debunked" is incorrect word. "Disputed" or "denied" would be more appropriate. For example, I do not think that sources by TTAAC actually prove, disprove or debunk anything. But the controversial and frequently opposite views from these sources should be included per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What in the article is worth keeping? For example if this ended with merge, what material would be worth merging? PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork with little, if any, redeeming value. Lepricavark (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lepricavark, your !vote will be discounted because you lack the competence to don't seem to understand the difference between a forbidden POV fork and a totally normal WP:SPINOFF. Deletion is not a solution, but merging might be. If you used legitimate arguments you'd have a chance of getting your !vote counted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your bludgeoning and personal attacks notwithstanding, I'll let the closing admin decide how to view my !vote. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies accepted, and I have accordingly struck the relevant portion of my response. Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I'm so sorry. I got a bit carried away there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies NOTABLE and RS coverage every single day. The article is still growing as there are at least two types of content which will be added: (1) Commentary, which of course must be attributed, and (2) Confirmation status, since each allegation has its own status. The subject is extremely notable, receiving coverage in major RS literally every day for a year now, and the Special Counsel investigation is literally using this dossier as their "road map". Those are the words they use. This isn't going away. Our job is to document it, and the allegations are very important in that regard. That's what the dossier contains, and RS are constantly discussing them. We must document that.
Deletion is NOT the solution, but putting it into the main article might be, but then we'd have to spin it off fairly soon (again) anyway. What we have had is an article about a document which did not describe the contents of the document. That's absurd. This resolves that problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ravenanation, that's exactly what it is, and it was indeed originally intended to be in that article. Now it's a legitimate WP:SPINOFF due to size constraints, and, per the proper SPINOFF method, has a section there pointing to the sub-article.
This is growing and will quickly create an undue weight situation. Deletion is not a legitimate option, but merging might be. We can then deal with size issues later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer, these articles have to be merged and the allegations could be simplified. Ravenanation (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep It seems like it should go into the main article about the dossier, but then that article would be huge with all the content from this one added. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 20:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Trump–Russia dossier & merge anything useful. An unneeded content fork and indiscriminate collection of information. If someone wants to read about the allegations in this detail, they might as well read the dossier which is available online. The main article is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Undecided. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep exceeds requirements for meeting GNG, WP:NRV, and WP:N due to the significant amount of attention this topic has received in reliable sources. It seems appropriate to have a standalone article along with the main article so both can be of a readable size per WP:SPINOFF. This article "...creates the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible" (per WP:SPINOFF) and solves the undue weight situation that would occur (per WP:SPINOFF). Also, the availability of so much reliable sourcing indicates NPOV, NOR, and BLP criteria are satisfied (including WP:Public figure) . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A lot of the allegations have become notable in and of themselves, independently of their appearance in the Steele dossier. POVFORKy aspects can be solved by the normal editing process, taking care to document denials and notable commentary on each item. — JFG talk 12:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is not about meeting notability requirements. It is about POVFORK, NOR and WP:NPOV as it all relates to BLP policy. When we are performing original research in that editors are making their own selections of allegations and adding commentary about their selection, that is OR. When in article form, we are simply summarizing what the sources say about the dossier using inline citations and in-text attribution for the unsubstantiated salacious allegations. Atsme📞📧 18:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The commentaries are fine if they properly summarize what the sources say about specific allegation. The list maybe needs to be expanded, but this is not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The policy violations are there - say what you will about the commentaries. We are dealing with an entire article based on partisan opposition research which is and of itself an WP:ATTACK on the opponent - the purpose of opposition research is to dig up dirt on the candidate. I hope editors are grasping why this is not commpliant, regardless of the sources, because the dossier was bought and paid for to include only dirt, unsubstantiated or not. Including a sentence or two with inline citations or in-text attribution is one thing, but an entire article of nothing but dirt? No. Just no. Atsme📞📧 01:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Edit conflict, and I'm on my phone so I lost it. Atsme, I do think your points have been made, most of them multiple times, and it would be nice you would let others speak. MelanieN alt (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit tally: BullRangifer - 16 +3 fixes, My very best wishes - 17, Atsme - 11 +2 fixes +created AfD. Yep, Melanie - *sigh* I'm the one you single out. +1 more now. Atsme📞📧 01:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It took me a while to decide how I feel about this article. At first I thought it should be in the main article, possibly under a show-hide button. The article is mostly about the dossier but does a very inadequate job of saying what's in it. But now that this has been identified and structured as a list, it makes sense. It's actually not unusual for us to supplement a regular article with a list article. MelanieN alt (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC) (Yes, it's really me. --MelanieN)[reply]
@MelanieN: Do you have an example of such a list article? I was looking though the MOS on lists and did not find anything that fit this kind of article. I was hoping you could point me in the right direction if I am missing something. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PackMecEng: Just do a random search for "List of"; the vast majority of these articles have a related main article, which they supplement by adding detail which would be TMI for the main article. Just offhand and at random: List of English monarchs and Kingdom of England. List of Star Wars characters and Star Wars.List of Crayola crayon colors and Crayola crayons. List of Doctor Who episodes and Doctor Who. List of Lucchese crime family mobsters and Lucchese crime family. Etc. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPINOFF has several examples. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are list articles. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an issue of relating to the main article, it certainly is related to the main article. It is the list format we are using does not meet the MOS standard for lists, which is the point I was making. Even the examples of lists you gave do not meet what we have or even a format we would want to use for such content. The closest was perhaps the crime family list, but even then does not allow for the info needed for NPOV on this subject. With all the changes switching around on formats and what the article is. It comes across as trying to change the article around to anyway that might survive AFD. Which is not a good basis for creating an article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I share PackMecEng's concerns above. I have never seen a list like this, and I'm sure the list format is suboptimal format for complex allegations that have BLP implications. For example a reliable source may have commented some allegations in general level without going into details. If your argument is that changing the article into list format made the article worth keeping, the argument is not very strong. Politrukki (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To summarize one last time why this article is not only a POVFORK, but an ATTACKPAGE:
  1. - the dossier itself is a unverified document that was published by one unreliable source that is now involved in litigation over its publication.
  2. - subsequent publications (court records) would make it a primary source that we are not supposed to use.
  3. - we already have Trump-Russia dossier which desperately needs trimming because it does not even focus on what makes it notable, specifically the allegations.
  4. - this perceived "list article" is unambiguously a POVFORK and ATTACKPAGE. No other president or public figure has an article devoted to unsubstantiated allegations.
  5. - purposefully separating unsubstantiated allegations from the dossier article which should not/cannot exist without the allegations created an attack page, regardless of the spin used to justify keeping it.
  6. - based on BLP policy, ATTACKPAGES should be speedy deleted. Atsme📞📧 15:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. - (almost forgot) there is also non-compliance with WP:SYNTH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE 16:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
So you still haven't figured out what an attack page is at Wikipedia? It's a page that's "entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced" (emphasis added). I already explained it to you, but if you're not even going to read and respond, then your failure or refusal to get the point applies and your comments will be discounted. In fact, they amply demonstrate your lack of competence here and how frivilous this AfD really is. You're just repeatedly, here and everywhere else, a POV warrior who wikilawyers against what you don't like.
BTW, is this an "attack page"... Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations? Nearly all are unsubstantiated allegations, described in embarrassingly clear detail. So why is it allowed here? Because it's properly sourced! -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh* BR, your persistent WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT is frustrating. Your responses contradict your own position.
  1. Cosby was charged with a crime and tried in a court of law - you've been so intent on accusing me of not understanding that you've made it quite clear that it's you who doesn't.
  2. There is a big difference between derogatory unsubstianted allegations in a politically motivated dossier vs allegations that led to felony charges.
  3. Politically motivated research is partisan and occurs for the sole purpose of digging-up as much dirt on an opponent as possible - verified or not - rumors included. This article is not about allegations against Trump that resulted in actual felony charges, an arrest, and/or a trial.
  4. See the AfD for Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations - it's closer to being an apples to apples comparison, and it resulted in a #REDIRECT to a section in the main article for many of the same reasons this article should except for the fact this article violates policy. Please, it's best to let a neutral admin weigh the arguments, and make a determination. Atsme📞📧 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These examples are completely irrelevant because the significance of sexual misconduct allegations in these cases is nothing compare to significance of the allegations in the Dossier. The latter is something important for the entire country, possibly for the entire world. My very best wishes (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MelanieN. A separate article in this form seems like a good way to cover the specific allegations in the dossier. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MelanieN and just the general fact that the other article is already very long and is missing most of this information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The readable prose of Trump–Russia dossier, is currently 31 kb with 50 kb generally being considered the limit. Well below the limit. The article is not very long. The list in it's current form looks to be about 10 kb with the redundancies from the info the two share. PackMecEng (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is long. Not sure where you get the 50kb but that is at best an upper bound. Do you really think that stuffing this info into the parent article would be useful? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 50 kb is from WP:SIZE, which yes is the upper limit they suggest before splitting. So currently the main article is at 31 kb, if we add all the non redundant parts of the list it would maybe be up to 36ish kb. Well short of the 50 kb suggested maximum. PackMecEng (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find any arguments based on content size unconvincing because in the new article chunks of new material which has never seen daylight in the main article. On the talk page BullRangifer made several proposals about adding allegations, but the proposals never really gained traction (and I told them they should make proposals in smaller batches). If there's not even some kind of preliminary consensus to add dozens of allegations to the article, the size issue is artificially created non-issue. Politrukki (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether your description of the process is accurate or not, this actually cuts both ways - for those who argue the original article is too long and those who argue it's not. There's nothing anywhere that says that we must first exhaust the 50kb of one article before creating a sub-article. Indeed, good practice is to create a sub-article before we get there as it makes the organization of both original and spin off article easier.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, you have nailed exactly why I did a reverse spinoff. I have enough experience with article creation and spinoffs to see where this was going and just did it. Why waste all the time and effort, when we'd end up with a spinoff anyway? This allows both articles to develop and expand without constantly "looking over one's shoulder". Then the amount of coverage in RS dictates the content, not some often artificial size constraints. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An edit which deleted the old Contents section in the main article actually made the main article worse because the edit removed content that partially corroborates Michael Cohen was not in Prague. Yet Cohen and the allegations are still mentioned in the main article. Moreover, after the content had been moved to the new article, this edit added editorialising "revealed" to the content. Cited source (RFE/RL) says "pointed out" (and Respekt – the original source – just says it's theoretically possible).
The main article is under "consensus required" provision, which means that any challenged edit cannot be reinstated without talk page consensus. Some of the content added to the new article has been challenged in the main article. For example Rosneft allegations (technically a different edits, but similar content) have been challenged at least twice in the main article. In that light creating a new article could be seen as gaming the system.
The article was moved to a list article, but it's unclear what kind of selection criteria should be used. Currently the list consists of 25 allegations, 15 of them are without commentary or denial. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE we should not list allegations without providing context. The dossier is a catalyst for many things, but individual allegations are not important unless they have been widely discussed in reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Politrukki, thanks for your concerns. I'm going to check those details you mention and try to resolve them. Improvement is always desired, and your concerns will be taken seriously. The weekend is nearly here, and your concerns are my top priority.
There was obviously no attempt to game the system. The existing content in the old "Contents" section was woefully lacking, so I developed what was intended as its replacement to be used there. This was done without looking at the rest of the article. As I worked, it became apparent that there was far more than enough to already create an undue weight problem. Seeing that it would quickly grow to the point of needing to be spun off anyway, per WP:SPINOFF, I did a reverse spinoff. This happens all the time. That's why this isn't a forbidden POV fork (no one has presented any evidence that it is), but a legitimate SPINOFF subarticle. I have seen attempts by POV warriors to hide or sideline uncomfortable content which they don't want in a main article. This is not such an attempt. I'd love to have it all there, but it's much easier to develop content without an "article size" axe over one's head.
As far as the choice of which allegations to mention (there are several which are not mentioned), my hands were tied on that one. The only ones included are those which "have been widely discussed in reliable sources". That is the inclusion criteria required by our policies. Inclusion of allegations which have not been so discussed would be OR. That would be a newbie mistake, and I'm no newbie here. If any of the other allegations receive more coverage, they may get added, and if anyone discovers such coverage, they are welcome to add them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Politrukki, I have done my best to improve the denial content. Take a look here. I hope that meets your concerns. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Politrukki, I have now added content about the confirmation status. We're moving in the right direction. As we get information on each allegation, we'll also add it where it belongs. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While you moved the article into right direction, your diff shows that you reinstated challenged edit(s), which might be a problem.
A quick follow-up question: in the main article I supported including some allegations related to Rosneft, with certain conditions. In November, I provided sources that say these allegations remain unverified. Why did you (a) omit well-sourced information that the allegations remain unverified but (b) included vague allegations of treason? Yes, I could easily fix (a) myself, but I won't per explanation in my !vote. Politrukki (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, and definitely something I must deal with when I get home. I'm constantly interrupted where I'm at right now, but will deal with this later.
I really appreciate your collegial spirit. This type of team effort editing is described in my essay WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content#Editorial neutrality. There I have a statement which has been my mantra here for over 15 years:
  • "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."

    This is why the best content is developed through collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view. Everyone is biased,[1] and it is natural for humans to be blind to their own biases; we tend to suffer from confirmation biases[2][3] and the Dunning–Kruger effect. Therefore other editors provide an important counterbalancing service when they spot and correct the consequences of our biased editing. When pointing out such editing errors, it is important to follow the Golden Rule and assume good faith in fellow editors. No one is perfect. (Emphasis added)

I will deal with this. Thanks again. "Stay tuned to this station for further updates!" -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TP sources, please use this format

References

  1. ^ Johnson, Carolyn Y. (February 5, 2013), Everyone is biased: Harvard professor’s work reveals we barely know our own minds, Boston.com, retrieved December 12, 2015
  2. ^ Phelps, Marcy (June 5, 2015), Are your biases showing? Avoiding confirmation bias in due diligence investigations, Phelps Research, retrieved November 15, 2015
  3. ^ Yanklowitz, Shmuly (October 3, 2013), Confirmation Bias and the Ethical Demands of Argumentation, The Huffington Post, retrieved November 15, 2015
  • Delete as POV fork. We don't have lists of things that are completely covered by a single article. The only purpose for such an article is looser sourcing requirements. That's not a valid reason for a list. Lists must span multiple articles. --DHeyward (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? The sourcing requirements are exactly as strict as for BLP content anywhere at Wikipedia. Fortunately, there is no policy which relaxes those demands. There are also many kinds of list articles. This is a subarticle. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a POVFORK but a valid spin-off of the regular article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MelanieN and Casprings. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 00:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as it is a POV fork of Trump–Russia dossier and not much more than a list disguised as an article. We have too much of this as it is, and the fact that the references are larger than the prose (an ineffective defensive move) doesn't make it less of a POV issue. Once merged, it can be trimmed down. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be summerizations of facts, not exhaustive lists of every possible detail and every possible source. Keeping the gist of the content is important, keeping every detail in multiple articles is undue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right now there is very little content overlap between this sub-page and main page. One could argue that almost all this page should be copy-pasted and included to the corresponding section of main page. However, that would be bad solution because this page is essentially a list, and placing a list in the middle of a regular page contradicts our manual of style. "We have too much of this" is a frequent argument and usually an incorrect one. As long something has been described in a large number of RS, and someone is willing to create a page, this is never too much. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MVBW - the allegations are the dossier - the two are inseparable. We already have the Trump-Russia dossier which should focus entirely on the allegations that comprise the dossier instead of all the cruft, speculation and commentary that developed before or after the fact; none of it is directly relevant to the dossier or the memos it comprises. The Trump-Russia collusion investigation by Mueller is entirely separate, connected only by media claims that the FBI and Mueller used the dossier for leads. Anything more and we're dredging up unchartered territory. The sections in the main article including "Hints of existence", "Veracity", "Reputation in the US intelligence community" (?which are attempts to validate the dossier?), "Carter Page testimony", and half of the material in the "Reactions section" should be removed or trimmed substantially based on NPOV, UNDUE and IMBALANCE, and the focus changed to the Allegations section where parts of this "list" should be merged. Atsme📞📧 20:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply think that having the allegations as a list (this page) is helpful for a reader to understand what the dossier actually claims. On the other hand, there were lots of publications about the dossier, and this requires having a standard wikipage. Hence having both the regular page and the list is simply helpful for a casual reader (like myself). This is the same as for many other WP subjects presented by a regular page and lists. The only difference here is political significance of the subject. But this is an argument to "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, you started this spurious and baseless AfD to delete this list, and have described in excruciating detail how it violated practically every policy and guideline, nearly always showing a failure to understand them.
Now you've performed a complete about face and admit that this is really the only part worth keeping and want to get rid of the main article, even though it's super notable and very well sourced.
Those two positions are in conflict with each other, and appear to reveal that your real goal is to totally eliminate the subject from Wikipedia. I don't see any other way to harmonize those conflicting ideas. Am I wrong?
Please review the article creation criteria here. You don't seem to keep them in mind when you attack content and articles which meet those criteria. When they meet those criteria, whether you like the subject or not, it would be more constructive if you used your energies on improving article content, rather than seeking to eliminate notable and well-sourced subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are wrong. I've said all that I'm going to say about this topic. Have a good weekend. Atsme📞📧 23:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: @Atsme: your nomination reflects your intentions. Even though I prefer noms to clearly include the intentions (as a !vote) it usually not. However, the above actually is a confusing double "!vote" --OR--- it should be noted you are apparently changing your nomination position. Otr500 (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the closer will be able to figure it out. But I do not see above where they appear to change their vote. Which part do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My bad! This has become a two editor comment/counter comment war and I missed it was a reply to a !vote. Otr500 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You actually realized that Atsme expressed a total about face change of !vote above, without using the !vote format. I'll quote her own words below.
FACT: She originally started this AfD to delete the list, and her own words show that she now recognizes that this list is the content worth keeping: "the allegations are the dossier".
FACT: She wants to change the main article, eliminating most of its current content, so "the focus changed to the Allegations section where parts of this "list" should be merged." Note the word "parts". That signals her intentions, which are well-known from previous comments. If she gets her way, the allegations section would then be reduced to something like five or less items, with no elaboration or context, since she considers the dossier a fake document and the allegations all unsubstantiated and unworthy of mention at all, in spite of the notability and wide, daily, coverage of the topic and allegations in RS.
The indictments and arrests of Trump's closest advisors show these are serious matters. Intelligence agencies take the dossier, and especially the allegations, very seriously as a largely accurate document (their "road map"). Their are investigating all the allegations. Instead of taking this seriously, Atsme thinks this is all a "coverup". Yes, that's what she wrote.
She doesn't think there was any Russian interference either. We're dealing with a fringe POV pusher who created a spurious AfD to rid Wikipedia of a very notable subject she doesn't like. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: I think you have made your point about Atsme enough in this AFD and elsewhere that it is time to give it a rest. You are starting to go to far. PackMecEng (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer has misrepresented everything I've said, even after I posted a warning on his TP to stop the aspersions and PAs. He refuses to stop and I've grown weary of his badgering other editors who oppose his position, and his fallacious claims against me. Perhaps a stern warning for him to stop will help so I'm pinging Coffee in an effort to keep the peace and allow this AfD to run its course without further disruption. Thank you. Atsme📞📧 22:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong "Merge (back) and redirect: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is surely a POVFORK duck. Did I miss something: Severe procedural violations per WP:SPINOUT (also referred to as WP:SUBARTICLE):
    • "To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which permit modification and reuse but require attribution of the content contributors, the new page should be created with an edit summary noting "split content from [[article name]]". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to [[article name]]", to protect against the article subsequently being deleted and the history of the new page eradicated. The {{Copied}} template can also be placed on the talk page of both articles.".
  • Extra comments: Read the opening paragraph of this article/then list/then disguised article, "The Trump-Russia dossier is a private intelligence dossier of 17 memos" so we would need a redundant "list" for what exact reason? At best this is an inproper spinoff. At worse it is a biased original research collection of synthesis. An article was created then changed to list class with content being removed from the parent article and used to create an article disguised as a "list class". I can not imagine an impartial closer seeing this as anything other than a form of subterfuge even if with intended good faith. This disguised fork should be deleted with extreme prejudice and per actual discretionary sanctions ordered to only proceed again with consensus on a user page if some "list" is deemed appropriate. It is being pushed that the "parent" article is too large but is only 31 kB (4952 words) "readable prose size". Per SIZE 40 kB: Length alone does not justify division and 50 kB would be a consideration. However, editorial junk cleaning (mentioned in comments above) could reduce the current size enough to include what is being attempted by creating a fork. Many of the "keep" !votes above mention this could be covered in Trump–Russia dossier where this content belongs. It keeps being offered as a "subpage" anyway. I am confused as to why there is a push to keep a redundant list of a list (17 memos), that are presented in prose, and how that could possibly "assist" a reader. Considering this it becomes clear a second "list" is a an indiscriminate collection of information as indicated above. ---- Otr500 (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you bolded all the crucial parts of your comment? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500, I'm not going to try to debunk each of your points for a simple reason, and you even allude to it: You asked "Did I miss something?". Yes, you pretty much got it backwards, and in so doing assumed bad faith in my efforts, so the rest is quite misguided by that misunderstanding of what actually happened.
If you'll read MY explanations on the article/list talk page, you'll see I tried to explain my process. This isn't my first rodeo. SPINOFFs and reverse spinoffs are nothing new to me. This ended up a reverse spinoff because the job grew as I did it, and there is plenty of room for growth. Each allegation has been covered in myriad RS, and much more context will be added. It would have been spun off quickly anyway. Seeing that mountain ahead, I just cut to the chase. Others have seen the wisdom of this approach. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many people voted "merge" during this discussion, but what exactly do they suggest? To copy-paste this entire page except the lead to the corresponding section of main page? One should have a separate discussion about merging, not an AfD. 2601:400:8000:EA18:ACCD:A3B0:BAB7:393A (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP393A - regarding "merge" some AfDs will end-up as MERGE. It is an issue I have intentions of researching to the point a proposal for change can be reached to eliminate the ambiguities as soon as I can get a break from other pressing issues. I am trying to collaborate with another editor regarding this topic. In the interim, we do what we can do until the delete-merge issues can be resolved. Regarding this AfD, our first priority is policy and the multiple policies I named above leave little to no room for indecision. Atsme📞📧 23:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer: Please don't Wikilawyer attacks against other editors. You in fact attempted to debunk my entire comments, throwing in that I attacked you, and then just typed a lot of bull that did not explain anything. I read the list and article, read down the comments observing that many "keeps" were weak and also suggesting merging, and saw improprieties with the separation of the articles. I have no hidden agenda, and am not a Trump fan, but this spin-off/out/down, or whatever you wish you call it, can be covered in the parent article. Wikipedia is not a chrystal ball to look at future expansion probablilities You stated, "This is growing and will quickly create an undue weight situation. Deletion is not a legitimate option, but merging might be. We can then deal with size issues later.". Size is not a legitimate reason to split, spin-off, or spin-out at this time but creates a very bad looking attack page and a redundant list falling under what Wikipedia is not. I am sorry you might be hurt that others disagree with you but please refrain from subtile attacks by making it appear you have been attacked first so intitled to retaliate. I would suggest you take a refreshing look at WP:5P4 concerning respect and civility. It also states there are reportedly 5,559,643 other articles to improve and discuss if you are getting too wrapped up in this one. I state this because I am informed that it is the job of the closer to "debunk" comments to arrive at consensus so you really don't need to fill the page with unnecessary comments on anyone that has a different opionion than yours. Otr500 (talk)
  • Comment: I have seen people cite links to numerous guidelines here, but in some cases I don’t think they have read the guidelines they are citing.
    • WP:POVFORK has been cited over and over here, by numerous people. But this is what that link says: "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies…. Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." This article is not the result of a content disagreement, and there is no discrepancy between the two articles in terms of their point of view. Whatever it is, it is not a POVFORK.
    • WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the examples given at that guideline have anything to do with this article. There is nothing indiscriminate about this list. The items listed all come from a single source; they are being summarized in list form to make them more readable and to put the commentary together with the allegation. No allegations have been added. No allegations that received significant coverage have been omitted. It is exactly what it says it is, no more, no less, and there is nothing indiscriminate about it.
    • WP:Original research, WP:Synthesis. The selection of items in the list had nothing to do with synthesis or original research. They are, item by item, taken from the dossier. And they are not redundant to the original article, which historically did not include this information. In fact, the draft was originally created with the intention that it would be a subsection of the article, since the article did not contain much information about the actual allegations in the dossier. As the draft developed and its size became apparent, the creator decided to launch it as a standalone article. But if it is deleted, we will put it into the article instead. It has to be somewhere. Our reporting on the dossier is incomplete without it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speaking in general terms: Using a fresh article to itemize list a group of material that would not otherwise be included in such detail in the main article may also be seen as a POV fork, ie: the only reason to start the new article is that consensus doesn't exist to put all that information in the main article. With a fresh fork that focuses only one aspect, there is less scrutiny for information that may be undue, as there are fewer eyes on it from the main article. This is particularly common when someone wants to spread the Truth®. How or if that applies here, I leave to others to determine, but my point is just that there are more ways to create a POV fork than you are listing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Dennis, there WAS discussion at the original article about creating a Contents section that would give details about what was actually in the dossier. (For some reason the article had focused mostly the history of the dossier and commentary about it, but had never included more than a bare-bones summary of the actual content.) The discussion was Talk:Trump–Russia dossier#All new contents section focused on allegations, and the initial understanding was that it would be a section of the article. BullRangifer decided to launch it as a separate article instead, to the surprise of several of us. Comments about adding it to the article: User:Atsme initially said “Good start, BullRangifer” but struck that when she found out it was a new article; she G10 tagged the new article, and when that was declined she AFDed it, and here we are. Next to comment was User:PackMecEng, who objected to the new article’s tone and sourcing. Next to comment was me; I supported adding detail about the contents to the article, possibly under a show/hide button. I initially thought creating a new article was “a little odd”; later I came to support the new article but would also support including the material in the article. Next was User:My very best wishes who supported the new article AND an expansion of the content section on the main page. The rest of the discussion was about whether to revdel any link to the dossier. So basically, the idea of including something in the article was not a subject of great controversy, and this material will probably be put into the main article if the sub-article is deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My comment in that section was one of shock that such a page would even be created. The tone and sourcing was just the first eyeball (more on the sources was discussed on this talk page under "In Wikipedia's voice"?), but I agreed with Atsme's G10 as an attack page. Also from Atsme's reply to my comment, it sounds like she misunderstood what BullRangifer had posted which was the strike. PackMecEng (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, to further clarify, you were correct regarding my not being aware of his intentions to create another article. I struck my words when I found out. I thought he decided to collaborate in response to my suggestions when I read the section title, All new contents section focused on allegations, and saw where he had agreed to only document the main allegations that were reported on by multiple secondary RS. This list actually fits the description of WP:ATTACKPAGE and contains far more than the 5 or 6 major allegations reported by RS. ATTACKPAGE states: If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person. I have not yet seen an argument that convinces me this list of unsubstantiated allegations doesn't consist primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person. I thought the light was finally shining on NPOV at the main article, but I was mistaken. According to VOX, there were only 6 major allegations in the dossier that were about collusion, all of which remain unverified. The only allegations that have been verified are what we already knew without the dossier - Russian interference and Carter Page's trip to Russia. The sources I suggested for the updates included: VOX, The Atlantic, CNN and New Yorker, all updated late 2017, early 2018 with more realistic reporting of the facts, not conspiracy theories as before. Atsme📞📧 04:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neutral version" does not mean excluding "negative" information from a page. To the contrary, such info must be included. Per WP:NPOV, "Neutral version" means a version that "represents fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias," all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.. That is what main page on the subject suppose to do, and I think it actually does. But we are talking about this page, the list. Speaking about lists, the neutrality here is simply including all items that belong to the list per reliable sources. Yes, including explanations what every item means is fine. However, excluding items, even if they clearly belong to a list is not. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the information does not duplicate--the main article is, as it should be, primarily about the discussion of the matter.The amount of such discussion is sufficiently lage that the separation helps clarity. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on above comments, also echoing concerns about article size I think it is a valid spinoff rather than a POVFORK.Seraphim System (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Your candor is appreciated, MelanieN - different perspectives are what contribute to the quality articles this encyclopedia strives to present - but as the nominator of this AfD, I disagree with what you've presented. because, quite frankly, it's reductio ad absurdum. I nominated this article - now a list - because it is an ATTACKPAGE that initially got its legs (tines?) as a POVFORK for all the reasons mentioned throughout this AfD. I'll add the fact that BuzzFeed is considered an unreliable source, and in this case, the only source that published the full dossier - is that the source being used for this list of allegations? According to BuzzFeed#Notable_stories, they are now facing 2 litigations as a result. We should also keep in mind that other news orgs declined publishing the full dossier and criticized BuzzFeed for doing so. The New York Times confirmed in this artice that they chose to publish generalized descriptions instead. For WP to separate certain allegations from the main article and publish them as a list with commentary is well...fill in the blanks. Opposition research by its very nature is an attack on a political opponent, and attempts to justify its validity as encyclopedic for no other reason than news organizations published articles/opinions/analysis about it (noting that WP:NEWSORG is only reliable for statements of fact) is ludicrous at best. WP is not a political SOAPBOX from which to "resist" or spread rumors and conspiracy theories by anonymous sources. I stand by my decision as nominator. Atsme📞📧 02:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Small side issue: you might want to read Reductio ad absurdum. It does not apply in any way here. It's all very well to mention your opponent's logical absurdities in your arguments, but they ought to be something the opponent actually did. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops - struck. RE: WP:CFORK - lede states: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies. It doesn't necessarily have to arise from a disagreement but then I did challenge WEIGHT & BALANCE, and suggested that the whole thing be rewritten. The guideline also states: There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. This list is along those lines, only worse - it's a list of unsubstantiated allegations that were compiled into a dossier for a political candidate to defame their opponent. I believe it fits the description of an ATTACKPAGE. RE: indiscriminate collection, OR & SYNTH - the allegations were chosen from what source, the list was created based on what order, and who chose those particular allegations? Were the allegations and commentary cherry picked from multiple sources to form one list? Atsme📞📧 05:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]
It is not an "attack page", please stop making stuff up. It's a very well sourced, encyclopedic article. "I just don't like it" =/ "attack page". And per WP:DELETE "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument for deletion.
And are you seriously questioning what the dossier says? Because *originally* it was published by Buzzfeed? I haven't seen a single source out there which claim that the dossier doesn't say what it actually says. This sounds like a lame excuse for, well, "I just don't like it".
And repeat after me - the criteria for deletion have nothing to do with POV. They have to do with notability. And it's pretty much impossible to argue that the contents of the dossier are non-notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant whether or not the dossier is opposition research. All that matters is the coverage the dossier has received in multiples of reliable sources, which it has. Whether or not Buzzfeed was the only publication to publish the entire dossier doesn't matter. All that matters is the coverage the dossier has received in multiples of reliable sources, which it has. Litigation against Buzzfeed is also irrelevant. Also, there are no instances of persistent disruptive editing that led to creating this independent article - so POV fork has no standing in this AfD. The many references in this article and the corresponding prose (in this article), demonstrate this is no way an attack page, shows there is no SYNTH, and shows there is no WP:OR. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's important information central to an important historical controversy. Merging it into the Trump–Russia dossier article is impractical because that article is already large. Mksword (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: A list of a "list" to further attack anyone is always appropriate on Wikipedia? I don't think so. When we can find no other actual reason for this "extra explanatory" list we can push that "one day" the initial article might be too big so let's split it early as a proactive anticipation and cite future WP:SIZE as reasoning. If someone rebutts the size aregument (less than 40 kB) we can ignore that because there are ample WP:RS and no reason to trim the parent article so let's just create another. Wait! The ample reliable sources would be the same ones that would still be suitable in the parent article had the "extra explanatory" attack page not been created. We can also ignore that the sibling article was created without following normal procedures and push that it is now NPOV because in some instances we have inserted a denial area. Here is an example of an attack:
  • Allegation: That Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, had a secret meeting with Kremlin officials in Prague in August 2016,[11][46][47] where he arranged "deniable cash payments" to the hackers and sought "to cover up all traces of the hacking operation", as well as "cover up ties between Trump and Russia, including Manafort's involvement in Ukraine".
    • Denial: Trump and Cohen have denied the allegations. Cohen said that between August 23 and August 29 he was in Los Angeles and in New York for the entire month of September. According to a Czech intelligence source, there is no record of him entering Prague by plane, but Respekt magazine revealed that he could have entered by car or train from a neighboring country in the Schengen Zone.
A conspiracy to connect Trump and a denial but then the added Respekt magazine report Cohen "could have traveled by car or train" is thrown in. This is inflammatory because there is no re-rebuttal or evidence to contradict or support the claim but a "denial" of a claim and then thrown in editorial bias. Was Cohen in "any" other country but the US during the time-frame in question? If we are only attacking Trump (even through Cohen) we don't care that it is too easy to prove Cohen a liar by travel documents but can just state a possible senario of a car or train. None of this could happen "IF" Cohen was in fact only in the US so why document it on Wikipedia as a fact that Cohen (and Trump) "must be guilty" because he could have taken a bus, car, or train to Prague even "IF" Cohen possibly never left the US during the time in question. This is twisted biased writing to "PROVE" the allegations are true and not just cover the subject fairly. The entire EXTRA list of a list is full of these not so secret attacks and we are not suppose to stoop to this form of writing on Wikipedia and especially concerning a BLP. This "extra" list serves no purpose other than to continue inflammatory reportings that could still be covered fairly in the parent article. That is just a plain and simply fact. I did not check the reliability of the source but being inquisitive I looked and found Crucial error in Trump dirty dossier revealed: Man named as his ‘lawyer’ is not even American – and the real one denies he has ever been to city where he ‘met Kremlin agents’. The article even states that the "Cohen connected to Trump" even tweeted a picture of his passport and reportedly evidence Cohen "...did not leave or enter the United States during this time.". "IF" this is true then Wikipedia is only advancing a smear campaign that essentially makes this whole list of lists a BIASED political propoganda piece, and no doubt an indiscriminant collection of derogatory information, because there is no neutrality of sources.
Fact: The "ONLY" valid reasoning to have a separate list of lists would be the pushed article size and needed expansion. According to the above listed "size" criteria that has not been reached, the parent article can be trimmed, and editorial bias certinly appears evident by this list article content and needs to be addressed no matter where it is at. This was created as a redundant article then changed to list-class that seems to be a reason to avoid an AFD but it is still an unnecessary list of lists. Otr500 (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just a list. Yes, it contains multiple well sourced allegations about a powerful person (some of the allegations were actually true), but this is not a valid reason for deletion. I would like to remind: this is a discussion about deletion, as Atsme emphasized many times during this discussion. If anyone wanted to merge this page they suppose to simply open a discussion about "merging". My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Clear and obvious fork. Carrite (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MelanieN. Valid spinout of a long article, with sources that prima facie, look reliable. Documenting allegations which have been extensively reported on in reliable sources is an area that requires an abundance of caution, but is not ipso facto a reason to delete content. Merging and issues with sourcing does not have to be done at AFD, and should be done on the article talk page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft-ify a pox on both your houses. I find both the keep and the delete arguments here awful. Merging this article back to Trump–Russia dossier will make that article worse. With no other option, my !vote is to move this to draft space to see if it can be made to look like an encyclopedia article. I feel the "Allegation / Denial" structure is bad, and the level of detail excessive; if a page with this much detail on the contents of Moby-Dick existed, it would surely be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- as per nom. WP:POVFORK, an attack article, and WP:PUBLICFIGURE violation. Article is extremely biased with one-sided commentary. We have an article on the dossier, that's enough.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The (incorrect) arguments of povfork or attack page have already been sufficiently covered above, but how in the world does this article violate WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Really guys, AfD is not a place to just throw out random Wikipedia policies in the hope that one of them will stick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawing, Alaska[edit]

Lawing, Alaska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So, this was never really a town, just a stop on the railroad. As is indicated in the article text, the only real notable thing here was the Lawing homestead and roadhouse, which now has it’s own article that is more substantial than this one. See discussion on talkpage, we haven’t even been able to firmly establish where this is/was, and what town or CDP it is in now, because of the scarcity of references to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Alaska Nellie's Homestead. Since we never did find much more to Lawing than the homestead and its railway stop, and the homestead has an article now, it seems reasonable to cover everything in the article about the homestead. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Switching to Keep. The note about postal history, which I missed the first time around, is compelling. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 14:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at WP:GEOLAND, particularly "Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history", this would appear to be an easy keep !vote. GNIS lists it as a populated place. The GNIS entry states: "Listed as a station in The Alaska RR. guide of 1925. Recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps indicate a site of six or seven buildings". One of those sources that Beeblebrox appears to imply doesn't exist or is not very important to note is the history of Alaska post offices compiled by Melvin Ricks (a credible historian, not some hack website writer) and published in 1965. In that work (page 39), we see that Lawing had its own post office from 1924 to 1929 and 1932 to 1936. These facts alone show that it passes the threshold expected of independently notable populated places. Beeblebrox's rationale appears to imply that its present-day location is all that really matters, which I don't believe is at all compatible with the way things work. Common sense says that a merge/redir is not harmful, but neither is keeping the article. Regardless, it won't do anything about the countless thousands of other geostubs which exist to relentlessly parrot a particular MoS and/or particular sources but not to deliver useful information to readers. The target is also suspect, as Nellie Neal Lawing is just as likely a target in this case. I would hesitate in merging it to yet another NRHP permastub. We already spend too much effort subtly pushing the POV that a place is notable because of its NRHP listing but not necessarily because of anything that occurred in its history which led up to that listing, to the point where in many cases we're creating a directory of listings more than creating encyclopedic content. I didn't come here to gratuitously promote the NRHP, but you couldn't necessarily say the same about other editors judging from their contributions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "six or seven buildings" that form this populated populated place are the homestead.[9] This is an extreme example of the USGS definitions of U6 and "populated place," a place with permanent residential buildings not part of an incorporated city or town. We have a populated place of one homestead. Calling it a settlement is a long stretch without more supporting evidence. As for the homestead NRHP article, the NRHP nomination and listing indicate the article has potential to be more than a permastub. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you're going to keep pushing NRHP-centered sources and an NRHP-centered perspective immediately after I point out that such may be problematic and that other reliable sources exist? That sounds like you're trying to create a wiki-within-a-wiki to me. Going to the source you link to, I see the following at the bottom of the narrative: "The name 'Lawing' was selected for the post office; it was so listed in subsequent travel guides and maps. It was the second of two locations on the railroad ever named after an individual." BZZZZZT!!! Quite a few of the sections and stops along the railroad route were named for individuals, mostly members of Congress who supported the legislation which created the railroad, such as Pittman (today Meadow Lakes, named for Key Pittman) and Curry. The refinery siding in North Pole was renamed in honor of Frank Chapados, so "ever" isn't correct, either. I didn't find a copy of Alaska Nellie offhand (mine's in storage somewhere), but a lesser source I dug up (tourist guide to the railroad route which is sold on the train) claims that Lawing and Roosevelt are two separate places one-fifth of a mile apart, which isn't in lockstep with the NRHP nomination's narrative, either. Regardless, I find it inconceivable that Roosevelt was named for anything other than Theodore Roosevelt, but I've not seen anything which explicitly states such. That lesser source also states that all that is left of Lawing is an airstrip, which coincides with the narrative's description of something more resembling a collection of ruins than a collection of structures, and that document appears to have been written during the 1970s. That means that there's another possible target for a redirect, namely List of ghost towns in Alaska. The narrative's description, plus what is known elsewhere about the homestead, makes it extremely hard to believe that Nellie ran the whole thing entirely by herself. That means that a community of some sort existed around the homestead at least while it was in active operation, which brings us back to the issue of considering it as a functioning community and not trying to place it into some other bizarro context. Anyway, if you're going to cherry-pick sources, you should at least take half an effort to ensure that they're factually correct and don't cause damage to the encyclopedia's reputation by mindlessly parroting them. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is clearly notable under the WP:GEOLAND policy. It was once populated, and officially designated, and notability is not temporary. Not only that, but the place is reliably sourced with the sources identified. I see no valid reason to merge it with whatever directory the NRHP listings represent. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia also serves as a gazetter; I agree with User:Ilyina Olya Yakovna-Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP insta-keep status as a populated place. The Alaska Museum at Rasmussen Center CONSIDERS IT A PLACE, who are we to argue? Carrite (talk) 13:04, 29 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Riem[edit]

Roland Riem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a member of the clergy appears to fail WP:GNG. I found one passing reference to him in the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1516455/Bishop-accused-of-cashing-in-on-the-Da-Vinci-heresy.html, and nothing else significant or independent. Tacyarg (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- Vice-dean and a few academic books does not inspire me as to his notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 26 January 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. Determined by policy-based arguments. Killiondude (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Woodward (priest)[edit]

James Woodward (priest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this page on a member of the clergy fails WP:GNG. I have not been able to find coverage of him. Tacyarg (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This output as an author is not vast, but I suspect that those who come across his books will find it useful to have this bio. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is potential of creating biography of just every author if these links [10][11][12] (subscription required) are really put into consideration. But you need more for passing WP:GNG, and the subject fails it. Excelse (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AS the creator, I cannot say keep or delete. However I would say I created the page because he is Principal of Sarum College. These days most college heads would also be authors, but as an author only I would NOT have created the article. Bashereyre (talk) 10:05, 29 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Hillenbrand[edit]

David Hillenbrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Scott Hillenbrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently Cyberbot I couldn't handle two titles in the header, but David Hillenbrand and Scott Hillenbrand should be considered equivalent. Huon (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While David and Scott Hillenbrand have worked on multiple films that appear to be notable, there is next to no media coverage, or coverage in any reliable third-party sources, of them. Both articles cite pretty much the same sources, and the only independent one, a Hollywood Reporter article on a lawsuit they are involved in, does not cover the Hillenbrands in any detail. My Google News searches came up with a David Hillenbrand that's related to the Carnegie Museums, but no detailed coverage of either this David or Scott Hillenbrand. Huon (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough reliable source coverage to show notability for either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 27 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chromocell[edit]

Chromocell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable corp, no real coverage, just passing mentions, prs and mill "coverage." Fails just about everything. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:09, 23 January 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. Sole keep arguments are not giving policy or guideline based keep reasons: That it is obscure does not mean that Wikipedia has to promote it (WP:NOT#PROMO) and a self-published book with astroturf publicity does not impart NBOOK notability either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Active Goodness - The True Story of How Trevor Chadwick, Doreen Warriner & Nicholas Winton Saved Thousands From The Nazis[edit]

Active Goodness - The True Story of How Trevor Chadwick, Doreen Warriner & Nicholas Winton Saved Thousands From The Nazis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable book by non notable author Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. AfD nomination was made 20 minutes after page creation. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a one-line stub advertising a book. The three named people are certainly notable, but that does not mean that the book by an author who is a red link is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Tacyarg (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any reviews or anything that might lend significance to this newly released Kindle book.Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Published work through well known publishing house (Kwill Publishing) and available in paperback, online and in books stores — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authorcheck2018 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC) — Authorcheck2018 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kwill Publishing will make a paperback of whatever you come up with if you pay them $4599. Package includes fake amazon.com reviews and other astroturf publicity. 91.155.192.188 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Very little known about the topic and is one of the few books availble
  • Dont Delete agree with above
  • Delete While the topic the book covers is important, this article is about the book which does not in itself seem to be notable. This looks suspiciously like an attempt at advertising. Dunarc (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed but book seems notable enough nevertheless
    • Comment I am slightly concerned by the fact we have three anonymous posts arguing against deletion. I am have no objection against people arguing for the article's retention, and if notability can be shown then that would be great, but the lack of any identification makes it uncertain that this is not one editor. Dunarc (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where are the reviews in reliable, secondary sources? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hanington[edit]

Brian Hanington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing more than a resume, basically. I can find no evidence this person is notable and other than the PRs/primary/passing mentions and mill coverage of this person, I can find nothing actually in-depth to suggest they would meet any criteria on Wikipedia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:36, 22 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) 20:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. I I got an AJAX error for Delsort|people and |author. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 20:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most references are passing mentions of the things he was involved in, rather than of him.198.58.168.40 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We would need lots more sources to show that Hanington is notable. I am not sure and Catholic diocese level communications directors would be notable, but I do not think a small diocese of less than 250,000 Catholics would be even close to being a place where the communications director would be notable. His other PR positions are equally unimpressive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the above.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chutzpah a Go-Go[edit]

Chutzpah a Go-Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a play whose claim of notability ("one of the longest-running stage shows in Canadian theatre history") is unsourced and unverifiable, and whose sole source is its own self-published website about itself, being cited only to support its name. This is not how you source a play as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but I can't find any genuinely solid sourcing on either Google or ProQuest to salvage this with. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - fails WP:GNG and meets criteria for WP:CSD (spefiifcally, WP:A11). Obviously an attempt to self-promote. Adding a speedy delete template to the page incase an admin agrees. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Got a few Google hits, but nothing that proves notoriety. Speedy delete reccomendation still stands. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree with Arxiloxos on this: the coverage isn't strong enough to actually make it a keepable article for the purposes of AFD, but there is enough brief coverage of it to preclude speedying it. Speedy only applies under certain very specific and strict conditions, and even an obviously deletable article can still be non-speediable, and have to go to prod or AFD instead, if it doesn't fit any of those strict conditions. For instance, even if the intent here was obviously to increase the play's visibility for promotional purposes, the article isn't written in an overtly advertorial tone for the purposes of G11 — and A11 doesn't apply at all, because even if it isn't a notable thing it is a real thing and not an "invented" hoax that doesn't really exist at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sources confirm that this play has been produced by stage companies in Toronto, Winnipeg,[13] and St. Paul.[14][15] This article is not appropriate for WP:A11 because it makes a "credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines". Whether it's notable remains to be seen; so far there doesn't seem to be as much online RS sourcing as one might expect. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the main comments above. I can't find any reasonable indication of importance or reliable sources for this. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A few small theater productions alone doesn't convey notability, and I'm seeing any real sign of that. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 25 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Brothers[edit]

Leroy Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I spent some time removing puffery on this page, but as I looked closer, the references became less and less reliable (note the blogspot, and other copypasta press releases). Notability seems to ride almost exclusively on a two week long exhibition at Moscow MoMA of cover art for a russian rock band (http://www.mmoma.ru/en/exhibitions/gogolevsky/witness_your_world/) I am nominating to generate discussion. Theredproject (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. They seem to have a reasonably high profile, but the coverage I found wasn't really significant. The mid-20th century puppeteers of the same name seem to have more online coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NicToileBlanche (talk • contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA.198.58.168.40 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the portrait of the group is marked "own work" by the above user NicToileBlanche. So we have COI to add to the list as well.198.58.168.40 (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found some of those when I searched. The Calvert Journal article only gives fairly brief coverage, the Artribune one is just an event notice with a press release, Diplomatic World - the Brothers just mentioned in a list, Vlad News - not sure whether this is just a reprint of a press release, City Weekend - a very brief interview, with no real third-party content, thatscontemporary.com - extract from a press release, last one - press release. The Hungarian Museum website looks more promising, but I still think we really need more to make an article viable. --Michig (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the above links as well. They are mostly event announcements or PR mentions. they don't approach the level of in-depth coverage required.198.58.168.40 (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4levels (contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA with a large interest in this article only.198.58.168.40 (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm not impressed with the name dropping, nor with the 13 references to the subject's own website that you just provided, but I'll consider the other refs you just suggested:
In summary, in spite of your claim of "valid and not violating any of the Wikipedia rules", the references you proposed all fail three very basic requirements: they need to be independent, reliable and they need to be about the subject. They fail all three. Mduvekot (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I might point out to 4levels that the "independent" requirement means sources published by the Leroy Brothers, sources published on blogspot and interviews are not considered to have any weight. 198.58.168.40 (talk) 07:51, 27 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Pavlovich[edit]

Natasha Pavlovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG; the list of TV shows are almost all single episodes. TheLongTone (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REASONS FOR KEEPING NATASHA PAVLOVICH Since Natasha Pavlovich is a character actor, it's normal that many of the TV shows are single episodes. And in these episodes, she has had numerous lines and has also acted in scenes with the star of the show. At one time, her face was quite recognizable on TV. She has also been in some films, like Blake Edward's "The Son of the Pink Panther" [1] Plus, her foray into the edge of space could be construed as interesting since not many actors have done this. Thanks Arbonzz

So she's successful enough to call herself an actress, but I still maintain she is not sufficiently notable to merit an article. And lots of non-notable people have done the odd interesting thing.TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Other character actresses with Wikipedia pages and a very similar filmography include Eileen Yeow, Faune A. Chambers, Annette Charles and Erin Cummings, so Natasha Pavlovich seems to fit in with these women.
See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eileen_Yeow
See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faune_A._Chambers
See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annette_Charles
See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Cummings
Also, other contestants like Natasha who have participated in the Miss Universe 1991 pageant already have a Wikipedia page and they have significantly less skills or experience listed on their pages eg. Miss Venezuela , Miss Panama 1991, Miss India, as well as Miss Japan 2010.
See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackeline_Rodr%C3%ADguez
See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christabelle_Howie
See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_De_Le%C3%B3n
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiko_Itai
Furthermore, there is also a page for Natasha Pavlovich in Serbian, so maybe this could be the English version?
See : https://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B0_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%9B&oldid=12338457
Also want to add that a more complete filmography is found on this page (titles of the shows are listed in English). Thanks Arbonzz
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Why this wasn't WP:A7'd is beyond me. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rear Task Manager[edit]

Rear Task Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. Only four Ghits for the name. ... discospinster talk 16:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails notability check. — Warren. ‘ talk , 01:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:21, 23 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalo (DJ)[edit]

Mahalo (DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guideline WP:NMUSIC and GNG no sources have been added since it was tagged in septembre as having notability issues. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search of note. Domdeparis (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:25, 23 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabber punk[edit]

Gabber punk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It takes more than one radio show to make a term for a genre of any importace. The existence of gabber as a genre muddies a search but I was less than convinced by what I found. Putting it mildly. (The need to create increasingly baroque terms for almost indistinguishable types of music is beyond my comprehension...and people edit war over it. Nowt so queer as folk. TheLongTone (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable neologism, not a valid sub-genre. Carrite (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Raymond[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jose Raymond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ANYBIO the sources are either bios on specialised sites or WP:INTERVIEWs on specialised sites. Interviews are primary sources and WP:SPORTCRIT requires secondary sources. Bios are not generally considered as sufficent to prove notability. Domdeparis (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note this is the first nomination the other Jose Raymond is a namesake. Domdeparis (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 13:36, 23 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Schmitz[edit]

Mike Schmitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Slightlymad 16:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google gives more than 300000 entries on him. He is notable enough and not because there are lot of google entries but because he is a known personality. The article should be given time for improving.~~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 06:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but I disagree; this subject needs adequate third-party sources, not those that has similar interest to him (i.e. Catholicism). Slightlymad 06:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- Ghits is no longer a good judge of notability, due to the number of false positives searches bring up, though usually the important ones are on the early pages. Diocesan director of youth ministry comes below the level where the office holder is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 26 January 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 wrong venue. This page is a redirect, not an article and should be posted to WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 16:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Na2Cr2O[edit]

Na2Cr2O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Na2Cr2O is not the formula of sodium dichromate and should not be redirect to it. WhittleMario (talk) 16:15, 22 January 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 Nom withdrawn. I jumped the gun on this one. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Love Tattoo (musician)[edit]

Love Tattoo (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Lepricavark (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and bring on the snow. 2* ARIA award nomination, WP:MUSIC#8. Single on main Australian chart, WP:MUSIC#2. High rotation on Triple J, WP:MUSIC#11. Coverage cited in article is arguably good enough for WP:MUSIC#1. Bad nomination. (disclosure, I started the article) duffbeerforme (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well-known DJ and producer in Australia, was a pioneer of dance music in Sydney from the late 1970s onwards, and appears to be pretty integral in the history of the Sydney Mardi Gras ([16], [17], [18]). Article needs expansion, but certainly appears to meet musical notability pretty easily. Suggest maybe renaming to Stephen Allkins as (love) tattoo seems to be a particular (former?) project. --Canley (talk) 02:56, 23 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haiden Kalsie[edit]

Haiden Kalsie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The name is easily searchable, but I could find only social sites, and nothing WP:RS. Fails WP:NBIO. I am bringing this page to AFD because it has been WP:PRODded twice (14 and 15 January 2018), and the PROD tag twice removed (by an IP editor on 14 January; by the page creator on 21 January) without adding any new information. Possibly even a speedy under WP:A7. Narky Blert (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my PROD rationale: there is no coverage in RSs. Rentier (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That could be a record quickie, or close to it, for voting on an AFD nom. I have a mild suspicion that User:Rentier might have been lurking after I initiated the AFD process, just to make sure that I had negotiated all the hoops before they cast their vote. wink. Narky Blert (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A CheckUser is the only way to be sure. Rentier (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only The Shadow knows. Narky Blert (talk) 00:44, 25 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dunny (toy)[edit]

Dunny (toy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fancruft that is entirely self sourced. I tagged this for speedy but it was declined. This page should not exist in WP like this; it needs to be rewritten from scratch and i am unsure that it can be (refs I found in BEFORE are bloggy fansites. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 22 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pamir Electronics[edit]

Pamir Electronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most wickets in South Africa Vs India Test Series 2018[edit]

Most wickets in South Africa Vs India Test Series 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A single format of game in a tour and WP:NOTSTATS MT TrainDiscuss 15:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC) MT TrainDiscuss 15:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating a similar redirect page: Most runs in South Africa vs. India Test Series 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 15:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter: As the merged section was removed by Lugnuts per WP:NOSTATS, I didn't find any good reason to keep them. MT TrainDiscuss 16:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, then it can be deleted; however, you should restore the page for the most runs and follow the instructions in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:NOTSTATS. Creator also has the following other articles that should be considered for deletion:
Most wickets in New Zealand Vs Pakistan ODI Series 2018
Most runs in New Zealand Vs Pakistan ODI Series 2018. Ajf773 (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A creative use of A10 there.--Pontificalibus 11:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aodán De Paor[edit]

Aodán De Paor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meed WP:BIO or WP:GNG, and there is no sport-specific guideline for Hurling. Only sources I could find seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in American parlance he is as best I can tell a high school teacher and coach, who is also a low level player in Hurling. Nothing in this comes close to the level of notability, especially with virtually no coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the article, a completely unremarkable person. No references apart from the sports team page (which simply shows he is on the team), and he doesn't meet any SNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:43, 29 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Grindhouse[edit]

Welcome to the Grindhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable DVD line. --woodensuperman 14:45, 22 January 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 Sutter Kain. Killiondude (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Perfect Murder (R.I.A.M)[edit]

A Perfect Murder (R.I.A.M) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, no WP:RS to show notability per WP:NALBUM. Redirect to Sutter Kain as recommended for other album articles from this artist. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Labor Law Plus[edit]

Labor Law Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable firm with no coverage in RS and only sourced to PRs, run of the mill mentions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agreed, nothing here or found in searches. Tacyarg (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-fails WP:CORP, article created by paid editor.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:07, 29 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Scuro[edit]

Pedro Scuro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability of any sort. Nothing more than a pointy hagiography. PRehse (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 12:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't appear to meet WP:NPROF, which is the SNG that appears to be relevant. The article is a disaster and the only references (in a biography) are to scholarly papers by him and his associates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:41, 29 January 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) 00:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True West Films[edit]

True West Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor production house. Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 12:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Watkins[edit]

Donald Watkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional, original page deleted as G11 for undisclosed paid editing. This page got recreated today - "I am a novice Wiki editor" etc in the edit summary, it just feels suspicious to me. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 17:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The alleged reason for deleting this Wikipedia page is incorrect and false. The editor is NOT a paid editor. The editor is an independent biographer and not an "undeclared paid editor." The editor has no professional or personal relationship to any of the businesses or cases referenced in the biography. The editor is learning Wikipedia editing policies. It is his understanding that Wikipedia pages are never considered complete. Please keep that in mind. This editing began only 2 months ago. The editor makes mistakes, but please make suggestions, not complete deletion of the page. The cited references that the editor has added are all verifiable and follow Wikipedia protocol. Thank you.DerrickH71 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Please identify what "feels suspicious" about this Wiki page. Also, please post the link to the Wikipedia policy that identifies what constitutes "feels suspicious" characteristics of an article. What "feels suspicious" to me DerrickH71 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC) is the repeated attempts to remove Mr. Watkins's Wikipedia page. His biographical information is available in all of the verifiable references that are included in his page. The false claim made by Jimfbleak when he deleted the page on January 13, 2018 was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: promo for the boss by undeclared paid editor." I am not nor have I ever been paid to edit any Wikipedia page. I only began editing two months ago. I guess I should feel honored that the veteran editors are questioning my "novice Wiki editor" status. Why is that so contentious? Again, all of this dispute about Mr. Watkins's Wikipedia page is very suspicious to me. Could this attack on Mr. Watkins be directed toward his history of dealing with civil rights issues. Could this be an attack on his ethnicity? Or an attack on his success because of his ethnicity? I don't think Wikipedia policy allows that. If I have placed these remarks in an incorrect space, please don't delete them. Just teach me about the proper protocol or direct me to the Wikipedia page that addresses these types of comments. [reply]

Thank you DerrickH71 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The whole tone of this is hagiographic distinguished legal career... record number... landmark cases... nationally recognized cases. My additional claim that he has a COI is that the other two articles by this editor that I deleted at the same time were highly promotional adverts for two companies run by Watkins where the text was copied from the companies' websites with the "justification" for the latter being a letter of permission from... Donald Watkins! If DerrickH71 is not a paid editor working on behalf of Watkins, it still seems likely that he has a conflict of interest, which is permitted, but he should be transparent if he is a friend, relative or associate of Watkins. In fact, he claims to be a "biographer", but doesn't say whether he intends to publish commercially, or the extent of his contact with Watkins. I note that his defence of his article above includes a personal attack on me with a claim that I am a racist, based solely on the fact that I delete an article about a black man. FWIW, I'm not an American, and I've never mentioned my own ethnicity to this user or anyone else on Wikipedia. It would be nice if DerrickH71 apologised, but I'm not holding my breath. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have admin access, so I cannot pull up the details of old versions of this article... but some of this text was from an article that was not placed here by an editor who has just a couple months experience, as it was quoted in this online thread back in 2014 ("In addition to his legal career, Watkins received national media coverage for his attempts to purchase The Minnesota Twins[1] in 2002 and The Anaheim Angels[2] in 2003." was in this article in that form until I corrected the bracketed numbers to reference statements.) However, the reference statements being used include "Retrieved 2007-05-08", which set off some loud warning signals. So at the very least, this article has problems with its edit history not reflecting proper attribution of contributions. Someone better at wielding these things may want to look at when and how that old article was deleted. Beyond that, yes, the article in its current form has severe problems with promotionalism, with POV, with sources that don't reflect the claims made. That is a separate question from whether the subject meets our notability requirements. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, the previous edit history should be undeleted if the article survives AfD. There may even be an earlier version that would not be subject to WP:G11. WP:REVDEL may have been a better option, or perhaps just WP:REVERT. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My wording does not state that you "are a racist." My wording asked a question concerning why the editing of Mr. Watkin's page is receiving such scrutiny. Never were you personally accused. My point was that his history is well-documented. I am in the process of trying to make it all follow the Wikipedia protocol. In fact, I am using Oprah Winfrey's Wikipedia Page one of my guidelines. Her page is filled with facts of her success as I am trying to do with Mr. Watkin's page. It is a documented legal fact that information related to his life, career, and success was deleted from his Wikipedia page within the last year as he sought legal justice in a number of matters in my state. I read about the issue with his page and decided that I would try to restore the page. I am not being paid. I am not a friend/colleague/business partner of Mr. Watkins. I am a private citizen who has taken on this task. If my words offended you personally, Jimfbleak, I certainly do apologize. DerrickH71 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The subject of the article is notable, but the article fails WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. There are numerous news reports available to expand and properly reference the article, including very significant events not mentioned in the article. If the article survives this process, DerrickH71 should be aware there is likely to be a massive rewrite, and Derrick will not be in control of the article, per WP:OWN. If Derrick is comfortable with this, the outcome could become a "keep," but the article will likely be very different to the current version. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As requested by Jack N. Stock I've restored the article with its full history, although it doesn't ever seem to have been much more than a fanpage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've restored the history of the late 2017 version of this page. However, there are indications that there was an earlier version of this page, and that material from that earlier version has been integrated into this version. Is there any track record of that? I'm trying to understand the history of this page better. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to be all there now. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that was my bad - I clicked the wrong thing and got only a partial history. My apologies. (It's a tough day here.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject has been involved in some high-profile cases, but no coverage which suggests personal notability. As a side note, it is quite suspicious that the article's main contributor, User:DerrickH71, is a WP:SPA who started editing a few days after User:Donaldvwatkins1 made his final edit. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason many people would have heard of Watkins is that he was sued for allegedly defrauding NFL and NBA athletes.[19][20] Last year, he settled a separate suit brought by former NFL linebacker Bryan Thomas.[21] This issue is missing from the article. Do you think it might make a difference here? Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A nn individual; the controversies listed above are insufficient. Given the history of the article, maitaining its neutrality would not be worth it, given that the subject is non notable. Better off deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 27 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony DeNiro[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tony DeNiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable subject; Google search yields no reliable results about the article's subject. lovkal (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this L.A Weekly article: http://www.laweekly.com/music/the-faze-made-an-album-using-the-beats-from-liquid-swords-and-people-are-freaking-out-8346462 although it only mentions DeNiro briefly. lovkal (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the article does not seem to have improved since the previous deletion nomination, it has even deteriorated. lovkal (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SPA editor recreation of a promotional article deleted per first AfD nomination. The original article was full of peacock language and unverifiable information that, once edited out, leaves very little. One finds numerous hits by googling his name, but all are result of an apparent aggressive effort to create a promotional on-line presence (numerous user download-type sites.) The few examples of genuine third party coverage are tangential, trivial, run-of-the-mill (such as related to his sports career) and small time. Nothing that I could find shows the necessary significant third party coverage that conveys this subject is of encyclopedic importance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most the coverage I found was about his football career when he was called "Tony Smith". Sources: [22] From nl.newsbank.com, The Kansas City Star ("Chiefs report", August 18, 1992, "Chiefs report", August 26, 1992 - "Chiefs' pick covets notice Wide receiver fell in Rocket's shadow but gained valuable lessons.", 1992), Post-Tribune ("SMITH HOPES TO BE IRISH STARTER", 1990 - "SMITH LOOKS TO BE ONE OF MIRER'S TOP IRISH TARGETS", 1991 - "SMITH CATCHES 2 PASSES DESPITE HAMSTRING INJURY", 1991 - "SMITH LIKES HIS NFL CHANCES", 1992), The News-Sentinel ("IRISH RECEIVER READY TO FILL BIG-PLAY SHOES", 1991) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • His college football career received typical sports pages run-of-the-mill coverage but fails to meet WP:NCOLLATH standards. Although drafted into professional sports (which likewise garnered typical sports page run-of-the-mill coverage), he never started a game, and fails WP:GRIDIRON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nangia & CO LLP[edit]

Nangia & CO LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What I could find in reliable sources are mostly passing mentions, or statements by the company's CEO (rather than statements about the company itself). There's a claim to notability in the article that it's the first Indian member of an alliance called Praxity, which the article claims to be the world's largest alliance of accounting firms; however, Praxity does not appear to have a Wikipedia article, so I'm not sure if this claim is enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:30, 22 January 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 and clean up. ansh666 06:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Saito[edit]

William Saito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having worked through the references, finding archive versions of those that were broken, and following all of the recent additions based on the resume controversy, the page is in serious need of cleanup, but also it seems that when the unverified statements are stripped away there is little left here that supports notability. Many of the statements regarding his business achievements and early life are difficult to verify and the veracity of his own autobiography and resume have been called into question. Looking back at earlier versions of this page it seems to be largely self-promotion material. The recent controversy and accusations are largely churnalism based on a blog post, and in his response to the controversy the subject published a few corrections. However there has been little in the way of proper research into the facts. I would suggest that since this article has so many issues requiring significant research and editing to fix and that it has and may continue to be the subject of attacks, it should either be deleted or moved to incubation while it gets the attention it needs. ER8-8mvm (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Article was created in 2009 (by a SPA), and was edited by many editors until December 2017 when a scandal (regarding academic credentials) was added. Then in January 2018 ER8-8mvm, a new account, tags the article for issues and nominates for deletion. The subject of the article is clearly notable from a cursory BEFORE - on sources prior to 2017 - even just on English coverage. He is covered amply in news sources, e.g. this BBC piece on him (and coverage goes back to the 90s - computerworld. Besides his autobiography ([23], not an indication of notability) he has quite a few book mentions (e.g. [24], [25]). As for the resume scandal, besides Japanese language sources I assume that exist, this report - [26] seems like a RS in English. In any event, the existence of a scandal that forced this highly notable individual to resign recently, is not something that detracts from notability - if only it increases it. The article could use a tone-down in puffery, and better sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article with WP:SIGCOV and, as Icewhiz writes, a recent attempt to discredit and delete the page. This reminds me of Matthew C. Whitaker, an academic plagiarist whose page was subject to a series of mass deletions of material, attempts to discredit editors and the WP:RSes they cited, and an AfD. In addition to the recent coverage of fake diploma scandal, there is coverage going back years, some of it WP:INDEPTH: BBC: The entrepreneur teaching Japan how to take more risks; How the crazy talented Saito brothers are giving back to Japan’s startup scene. I see no valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This guy was quite a prominent Japan economy/society pundit before his downfall. The article needs cleanup but does not need to be deleted. Sekicho (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - he is notable but this page was not a WP article. I looked at the history and a bunch of badly sourced, POV stuff was dumped in starting in December and I reverted back to just before there. The page at that point was mostly unsourced promotional crap, so I trimmed it back to what existing sources could support, and added one high quality ref about the falsifications. It is a stub now that needs to be built back up carefully, being mindful of NPOV especially with regard to WEIGHT and RECENTISM. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs a lot of material - the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater, it seems. The person has been interviewed by a number of reliable sources, and is clearly notable. BBC News etc. seems more than sufficient. Collect (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problematic No one has mentioned the fact that Jimbo asked for En Wikipedia editors to fix his friend's page here -- which to me is a huge issue and conflict of interest on many levels. Then also problematic is the fact that the content on this page has been completely destroyed. It is ridiculous that there is so little information, especially given the fact that there is a full version on Japanese Wikipedia. This issue here with this current version -- which I will not touch or assist with because JYTdog is doing the editing -- is that however notable this person might be, their notability is not established adequately to justify an entry on En Wikipedia. I routinely do these types of rescue BLPs but I won't help Jimbo and I won't edit if JYTdawg has his mitts on this page. No way. No how. But really, this entry exemplifies all the worst problems of BLPs -- and shows how En Wiki and its editors often do a huge disservice to entries. This editing represents deletionism, problematic in the extremis. So yeah. Majorly problematic. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. First, Wales post is quite right, "something should be done but not by me" is the way to go here (for him) for the reason he states. Second, while the jap-WP article may or may not have sources we can use (they use Tokyo Reporter, doesn´t seem like a en-WP-BLP-source), its existence says nothing about if en-WP should have an article or not. WP:s have different rules etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary - he was clearly notable prior to the scandal. The existence of the recent scandal itself may be sourced (in English) - to [27] in The Japan Times which should be reliable for BLP. His bio (or at least his claimed bio - probably need to add "said" prior to multiple statements there due to later developments) is for 1990-November 2017 amply covered by RS (pre-scandal publishing).Icewhiz (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That source is used in the article, seems unproblematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially I had thought that since the earlier sources had been proven to be mistaken in at least some aspects that meant that they could no longer be counted as reliable sources, leaving only the coverage of recent allegations which were all rehashes of a blog post and some fairly trashy tabloid coverage. But I have since learned that Wikipedia relies on what is verifiable in secondary sources, and that even if some information in source articles has been proven to be false the remainder is still considered valid. That said, the article was a disaster as a BLP, and during this week it has become much more biography-like thanks to the efforts of several editors here. I was not confident that the article could survive cleanup, but it has. Thank you for contributing your skills and experience to turn this disaster around. Many new references have emerged that clear up a lot of the sourcing issues, the article has a better structure and has a more balanced point of view. While there may be a couple of issues to be addressed among the new information added here, overall, it has perhaps become worthy of being a Wikipedia article, and I have also learned a lot about Wikipedia (policies, guidelines, and community) through observing the process. ER8-8mvm (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am really glad to hear this. A well-curated set of citations that establish facts to support notability to me is key. Sources are tertiary. And Wikidata can establish the skeleton upon which pages can be built and improved, again establishing notability. Of great importance are the Identifiers which are often partially reflected in the Authority Control template at the bottom of Wikipedia pages. The fact that this person had published books that meant he had multiple identifiers also supported notability — as did the citations. It’s probable that there are other good citations that are in the page history and might need to be searched via Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine — and no longer show up in the multi-page Google search — so going back through the page History and also working through the Japanese page’s citations (if that hasn’t been done exhaustively) might also be other strategies to improve the page and further establish notability. Notability is the key with BLPs. As I said on my talk page if you get stuck or have questions let me know. I encourage you to BE BOLD and edit the page. As long as you don’t have a Conflict of Interest with the subject. But definitely take on improving the page if you have time. You have good instincts and that is so important as an editor. Best. — Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 15:01, 29 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Intelligence Quotient (DQ)[edit]

Digital Intelligence Quotient (DQ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for a neologism that is mainly used by DQ institute and its founder Dr. Yuhyun Park. Most of the sources in the article either do no mention the term, mention it in a one-liner, and/or are not RS or significant (i.e. a listing Dr. Park at a speaking event with some details). BEFORE doesn't show much use at all of the term, and what use there is tends to related to Park. Dr. Park or the DQ institute do not seem notable either from a BEFORE, but the neologism definitely is not. Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is almost entirely about Dr. Park's definition, and most of it should be deleted as promotional regardless of the outcome here. I see some other coverage of the vague concept ([28] [29] [30]), but they all seem to be independent derivations of the term based on the analogy to IQ, and there is nothing that would support an encyclopedia article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Anand[edit]

Nikhil Anand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable. Sources in the article are mostly cruft, press-releases (e.g., on the now-closed HuffPost blog site) etc. I found one brief mention in The Times of India. I know nothing at all about the beauty-pageant business, but I find it improbable in the extreme that this young person has acquired Miss Earth and Miss International; presumably he has the local franchise for those companies. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Since its creation it seems to have gone through different iterations. The 8th reference seems to be WP:USERGENERATED - though I might be missing something. MarnetteD|Talk 17:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. I nominated the article via WP:PROD on January 7, 2018 and was deleted. Shortly after the article was deleted, it was recreated with additional sources from Huff Post and Daily Mail. However, both sources contained promotional materials, both with the same contents which were published on the same date. Richie Campbell (talk) 04:10, 23 January 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 Technology Student Association. Killiondude (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Technology Student Association[edit]

Virginia Technology Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established for this particular state delegation of the Technology Student Association. Generally speaking, a national student organization is notable, but their individual state or local chapters are not. only (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Lander[edit]

Diego Lander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable MMA fighter - does not come close to meeting WP:NMMA PRehse (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no significant independent coverage of him, so WP:GNG is not met. He has only three MMA fights and none of them were top tier, so WP:NMMA is also not met. Finally, I looked at the IBJJF website and could find no mention of him at any tournament, leading me to conclude that WP:NSPORTS and WP:MANOTE are also not met. Becoming a police officer and police academy martial arts instructor does not meet any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nominator. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:54, 27 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pav Singh[edit]

Pav Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional biography, with no underlying notability from which to reconstruct an article. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:05, 22 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cletus Babu[edit]

Cletus Babu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tried to clean this up, bt I do not thing there is any actual notability DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There have been several attempts to place an article on this person (as Cletus Babu, Cletus babu, and possibly also Arun babu which was recently briefly at AfD before speedy-deletion?), as well as for his organisation: [31], [32]. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A biography with unclear claim to notability and poor sources, some primary, some showing no more than the subject's name associated with non-notable local sports associations. I can see some passing mention of the subject in the context of the SCAD organisation [33] and as victim of a theft [34] but not the detailed independent coverage needed to demonstrate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Protect Non notable person fails WP:NBIO . Given repeated attempts to recreate the page, request to protect from further creation. Hagennos (talk) 05:47, 26 January 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. Not a great deal of discussion, but I doubt much more will come from another relisting. Arguments on the lack of notability seem pretty solid. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Amended to explicitly note as a soft delete, given low participation. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon FX[edit]

Jon FX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable individual. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable music producers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:48, 22 January 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. Euryalus (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babajob.com[edit]

Babajob.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially toned article on an unremarkable job site; significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Sources include "Babajob expands leadership team with three key hires in technology and product" and other PR driven materials. The article has been a subject of persistent promotional editing and is based on WP:SPIP sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article sourced to routine funding and appointment announcements and to coverage discussing the firm as one among others seeking to establish themselves in an area. I am not seeing evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Move Whatever the outcome, the website address should not be the title.[Username Needed] 13:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Susan Mary Maclachlan, 24th of Maclachlan[edit]

Marjorie Susan Mary Maclachlan, 24th of Maclachlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Part of a group of articles that use a genealogy web site as a source and make no sufficient claims to notability. Domdeparis (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating for the same reasons the following pages created by the same user
William Maclachlan, 22nd of Maclachlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
George Maclachlan, 21st of Maclachlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robert Maclachlan, 20th of Maclachlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Domdeparis (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - these articles show no signs of notability other than being a clan chief, and that in itself is not sufficient to merit an article for each individual holder. Any relevant information in these article could be added to Clan Maclachlan. Dunarc (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is worth noting if these articles are deleted then Category:Clan Maclachlan may be a little redundant, so its future might then need to be discussed. Dunarc (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for info I have nominated the following article as a speedy copyvio John Maclachlan, 23rd of Maclachlan. The source is the same geneaology page as the other articles. It contains errors and I have serious doubts that it can be used as a WP:RS. It states that he was a "commander" in a British army regiment. This rank does not exist in the army and searching a bit further I found that he had been a major and had commanded the regiment, so he could have been described as the commanding officer. The web site that this info comes from Burke's peerage as a source to justify that he "gained the rank of commander" I doubt that Burke's peerage would make a such an error. It also states that Bristol is in Gloucestershire...this is also false as it has been a City and County since 1373. I think I may see about adding this web site to the list of unreliable sources. Domdeparis (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - relationships do not confer notability and it is not inherited WP:INVALIDBIO. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:35, 28 January 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) 00:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Nayak[edit]

Hari Nayak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded because apparently meaningless peacock words like "award winning" are a testament to notabilty. No sourcing found, no notability asserted Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated it for A7 speedy, not prod. The article credibly indicates the importance of the subject, so it isn't eligible for CSD. If you are going so fast that you mistake PROD and CSD, maybe you should slow down. Υπογράφω (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could not find any reliable sources which can establish notability. The LA Times reference is just a passing mention Hagennos (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of the references do not link to where they are programmed to. A cursory check of those wbsite's titles as shown in the references did not turn up newer URL's. Also, the use of the subject's own material in the form of an About Us page is not a proper reference, as the information is ultimately provided by the subject himself. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 20:11, 29 January 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 Killaloe, Ontario. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South of 60 Arts' Centre[edit]

South of 60 Arts' Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

very few sources that are independent (and certainly none in the article itself) BURLEY-XXII 07:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I added tow very local independent sources. I like these kinds of local Wiki pages, so my rationale is more ILIKEIT than GNG.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the town. . This is an arts center of a town with a population of about 660 people. (The WP article on it didn't give the population, but I found and added it). This is way below the level of singiciance, even for those with extensive coverage of local places. But the existing article on the town could use some content. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the town's article, per DGG. It is a real venue, but it doesn't rise to the level of significance of other spaces that have been deleted.--Theredproject (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Does not meet significance to own stand alone article. Merge to Killaloe. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No objection to a redirect if that's desired, though I don't see this as a likely enough search term to make that necessary. But local theatres have to clear WP:ORGDEPTH as the subject of wider coverage that goes beyond the purely local to qualify for Wikipedia articles, so just sourcing it to Renfrew County's local pennysavers isn't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 29 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Focal Skills[edit]

Focal Skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourcing found, no notability asserted, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No sourcing found where? There is one source in the article and there are more if you search on google books. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep as the rationale given by nominator is nonsensical and not based in policy. Υπογράφω (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I was unable to find any reliable sources to verify that this even exists" is not based in policy? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Scholar: [35]. --Michig (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were you really unable to read the "references" section in the article? You can find a reliable source there, and could when you nominated this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as almost totally unsourced word salad. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is acceptably sourced (judging from its history, all of it except the last section is based on the chapter in Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy). Plenty of sources on both google books and google scholar, so the question of notability doesn't even arise. And if people are unhappy with the style (I guess that's what "word salad" was in reference to), then they're welcome to rewrite or copyedit it. – Uanfala (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a copyright violation. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being based on reliable sources such as the book cited here is precisely the way that articles should be written. It is only a copyright violation if actual text is copied. Is it? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 22 January 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. Euryalus (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Broadband Consortium[edit]

Regional Broadband Consortium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability asserted, no sourcing found. A7 declined without comment Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regional Broadband Consortia appears to be private organisations operated by the local and regional government. As a national project, this article (and the related consortia) may meet WP:N. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 10:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject that received significant coverage in reliable sources, see:
    1. Hall, David (2015-06-12). The ICT Handbook for Primary Teachers: A guide for students and professionals. Routledge. ISBN 9781317525578 – via Google Books. Under the UK government's national grid for learning (NGfL) initiative Regional Broadband Consortia (RBCs) were set up in England to procure broadband internet access for schools in the local education authorities (LEAs) in their region. These RBCs are non-profit making organisations that now provide a range of services including data storage, electronic learning materials, video conferencing and management of network security as well as broadband. Schools vary over the extent ...
    2. Lang, Caroline; Reeve, John (2016-02-24). The Responsive Museum: Working with Audiences in the Twenty-First Century. Routledge. ISBN 9781317017899 – via Google Books. RBC Regional Broadband Consortia <http://broadband.ngfl.gov.uk>Consortia of local education authorities established to procure cost-effective broadband connectivity for schools and to promote the development of content for broadband networks. The national RBC Content Development Group enables RBC to develop content with other content providers, particularly in the museums, libraries and archives sector.
    3. Leask, Marilyn (2012-11-27). Learning To Teach Using Ict Ed. Routledge. ISBN 9781134267019 – via Google Books. Under the UK government's national grid for learning (NGfL) initiative Regional Broadband Consortia (RBCs) were set up in England to procure broadband internet access for schools in the local education authorities (LEAs) in their region. These RBCs are non-profit making organisations that now provide a range of services including data storage, electronic learning materials, video conferencing and management of network security as well as broadband.
    4. Younie, Sarah; Leask, Marilyn (2013-02-01). Teaching with Technologies: The Essential Guide. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). ISBN 9780335246199 – via Google Books. Regional broadband consortia – all regions in England are covered by the RBCs who provide a range of services including technology access, advice on technology resources to schools and who negotiate with providers of resources on behalf of participating local authorities and their schools.
    5. Turvey, Keith; Potter, John; Burton, Jeremy; Allen, Jonathan; Sharp, Jane (2016-09-14). Primary Computing and Digital Technologies: Knowledge, Understanding and Practice. Learning Matters. ISBN 9781473995079 – via Google Books. To this end, LAs in many parts of the country aligned themselves with the emergent 'Regional Broadband Consortia' (RBCs) which were publicprivate partnerships providing fast, relatively lowtariff internet access for schools and, in many cases, a virtual learning environment (VLE) of one kind or another through which the learning community interacts. Most also assisted schools in protecting children from unsuitable content through the deployment of firewalls and servers which screen ...
Those are just the first few GBooks hits. TLDR: WP:BEFORE fail.
Also, I reject the assertion A7 declined without comment - I clearly gave you my reason for rejecting in the edit summary (as I always do). Regards SoWhy 16:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the number of sources by SoWhy above one have to wonder what kind of check you ran that falsely resulted in "no sources". And the A7 decline has comment, you claimed there was no reason given. This nomination is wholly based on false premise. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 23 January 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 Daechi-dong since this article does seem to be more about the district than the street in particular. Sourced content can be merged from history - there are non-ref'd external links that may be worth saving. ansh666 06:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daechi-dong hagwon street[edit]

Daechi-dong hagwon street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a street in a residential district of Seoul, South Korea. It seems to be about Daechi-dong rather than the street itself (there can't really be 13 schools in one street can there?) The article is promotional in its present form and I feel it should be deleted, but there might be something worth merging into Daechi-dong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:GEOROAD it is actually impossible to know if this street is real or virtual. Domdeparis (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeRedirect to Daechi-dong the article is an unsourced disaster, but there are sources: [36] [37]. Everything refers to the district and not the street independently. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, this article although not immediately noticeable is referencing the use of so-called cram schools in the district, rather than a street. Nightfury 13:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GEOROAD. Sources are not sufficient to determine the street itself being notable, (the district however is). Ajf773 (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Although there is a consensus that the page should not be kept as is I do not see a consensus as to what should become of it. This conversation can continue on the talk page J04n(talk page) 13:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universalizing religion[edit]

Universalizing religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

neolo|gism sourced to Conservapedia! Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source has been removed and replaced with Religion.wikia and a blog so no better. Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Above two !votes also support a redirect, as written below. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a number of Google results related to AP Human Geography courses, mostly in the form of study guides for the AP exam. The reference is a publication from a test prep company, not a personal or opinion blog, so it does deserve some weight. [38] is another example from a textbook publisher. It doesn't seem to be a neologism or made-up term, but there also isn't much coverage outside of a specific high school course. –dlthewave ☎ 23:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added google book references. Merging it to Major religious groups misclassifies hinduism which is Ethnic religion, as per wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 01:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that it is part of K-12 school handout is the proof that our government feels that out kids should know about this very important categorization of religions.

This is my first major wiki article. Let me gather some more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 00:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added one more reference.

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/gyaccp/geography%20and%20religion.pdf

Quote from the article:

Classification There are various ways of classifying religions, and the most commonly used ones reflect differences in belief. From a geographical perspective it is more useful to distinguish universal and ethnic religions. Universal (or universalising) religions - such as Christianity, Islam and the various forms of Buddhism - seek world-wide acceptance by actively looking for and attracting new members (converts). Ethnic (or Park, C. (2004) Religion and geography. Chapter 17 in Hinnells, J. (ed) Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. London: Routledge 5 cultural) religions, are very different in that they do not seek converts. Each is identified with a particular tribal or ethnic group. Tribal (or traditional) religions involve belief in some power or powers beyond humans, to which they can appeal for help. Examples include the souls of the departed, and spirits living on mountains, in stones, trees or animals. More broad based ethnic religions include Judaism, Shintoism, Hinduism and the Chinese moral-religious system (embracing Confucianism and Taoism), which mainly dominate one particular national culture.

Note that article classifies Hinduism as Ethnic Religion , so does Wikipedia.

Let me know if we have sufficient references.

I have added couple of sources from Google Books. Is it sufficient now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 01:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable term,[39][40][41] article needs improvement. Excelse (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reluctantly; these book sources demonstrate it's not a neologism (the oldest is from 1976). But some mighty improvement needed - the current mix of unsourced statements with statements sourced to blogs or school handouts is rather appalling. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete-redirect. I created the original redirect, this was never meant to be a separate topic. Redirect to proselytism ("Another name for a universalizing religion is a proselytic faith" Kaplan AP Human Geography 2016 p. 259) or if absolutely necessary convert into a referenced disambiguation page with Universalism. Note that this could be fixed without the deletion discussion, just do it. --dab (𒁳) 06:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me if somebody boldly redirects. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me either. Theroadislong (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me too as well. SA 13 Bro (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have article for ethnic religions , which comprise , may be 30% of the population. Don't you think we need an article for something EXACTLY opposite to that which comprises 60% of world population? This article has philosophical and ontological implications as well , because each member of this category posits different TYPEs of ultimate realities that have acceptance for thousands of years without any alteration. I plan to compare and contrast them here. Now , I cannot include hinduism or universalism here , because they don't have a single coherent model of universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 02:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep We have numerous sourced articles on neologisms and jargon. See category Category:Neologisms and its subcategories by centuries and decades. Such terms can have their own impact on culture. If there is scope for expansion for this stub article, there is no need to delete or merge it to proselytism. Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where has it been determined that the availability of reliable sources for this can substantiate an expansion beyond the article's current state of a lot of OR using mostly unreliable sources? Rhinopias (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as an article, possibly reduced to the first paragraph. This is a definition of the subject as (apparently) used in academic work. The rest of it is heavily tagged and seems to confuse ethical and ethnic. Accordingly stubify. I would add that the religious studies department at Lancaster University has a high reputation for the study of religion in general, as opposed to specific religions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I'm not sure of the best topic. It's an antonym of Ethnic religion but I don't see any content significantly beyond a WP:DICTDEF at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (to what? is the real question) According to 2 above, this is just a dictionary definition and the first paragraph could apply to any [major or fringe] religion, which all claim to be the truth or to know some kind of higher truth... @Realphi: The term is vague enough that it could encompass most world religions - more precise articles dividing them into multiple relevant categories already exist, see Religion#Classification. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went ahead and boldly redirected, per what seems to be consensus above. Would anybody object to me closing this as bold redirect? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-redirect to Major religious groupsCornelis Tiele. The relevant content is not enough for a separate article and the original idea of the current one appears to be WP:POVFORK. A mention of universalizing may be adequate in the target article with a relevant source. —PaleoNeonate – 10:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as an article,

Consensus is for the keep. Keeping and removing everything except first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Key words here are "exclusive" and "portable". Hinduism claims to say the truth , but doesn't say it is exclusive. Same for various universalist sects of christianity. Judism probably just talks about only Jews as chosen people and hence it is not "portable". This distinction is well-known in academic circles. Somehow , Jainism omitted because it is not well-known and it doesn't fit well in narratives of conservatives and liberals. But , if you include Buddhism , it is no-brainer that you have to include Jainism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 01:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin — Realphi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll challenge your notion of consensus since there is clearly a large number of persons who say redirect, and neither of us is now a neutral party so I'll reinstate the AfD template on the article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article could alternatively (if we don't settle on the original redirect to Proselytism, or in addition to that) be merged to Major religious groups, since in its current state it is a content fork and it would be better merged (if the information isn't already included in it, anyway). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me , what is the opposite of Ethnic religion?

Universalizing religions are started from the outset as a portable universal exclusive worldview. Hence , Hinduism , in spite of being Major World Religion , is not Universalizing Religion because it started as Ethnic Religion. Now , Hinduism can and does engage in Proselytism , but that doesn't magically make it Universalizing Religion. This distinction is well know in academic circles. Hence , Proselytism and Major religious groups are not proper substitute of Universalizing religion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 05:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why must there be an opposite to everything? Can't we live in peace and love and harmony and good music? - The opposite is Major religious groups - Universalizing religion is just not the most common name and per WP:COMMONNAME, the name of an article must be the most commonly used one in WP:RS - it's much more likely you'll hear somebody refer to "Christianism, Islam, Judaism, Budhism, ..." as 'major religions' than as "universalizing religions" and the concept of seeing one's faith as the exclusive true one as "proselytizing". Article in its current state is a WP:CFORK and needs to be merged or to go if there's no useful content - better spend your efforts on improving Major religious groups instead since it's mostly the same topic. And let's not get tendentious about "exclusive" or you making a straw man about Hinduism (me having never mentioned it) or proselytism, which was the old redirect and is not within the scope of AFD. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you are making a false dilemma by implying everything is an ethnic religion or part of another unified whole, while there is clearly more than one category, see Religion#Classification. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information that which religions are universalizing and which are not is beneficial for any serious seeker who wants to identify true religion. I agree that there are many ways to classify religions, but Universalizing and Ethnic is mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive classification and hence not a false dilemma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 07:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"True religion" is of course undefinable and a very personal opinion. The discussion should be closed (and consensus evaluated) by a competent neutral person, ideally an experienced administrator. Participants should not close it and an article creator cannot be neutral to assess consensus. Please see WP:CLOSEAFD for more information. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "True religion" is a personal opinion. My point was that a person who is trying to form an opinion about which is a "true religion" should be presented with all the facts from all the points of views. Existence of the category of religions called "Universalizing Religions" is a fact. Existence of the category of religions called "Ethnic Religions" is a fact. Sure , there can be varying opinions about which religions belong to which category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 13:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that people cannot agree on which page to redirect to is the proof that "Universalizing Religion" needs a separate page and doesn't correspond to any of the existing pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://stepekaphumangeography.weebly.com/uploads/2/8/4/1/28419347/religion_universalizing_vs_ethnic_2017_-_2018.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is where the fallacy of your reasoning lies. Religions can be more than just "Universalizing" (which seems to correspond mostly with major religions, except maybe for some tendentious details which I don't really care about) or "ethnic", even if the two terms are mutually exclusive. Also, "The very fact that people [...]" - ad ignorantiam: you are asserting that because there isn't a consensus (proposition hasn't been proven true) where to redirect (and again, if people agree that there should be a redirect, a competent administrator can probably figure out which is more appropriate amongst the proposed) that the article shouldn't be redirected (proposition is false). "True religion is a personal opinion" - exactly, no place on Wikipedia since it would probably be in breach of either WP:NOR or WP:NPOV! "[...] who is trying to form an opinion [...]" WP:NOT - Wikipedia isn't here to help people form opinions but to inform them of the facts as published in reliable sources. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If redirect, where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged BladesGodric 06:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:The two options which seem to stand out are Proselytism (i.e. what the article was before the recent additions) or Major religious groups (which is what the article seems to be a WP:CFORK of). The article 'creator' (so-called because the true creator only made it as a redirect), seems to object on the grounds that the exact definition of the term does not match either of those "totally" and that there must be an opposite to "Ethnic religion", and that opposite would be this. Although others have commented a lot, I'll just point out that the last point is a false dilemma, despite the author's claim that the two terms are exhaustive (which they are not - there are surely religions which neither claim to be limited in scope to a national/ethnic level or engage in proselytizing - an example which comes to mind quickly is Quakers). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more contents now. Realphi

Not a discussion about article content

" Ethical religions fall into two subcategories. First are the national nomistic (legal) religions that are particularistic, limited to the horizon of one people only and based upon a sacred law drawn from sacred books. Above them are the universalistic religions, qualitatively different in kind, aspiring to be accepted by all men, and based upon abstract principles and maxims. In both subtypes, doctrines and teachings are associated with the careers of distinct personalities who play important roles in their origin and formation. Tiele found only three examples of this highest type of religion: Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism.

Tiele’s classification enjoyed a great vogue and influenced many who came after him. Nathan Söderblom, a Swedish archbishop who devoted much energy to problems of classification, accepted the division of higher religions into two great groups but used a varied terminology that pointed to some of the characteristics of the two types of religion. "

Realphi —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi @198.84.253.202: , Added reference of Encyclopedia Britannica Realphi —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pings don't for work for IPsWhile I appreciate the good faith effort to find sources, Britannica again offers no support for "Universali[stic] religions" behind the short statement you quote above (proper practice would also be to indicate it is a quote more visibly by citing the source, ex. "quote"[2]). Britannica simply states Tiele's classification was historically important, but that it is only one form of "Morphological classification". Also, Britannica does not support content currently in the article in that it only names Islam, Christianity and Buddhism - and it gives different characteristics. The paragraph about "Ontological views" remains unsourced OR. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, still doesn't solve the issue of Quakers which obviously fit neither category... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, article content is already covered in Universalism, as above - a redirect to that or either of the previous options would be possible - I suggest we list this at RfD. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I included Jainism in the list because early studies of Jainism considered it as a sect of Buddhism and didn't list it as separate religion.

https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:120127&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF page 50 , footnote 39

Regarding quaker, there will always be some fuzziness about these classifications and all cases may not be covered , but It would probably cover 99% of the population.

You have removed the Ontological View section. So , that issue is solved.

Most of the other material comes from [3] - Realphi

Added a neutral reference that proves that Jainism is oldest personally founded religion. [4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral" - not really just no: author is obviously Christian (as is the "magazine" - and it otherwise fails to meet WP:RS criteria) and goes on to criticize it based on some biblical passages: "Superiority of Chrstianity 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God' (Psa. 14:1, 53:1). First, of the many discrepancies and illogical positions held by the founder and proponents of Jainism, [...]"
Ignoring that neutrality issue, "Oldest personally founded religion" is irrelevant to the idea of Universalism or to this AfD - and the source actually says that Jainism isn't anymore a 'universal religion': "One can see the expressed hope for a universal religion in some of the Jain literature, but that plan has been abandoned." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page says:

"It seems the founder supposedly received divine encouragement to propagate a religion of supreme benefit to the whole world, but as we will see throughout, many ideas have been dropped."

Later he sites the dropped idea:

"Jain monks and nuns soon left the homeless approach Mahavira preached and began living in monasteries."

So ,the dropped ideas don't include dropping the idea of "propagating a religion of supreme benefit to the whole world" Realphi (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's cherrypicking. Source (despite it not being reliable) obviously also says, in the first paragraph "One can see the expressed hope for a universal religion in some of the Jain literature, but that plan has been abandoned." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[[Digambara monk]s] belonging to the Digambara sect of Jainism don't live in monastries and are rightly called homeless ascetics. Moreover, many Jain texts are still not published and very few are available to English readers. Therefore, scholars are not rightly able to understand that Universality is deeply associated with the Jaina scheme of things. -Nimit (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep, I thing there is scope for such an article to exist on English Wikipedia.-Nimit (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://m.imdb.com/name/nm0667874/mediaviewer/rm4198317824
  2. ^ Adams, Charles Joseph. "Classification of religions". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 23 January 2018.
  3. ^ "Religion Universalizing vs. Ethnic Religions — Global Distribution of Faith" (PDF). AP Human Geography. 2017–2018. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
  4. ^ http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume34/GOT034138.html

Please look at number of views after the article was created and before the article was created. This means people are definitely interested in this article. Realphi (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page views do not imply notability or suitability for inclusion in Wiki - WP:POPULARPAGE. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I thing there is scope for such an article to exist on English Wikipedia.-Nimit (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ( copied because it appeared in content discussion by mistake)[reply]
  • Redirect. A search reveals a striking absence of online reliable sources that mention this phrase, supporting power~enwiki's assertion that nothing is present in reliable sources beyond a dictionary definition. There are a couple book sources used in the article and apparently some on Google Books, but it's interesting that "AP Human Geography" is one of the most prominent results and is also used in the article (my favorite is this class presentation). It doesn't seem to be a recent word, so its absence in prominent descriptions of major religions off-wiki is telling, and supports a mention on Major religious groups (plus maybe Religion) but a redirect to Proselytism per Dbachmann. A greater incorporation of it beyond its mention on one or two articles would be undue weight. A bold redirect will apparently not suffice for Realphi, who seems to be on a quest to introduce this term to the world (as it is currently barely used on-wiki outside of their efforts) without the ability to add it verifiably. Rhinopias (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask the same question again, what is opposite of Ethnic religion? It is called "Universal religion" or "Universalizing religion" Realphi (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed]! 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge content to either Cornelis Tiele or Comparative religion: The term "universalizing" is by no means accepted across academia. Its major importance is probably in the study of history of religions, as part of a 19th century theory developed by Tiele, working largely from ideas of William Dwight Whitney. If using Britannica as a source, however, we find that Tiele contrasted "universalistic" with "national" (not "ethnic"), and that both terms were part of his "spiritual-ethical" group, contrasted with a "nature" group (polydaemonistic magical, theriantropic polytheism, anthropomorphic polytheism). We should be very careful not to assume that "universalizing" is the same as "universalistic." And we should be EXTRA careful not to confuse the terms "ethical" and "ethnic," for according to Tiele, both the universalistic and national (which might be read as "ethnic") groups were considered part of the "ethical" group.
  • These terms all come with their own problems. Despite how important they may have been to the study of the history of religions in the 19th century, they can often be traced to the (often biased) views of one individual, and have at times been used to show how some religions are somehow better/higher than other religions. Thus, I feel that the relevant and well cited info from this article would best be merged with the Cornelis Tiele article. Or if not, a "morphological" section of the Comparative religion page could be created where this information would fit nicely. Mark Froelich (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, you feel that, it is okay to have an article about Ethnic religion, but not its opposite? Realphi (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is directed at me (uncertain, as you didn't address it to anyone)... yeah, I feel that would be alright. Just because there is an article about religions "associated with a particular ethnic group," that doesn't mean we need an article for "religions not associated with a particular ethnic group." See, the use of "universalizing religion" that you seem to be promoting is not mutually exclusive with "ethnic religion." For example, what would call a religion that is not associated with a particular ethnic group, and does NOT proselytize? It fits in neither group, as currently defined on Wikipedia. The two categories are not mutually exclusive, and they are not opposite. Mark Froelich (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, a universalizing religion generally, but not necessarily proselytize. I didn't include the "proselytize" part in the article initially but everybody forced me to put proselytizing part. Also, I wouldn't say Cornelis Tiele was biased , it is just classification from morphological point of view. If Tiele is biased, then Major religions category is also biased because it excludes minor religions. Realphi (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Realphi, someone "forced" you to put in a part about proselytizing? Who forced you? As an editor, if you feel that something shouldn't be in an article (especially something which defines the main topic), don't put it in. But the fact is, regardless of who put it in and why... it's in there now. And this creates an "apples and oranges" effect of making the two terms not mutually exclusive. But even if you took the "proselytizing" part out again, they still would not be mutually exclusive. For example, we have that universalizing religions claim "to know abstract principles and maxims of the interaction of entities in the universe exclusively." If this is somehow in direct contrast to ethnic religion, that implies that ethnic religions do NOT claim to know abstract principles and maxims exclusively. Again, apples and bananas. What if you have a religion which is tied to an ethnicity which claims to know such principles and maxims? Conversely, what if you have a religion not tied to any ethnicity which makes no claims on such principles and maxims? Neither fit into the scheme you (and others) propose, and it breaks down.
As for Tiele being biased, I'd say he likely was, just by his terminology. In both the "nature religions" and "ethical religions" categories, he classified certain types as "higher religions." Also, just his choice of the terms "nature" and "ethical" religions--it implies that "nature religions" either lack or have less concern for ethics than "ethical" religions. I'm not saying that Tiele is a bad person, or that we should forget his ideas. Tiele had his 19th century biases, and we surely have our 21st century biases. I'm just saying that his scheme would best be found either in his own page (Cornelis Tiele), or in the Comparative religion page. It is a flawed scheme which hasn't found a solid hold in religious studies. And the "universalizing religion" vs. "ethnic religion" contrast also breaks down for placing categories with non-mutually exclusive elements in opposition to each other. Cheers! Mark Froelich (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Dbachmann above. The scarcity, ambiguity, and quality of sources, imo, indicate that the concept is so esoteric as to be nearly fringe. There's no indication that this is a meaningful categorization used in academia today, at least under this name, and therefore lacks notability. Notability requires more than verifiability, it requires that the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and from the sources presented and from my own quick search I don't think this topic has crossed that threshold. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Universalizing religion is fringe, then Ethnic religion should also be fringe because they are defined as the opposite of each other, an any casual reader of religion will know. Realphi (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a logical fallacy. Just because they may be opposite (and even the sparse literature is unclear on this) doesn't mean both must have equal notability and therefore both must have articles. This frequency count for the two phrases indicates that "ethnic religion" is by far more widely used and more notable in the literature, hence why one warrants an article, while the other doesn't. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be called "universal religion" before that term was appropriated for some other meaning:

frequency count Realphi (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


This is an example of Cultural appropriation. Please restore it before it gets lost. Realphi (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From one of the other users:

"Universalizing religion" is different from but related to the term "universalism", which is one strategy of being "universalizing" (i.e. absorb any possible pre-existing religion into your framework as a matter of principle, or phrased more negatively, water everything down to the point where all religions are the same anyway). It is not synonymous with "universalism". Realphi (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


"Universal to Universalizing" [1]

Also, there is no bias here as Cornelis Tiele is not implying that all Universalizing religions are better than Ethnic religions or vice versa. Only thing to conclude here with high certainty IMHO is that, THERE CAN BE ZERO OR EXACTLY ONE UNIVERSALIZING RELIGION THAT CAN BE TRUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs)

Would you please sign your comments? It's easy - just enter ~~~~ or click right next to the "Sign your posts on talk pages:" notice... Thanks! 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content to either Cornelis Tiele or Comparative religion For reasons of presentation rather than principle. There are about 5 good sentences of information in this article, but that information will be better presented in a context that makes its relevance more clear - either in the article about the theologian who used this classification or as part of a broader discussion of the classification of religions. -- LWG talk 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just stop beating the dead horse, but as a matter of consistency: "It is not synonymous with 'universalism'" - in addition to being an argument without argument (of course, it's not the exact same meaning, but what should we do with that information?), merging 2 articles together does not imply either term is synonymous to the other. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cornelis Tiele and add a few sentences to that article (e.g., in the "Works" section) outlining his classification scheme. I don't think the content in this article is clear enough to warrant merging; better to write new prose from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


So , here is what has happened:

Earlier, "Universalizing Religions" were called "Universal Religions". Now, Hindus had a big problem with this word "Universal Religions" for obvious reasons.

[Vivekananda] on Universal Religion: "You hear claims made by every religion as being the universal religion of the world. Let me tell you in the first place that perhaps there never will be such a thing, but if there is a religion which can lay claim to be that, it is only our religion and no other, because every other religion depends on some person or persons. All the other religions have been built round the life of what they think a historical man; and what they think the strength of religion is really the weakness, for disprove the historicity of the man and the whole fabric tumbles to the ground. Half the lives of these great founders of religions have been broken into pieces and the other half doubted very seriously. As such every truth that had its sanction only in their words vanishes into air. But the truths of our religion, although we have person by the score, do not depend on them."

As time passed and with the evolution theory and big bang theory, western elite in general came to conclusion that Christianity is not true religion and hence were not very enthusiastic about spreading Christianity all over the world. Also, they were aware of violent methods used by it to spread worldwide. So, the meaning of the "Universal Religion" changed from exclusive religion to inclusive religion where anything goes in the name of religion. More important objective was to stop religious violence than to identify true religion, because probability of existence of a true religion was zero anyway.

But, american conservatives were not about to let go. So, they reclaimed the sparsely used word "Universalizing Religion" as the replacement for the old meaning of the word "Universal Religion".

Looks like in asia, the word "Universal Religion" is still used in the old sense. When I added the adjective "universalizing" in the Wikipedia Islam article , the maintainer changed it to "universal". Also , one of the other Jain commentators on this page used the word "Universal" instead of "Universalizing".

So, even if "Universalizing Religion" is sparsely used word, it actually represents the word "Universal Religion" in the old sense and this page should use the frequency count of "Universal Religion" to decide for notability. The subject matter is still the same even if the word used to represent that subject has changed. This is an example of [Semantic change] of the word Universal religion.


Also, people have claimed that wikipedia only has facts, but not opinions. Look at these two versions of wiki page of the same item and see for yourself how opinions can be created from facts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dharmic_religion&oldid=174099691

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dharmic_religion&oldid=179052999


Also , general opinion of majority of educated people is that probability of existence of true religion is zero. But, I would argue that anybody who dig little bit more will realize that probability of Atheism or Buddhism or Jainism being right are equal.

See : http://fearlessbooks.com/SecretScience.htm

Realphi (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule of thumb (haven't checked the links), WP can have opinions, if and only if they are properly attributed to their source (and not the invention of a Wikipedian). As for the rest, stop beating the dead horse. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right. While I believe and have already voted that the article should be kept, I am doubtful if Realphi is going to contribute well. These edits[42][43] make article look like an essay. Excelse (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Excelse , Are you commenting on my english writing ability or on the authenticity of the material I used in contributing the edits?

One of the edits you mentioned is correcting grammatical mistake, IMO. Other edit is taken directly from one of the sources.

Thanks

Realphi (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I think you meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Essay-like. Got it.

Thanks

Realphi (talk) 18:57, 29 January 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 Sutter Kain. Killiondude (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August Underground: Tha Making of Sutter Kain[edit]

August Underground: Tha Making of Sutter Kain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article, doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUM as no WP:RS exist to demonstrate notability. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Sweetheart[edit]

National Sweetheart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sorry, but you are kidding, right? a pageant with no coverage in a town that just about defines bumfucknowhere? The winners got coverage in their hometowns. what a surprise. Where is the significant coverage of the event itself? John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss National Sweetheart 2012, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss National Sweetheart 2013 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss National Sweetheart 2011

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would need to be shown that this competition received substantial coverage, other than for its local winners in local sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Hoopeston, Illinois#Miss National Sweetheart pageant (see below). I agree that this pageant doesn't generate the coverage needed for a stand-alone article, but there is enough sourcing to justify having a section in the Hoopeston, Illinois article. I've already merged the relevant contents from the instant article into the target, so the only remaining question is whether a redirect is appropriate. I think it is, because the phrase does get used in this context in other sources, so it is a plausible search term and a valid Alternative to Deletion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per NewYorkActuary --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can see a redirect for the main article, however there is no reason whatsoever to keep the individual results articles. John from Idegon (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rename to National Sweetheart Pageant. I hate beauty pageants and I hate articles on beauty pageant contestants on WP. HATE THEM. However, this national contest was established in 19-fricking-41 — nearly 80 years ago for those of you bad at math — and every single year since then there has been independent, substantial coverage in the American press somewhere about the contest and its winner. At Newspapers.com there are 745 articles hitting on the exact phrase "National Sweetheart"+"pageant." This is enough to put this miles, or multiple 1.62 km increments, over the GNG bar. The individual contest winners may not, generally should not, be notable, but the institution certainly is. This is essentially a "training pageant" for the Miss America pageant, open to first runners-up in their state competitions, at least ACCORDING TO THE BOOK The Story of Corn, by Betty Harper Fussell (Knopf, 1992). Carrite (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And HEEEEEERE's coverage from the Press of Atlantic City detailing the 2016 break between the Miss America Organization and the National Sweetheart organization. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
THIS is significant coverage from the Danville Commercial-News detailing recent history of the pageant and its requirements. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AND MORE coverage from WILL at the University of Illinois, via the university's dot-edu website on the turmoil and potential impact of the 2016 Miss America/American Sweetheart spat. Carrite (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention THIS substantial coverage of one of the pageant's judges, a retired professor who provides significant detail that could be applied to expansion of the piece. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And so on. It's not hard, let's get off the IDONTLIKEIT and SMALLTOWNSSUCK train and get serious about following GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hoopeston,_Illinois#Miss_National_Sweetheart_pageant. This section in the target article (3 paras) already sufficiently covers the pageant. The list of winners in the present article does not need to be preserved, as they are almost all non-notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Carrite's discussion has given me pause to reconsider. Not all of their arguments are on point. For example, the Press of Atlantic City coverage already appeared in the article, as well as the material added to the Hoopeston article. And a lot of the other coverage from outside Hoopeston is really a discussion of the local people associated with the pageant. I suppose one could argue that this demonstrates some notability because it shows that non-Hoopeston media is willing to devote some time or space to it, but I'm not sure how much notability is created by it. Instead, what got me thinking was Carrite's observation that this is a very long-running institution (older than all of the major international pageants). And I found via HighBeam that the pageant itself has received some substantial coverage in two major Chicago newspapers. The Sun-Times did a piece on it in 1989 and the Tribube did one in 2003. Sure, Chicago is in the same state as Hoopeston, but I understand that they are more than 150 miles apart. So, this isn't local coverage. And it's enough to push me over the line to recommendation a "keep". NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:00, 29 January 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. Euryalus (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kosta Gara[edit]

Kosta Gara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication this individual meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. Not for nothing, also created by an author whose userpage is now marked "retired" as a declared paid piece. John from Idegon (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An individual who has endured much but achieved little and does not meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 22 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino Grammy Award winners and nominees[edit]

List of Filipino Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bruno Mars is an American, he was born in Hawaii, therefore he should clearly not be listed as a Filipino. As a result there should be no items on this list. Dan arndt (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @মাখামাখি: however the issue is Bruno Mars was not born in the Philippines and is not a citizen of the Philippines. Dan arndt (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are right. Now, can the awards won by Shakira ne added to Spain if she resides in Spain? What does the criteria says about? মাখামাখি (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, whilst that is not really relevant to this discussion you would need to find verifiable evidence that she had dual citizenship to both Colombia and Spain. Noting that she always identifies herself as being Colombian not Spanish. Dan arndt (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the only winner or nominee is a person who is American and no real good explanation to be classified as being Filipino. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, have removed Bruno Mars as there is no evidence that he is a Philippine citizen.Dan arndt (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auric:, this is still just a single item list, which is insufficient to justify a stand-alone list. The list could be easily replaced with a statement in the parent article for the artist. Dan arndt (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my !vote.--Auric talk 12:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 18:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Driftland[edit]

Driftland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A disappointing lack of reliable sources. There's this, but then I found out it is just a blog of one guy (quote [44] -- This website has been a personal outlet for my photos, videos and opinions since 2010). This leaves this and this, two sources I am not too sure about. So what do folks think? Do the sources around allow this to pass WP:GNG/WP:GEO? !dave 09:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's big enough to host the British Drift Championship in 2016 and 2017. It's still just single sentences in tabloids though... --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 15:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neko-chan: Interesting point. Notability doesn't have to be all source based. Obviously, thanks for that, and hopefully we can get some !voters to look at that, and see what they think. !dave 15:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:35, 22 January 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 Thiruvananthapuram#Culture. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinema halls in Thiruvananthapuram[edit]

List of cinema halls in Thiruvananthapuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOR and appears to be a facility to book online. Pretty much entire list is non notable cinemas or theatres Ajf773 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This and the other lists in Category:Lists of cinemas in India should probably be selectively merged and redirected into a single list of cinemas in India; there do not appear to be enough notable individual entries among them (or in the Category:Cinemas in India structure) to merit subnational lists. This is another instance where development is the right path forward, and viewing this list in isolation as has been done here does not help us understand the relationship of this list to other pages with related content. So editing should have been attempted first, not AFD. postdlf (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This does not conflict WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is a list of useful information. Given the size and number of movie halls in India it may not be a good idea to merge all into a single article as suggested by Postdlf as the article will become unmanageable fast. Hagennos (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 50+ list entries and not a single one of them has an article. Unlike the other lists of cinemas under Category:Lists of cinemas in India, none are located in Thiruvananthapuram nor even in the state of Kerala so there is nothing that can be merged. Also most of the list is original research and simply trivial and not encyclopedic, bordering WP:FANCRUFT. It's not the job of Wikipedia to list every cinema that has Dolby Digital accreditation or the like. Ajf773 (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Postdlf. We need to work on merging all such lists into a single article. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then your vote should be merge. Also what in this list do you feel can be merged? Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is purely a directory, which the encyclopedia is specifically not.Jacona (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JaconaFrere: I have removed an absurd allegation that was made by you above[45], use WP:SPI for them. Also this is not WP:NOTDIR, but contains important information as elsewhere. You need to get consensus from whole Wikipedia community for removing these articles including List of theatres in Melbourne, List of cinemas in Metro Manila. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are not talking about lists of theatres or cinemas in Melbourne or Manila. None of the list entries are proven to be notable nor are there any such sources to verify them all, or the larger topic of cinemas in an Indian city vaguely anyone (from outside India) knows. The standard of the article is nowhere near what is required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's just an essay. However the subject is notable [46] as other lists that I pointed. I have also searched for sources and the subject is more notable than we think. I think we can try getting community consensus. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome to indignantly call my allegation absurd, but it is documented here[47], and here is a list of socks [48]. Jacona (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still absurd. The user (Yogesh Khandke) you had mentioned earlier still edits. On AFD, you have to avoid throwing these years old incidents unless there is any on going abuse or recent abuse of multiple accounts per the policy. You can seek clarification from anybody else.D4iNa4 (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provide suggests that a theater or two may be notable, it is a huge stretch to include this article, which is a list of such theaters. If there were several notable theaters, a list like this article would be useful. Until then, this is just a directory of trivial, non-notable venues.Jacona (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's possible somebody might be able to write Cinema in Thiruvananthapuram which talked about the industry in general in that city, assuming the right sources could be found. It's possible the introductory paragraphs of this article might form the core of that. But, even then, listing every non-notable cinema would not be a good idea (i.e. WP:NOTDIRECTORY). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what can be salvaged from the lede to Thiruvananthapuram#Culture, and delete the rest as a simple listing of non-notable items, per WP:NOTLIST. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is about the only thing which is suitable to be merged, even then, it's unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right - its seems like interesting and relatively harmless info, that could potentially be sourced if it was marked with cn. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:44, 31 January 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. J04n(talk page) 18:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veľký balík[edit]

Veľký balík (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article, is about a spin-off in a another language version type of Deal or No Deal. The article fails WP:NOTE just because it is similar or a spin off in another language does not mean it is inherently notable. Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several more of these stubs related to international versions of Deal or No Deal, with many of them having shorter articles than this one. Matroesjka (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:33, 22 January 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. The delete side is arguing that he fails WP:NPROF. The keep side says, well, that may be true, but he's not an academic, so it's not what we should be looking at, and he qualifies as a software engineer. Neither side makes any truly persuasive arguments, and I don't think relisting this for another week will change anything. If anybody feels strongly about it, let's say WP:NPASR applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glyph Lefkowitz[edit]

Glyph Lefkowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Fails GNG. Sourcing in article are passing mentions, blogs, and self-authored works. BEFORE doesn't show SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Icewhiz! I understand the concern, I haven't had all that much time lately to add to the article, so it's still quite stubby. My first question would be, is NPROF really the right standard here? I didn't intend the article to suggest he was an academic; he's a software engineer.
Originally, I decided to create this article on the basis that Twisted (software) has a substantial article and is available in 9 languages. That, plus he seemed to match the level of notability established by Category:American computer programmers.
As far as sourcing, I understand if the "blog" aspect of some of the sources detracts from their apparent significance, but these are the official communications of the Python Software Foundation, and they are far from a passing mention.
Self-authored sources are peer-reviewed journal publications or conference proceedings, provided as auxiliary citations of already-cited statements. I can remove them if they're not relevant.
Anyways, to sum up, the article's not perfect, but at the end of the day, I think there's a strong case for Glyph's notability as the creator of Twisted based on Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. --MahmoudHashemi (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Twisted is clearly notable, the question is whether Glyph is independently notable. I brought up PROF as he has published a bit. I am not sure if WP:AUTHOR is the right standard here - but is one notable library grounds for AUTHOR(2)? I would argue not. What I find lacking here is SIGCOV to meet GNG - outside of a possible SNG.Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many if not most non-professorial entries in the Category:American computer programmers are primarily notable for a relatively small number of notable software projects. In addition, GNG/SIGCOV doesn't really say how to incorporate this into the article, but Glyph is a commonly-interviewed expert on aspects of software beyond Twisted. See here, here, and here for just a few examples. --MahmoudHashemi (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 2 podcasts on podcastinit and a blog/podcast on binpress would be WP:RS or establish notable coverage. He is a speaker at Python related conferences / blogs / podcasts - but it doesn't look like it extends much beyond the Python community circle.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Binpress is not a Python podcast, and a quick search will yield several others not specific to Python, including Developer on Fire, The Changelog, and Code Podcast. And again, there are even more out there. "The Python community circle" is as large as they come for programming languages. So large that Glyph's work on Twisted, core Python, and other frameworks is more influential than whole boutique languages like Julia, co-creators of which have Wikipedia articles: Jeff Bezanson and Stefan Karpinski. I'll let you be the judge of those articles' quality and their subjects' notability, but I will point out that both of them qualify more under WP:CREATIVE than WP:NPROF due to their work as open-source programmers and professional consultants. --MahmoudHashemi (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the OSE arguement, if I throw "Jeff Bezanson" julia into gNews, I get quite a few hits, some of which seem to be discussing him (quite a few due to the startup based on the language). This is not the case with Lefkowitz (Glyph or Matthew). Maybe MSM should be devoting more attention to him, but they are not. The question here notability wise (if we go GNG) - is whether these podcasts (non Python as well) are RS.Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that link doesn't work for me (takes me to the Google Homepage, maybe something to do with the tablet?), and when I visit news.google.com, and perform the search you suggested, I get back "Your search - "Jeff Bezanson" - did not match any documents".
Media/"MSM" coverage has definitely shifted over the years as they caught up to the importance of tech, often overstating the importance of a technology before it is realized. It's actually because of the foundational work that Glyph has done that makes him notable. In fact, his work on Twisted's Deferred went on to influence Python's own built-in asynchronous capabilities, as well as JavaScript's Mochikit, then Dojo, and as a result whole family of JS futures programming. --MahmoudHashemi (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the bad link. The book you cite has him in two lines (+his name appearing in sample code). Addressing the OSE argument - Searching for "Glyph Lefkowitz" in gNews leads to nothing, and "Matthew Lefkowitz" in gNews leads to nothing as well (4 hits - one due to a talkback, 3 others seem related to a different Matthew Lefkowitz in the real-estate business and aren't in depth in any event). In contrast if I search "Jeff Bezanson" julia I get 32 true hits (raw hit count 47) - most of them admittedly passing (name drop) and these two of marginal depth - wired, waterstechnology (not sure of RSness here). Sources in Jeff Bezanson do not add anything more - so yes, this is probably a plausible AfD candidate as well (though it requires a bit more digging to ascertain this - reviewing all the hits in a BEFORE - and he is "closer" ) - and I will nominate there as well. In terms of notability for Lefkowitz the question should be whether developing Twisted is enough for CREATIVE or whether the blog/podcast coverage of him leads to GNG (e.g. if some of these can be considered RS).Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Note that in addition Bezanson also has two well cited papers (~300 cites for each).Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I looked at the sources for this on my initial review, I think I felt like Glyph as on the borderline of qualifying for GNG because there is a reasonable amount of coverage, but as you mention a lot of it is sources like podcasts and blogs - though he is mentioned in a decent number of books and newspaper articles (and, as @MahmoudHashemi: mentions, the PSF award citation). That said, I think that while WP:CREATIVE is generally applied to artists and such, it definitely seems to apply here because of Twisted (software) and his other contributions to the field of programming.
For full disclosure, while I did not write the original page, I did review it and I've been in touch with Mahmoud separately to discuss how he could improve the article and better show that it meets the notability guidelines. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 19:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One other note to add here, I don't mean to invoke a WP:OTHERCONTENT style argument, but in trying to gauge the general level of notability required for other open source programmers and Python programmers, I took a look through Category:Python people. Several of these like Allison Randal, Armin Ronacher and Greg Stein seem to have similar notability and similar quality sources. Of these, as far as I can tell only Greg Stein has been through an AfD, perhaps the discussion in that thread would be useful here (though, admittedly, we're only seeing the ones that actually made it through). 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 19:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stein and Randal are clearly in a different class - heading foundations, involved in a number of projects, including core projects, and both have several gnews hits. Ronacher is closer to Lefkowitz, however he does seem to be quoted in news sources (e.g. financial times), which is lacking for Lefkowitz.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In case you missed it Lefkowitz is quoted extensively in this register article. Regarding the others, I was mainly going by coverage in sources, as that is generally the main reason for the GNG. If people very clearly notable and well known in this field are getting roughly the same coverage as Glyph, that seems to indicate to me that he is in roughly the same notability class as they are (though it's possible that Randal and Stein's articles are just poorly sourced, not that those sources *don't exist*). Glyph is involved fairly widely in the Python community (see the community service award), and AFAICT Twisted is a sort of ecosystem consisting of many projects, not just a single library, so I think the fact that much of what he's done is under the Twisted umbrella may make it seem like he is less involved than he actually is. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 20:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing even close to meeting our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, no one is claiming that he meets the guidelines for academics, not sure how that started - maybe because he's published a few academic articles, but he's not an academic. The main argument for his inclusion is that he would qualify under WP:CREATIVE. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 13:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think. He seems to be in the background, for ages, pushing the event driven async io into the language model, forward. He is a software engineer, not an academic. I think there sufficient coverage and notabily to pass WP:BIO generally. scope_creep (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:32, 22 January 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 which defaults to keep. There is a consensus not to delete but not as to what should become of the page. The discussion as to whether it should be merged, renamed or kept as is can continue on the talk page. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Connecticut towns by regional planning agency[edit]

List of Connecticut towns by regional planning agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic not notable? I don't see how this satisfies WP:LISTN. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see why the topic of regional planning agencies in Connecticut is not notable - they provide services very similar to county governments in other states. If you insist on deleting the list, which I do not believe is necessary, at least merge the data into another list of Connecticut towns. No other list has this data. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of towns in Connecticut? It looks like all of the info is already there. But if not, an update may be in order.Ajpolino (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move. [Was "Merge"/redirect to List of towns in Connecticut, which includes a column for the regions. See below about change of vote.] Odd the nominated list states there are nine regions, then lists eight regions. The "List of towns in Connecticut" gives "no region" or something like that for several. Some sorting out in the merge appears to be needed. --Doncram (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The regions in the town list link to articles about the geographic regions in general, not the functional regions with a coordinating body. The regional planning agencies are specific organizations that facilitate coordination and provide services to member towns. –Zfish118⋉talk 02:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds like some informed editing of the list-article is called for, reflecting region of different types in oneor more columns. Sounds like town administrations are somewhat subordinate to the functional regional coordinating bodies, though I am not familiar with how important the regions are. I do understand that counties in Connecticut are historic, no longer functional, not much worth mentioning. Perhaps the list of towns could show the hierarchy, be default sorted by region first. These are matters for editing, discussion at talk page, perhaps post notice at WikiProject Connecticut. --Doncram (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is really the other way around: the regional bodies are subordinate to the member towns and cities, who choose a region based on the services provided. Services include regional disaster planning, transit planning/operation, land-use advice, and GIS/Mapping. They are also needed to mediate federal transportation grants. –Zfish118⋉talk 14:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I believe you. Indeed the suggested target list-article requires some sensitivity to describe the situation properly in the lede, and to label the one or two columns for region types properly. Perhaps you are the person to contribute that.  :) --Doncram (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, after some review of Wikipedia's coverage, what's needed is an article about Connecticut's regional bodies, and we have a good alternative to deletion available. Merging the info into the other list-article is not great, because the importance of the regional bodies needs to be developed somewhere more extensively than just in the lede of that list; it would need to link to a list of the regional bodies or to separate articles about each one of them. The regional bodies are not covered anywhere in Wikipedia yet AFAICT. The Connecticut set of bodies should be covered, as are those of a number of other states/regions, linked at Council of governments#Regional councils of governments. The current article is unfortunately titled to be about Connecticut's towns (which are already listed elsewhere), when it could simply be retitled Regional Councils of Governments in Connecticut or similar, and developed a bit to include more introductory information about what the councils are, and perhaps some history of their development. Including perhaps some commentary about how legal counties in Connecticut dropped out of existence, leading to this partial replacement. If moved/retitled, it would actually be fine for each of its region sections to include the list of towns which define the region, although that information might better be conveyed more succinctly by a map such as available at the Connecticut OPM site about "Regional Councils of Governments in Connecticut", linked from the article. So basically all that is needed for purpose of ending this AFD is to agree in principle to move the article to a different title (which can be quibbled about at the article's Talk page), and to tag it for further development. This is much preferred as a wp:ATD (alternative to deletion) which would help Wikipedia grow productively. --Doncram (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don't think a separate article for each of the regional bodies is needed yet; converting this article to a list of them with a section for each is a good substitute. The article should be developed to include links to each of the separate regions' bodies, e.g. http://scrcog.org/ for the Southern region, http://crcog.org/ for the Capitol Region, etc. Having the main list with a section for each heads off creation of separate, weaker articles. --Doncram (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment- If someone provides a convincing explanation I may reconsider. Is the regional planning agency anything more than an association? I don't live (and never have lived) in Connecticut, so I don't know much about its local government. But it would seem to me that these "regional planning agencies" don't actually have any legislative authority over the towns, making their role very minor. If I am correct, a list of towns belonging to each region wouldn't have any significance.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to state statue, these bodies serve as analogs to county governments with regard to state, federal, and other grant monies. There is also an active petition to treat these bodies as county analogs at the Federal level. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zfish118:So are you saying that Connecticut doesn't have county governments? If so that changes everything.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" County government was formally abolished by Public Act 152 during the 1959 legislative session for a variety of reasons most notably their ineffectiveness." RE: County Government Abolishment (OLR 1998). 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusf10: Correct. Instead of separate county governments, we have councils of local governments that coordinate on a variety of regional matters. @Doncram: I created a separate list here at least in part because I am not familiar with how to efficiently edit tables on a large scale, such as those at List of Connecticut towns. If that technical step of merging the tables could be accomplished by someone, I would be more able to update and develop the content. There is some base material for "Regional Planning" at Local government in Connecticut. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- As explained above, these are the defacto replacement for county governments. Maybe we also need the article Connecticut regional planning agency to explain how they work.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Apologies for being dense, but I remain confused. It looks as if the column "Region" in List_of_towns_in_Connecticut contains all of the information in List of Connecticut towns by regional planning agency (although maybe it's a bit out of date; at the very least it looks like that was the intention of that column). It's still not clear to me why we would maintain these two separate lists instead of just merging them. Certainly the wikilinks in the "Region" column of List_of_towns_in_Connecticut frequently have the wrong target (they frequently go to pages on geographic regions of CT instead of correctly targeting pages on the regional planning agencies), but shouldn't we just fix those wikilinks then? Maybe I'm just missing the distinction others are seeing here. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may have started with a pre-2013 list of planning regions, but was improperly edited to include several informal regions such as "Quiet Corner" (which is a geographically significant area - just not a planning organization). The wiki-links are also completely scrambled, as "Central Connecticut" links to "Greater Hartford", when the original Central Connecticut planning region was actually focused on New Britain (Capital Region covers Hartford). I do not strongly oppose merging, but care must be taken that the list of Councils of Governments not be corrupted once merged, and be made distinct from other regional designations. –Zfish118⋉talk 23:33, 26 January 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. MER-C 11:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Media Vision[edit]

New Media Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. I can find no information on the company in reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, coverage appears to be limited to the notability of some of their clients or some of the tv series rights they've acquired. Notability is not inherited. No indications of notability for the company in its own right, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a nn production / consulting company. These types of companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 27 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Okun[edit]

Lewis Okun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find significant discussion of the individual in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Also does not appear to meet criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. His work has been cited in other works, but that doesn't rise to the level of notability, I don't see anything that considers him an expert, or "When judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" ... discospinster talk 01:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Relies entirely upon what appears to be a self-published profile and some mentions in academic texts that can't be verified. Doesn't meet WP:PROF. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator of the article I agree that he probably doesn't really meet WP's notability standards, however I have no connection with him and a quick Google book search will verify what the article says. That's how I wrote it. :-). PopSci (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you start the article is you knew he was not notable?
To get rid of a red link where he is quoted in another article. My original Google search seemed to show he was more notable than he turned out to be.PopSci (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not anywhere close to passing any inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cine film[edit]

Cine film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claimed to be notable because of the other language versions, but the French and Spanish wikipedias do not refer to it as "cine film". Extensive seraching on Google and GBooks found only false positives. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andy Dingley: At what point did you find sources? I explained that I did do sourcing this time and was unable to find anything related to this topic specifically. I am fluent in Spanish and the Spanish article does not seem to be on the same topic at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a vast history, maybe a century, to "cine film" and huge amounts of sourcing. If you're looking for technical discussion of the transition from film stock (particularly small gauge) to digital, then you could look at several published papers on that, particularly for metadata handling, by one Dingley, A. (c. 2002), whoever he is.
I would agree that the Spanish article is a mis-link. But that's OK, because we don't base article topic notability on other language wikipedias anyway.
If you want to question the scope of this article (Is this article focussed on or restricted to amateur work? Is 35mm and larger in or out? Are there really just four formats? How far do we go about synchronised sound recording too?) then those are good questions and the place for them is at the article talk: page, not by raising an AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure if I follow the argument that other languages don't refer to this topic as "cine film". I don't read French, but the French-language version seems to be a well-developed article that could be translated. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 22 January 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. J04n(talk page) 18:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sepasyar[edit]

Ali Sepasyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After some effort, I can find some reference that he played a lead on Dude, What Would Happen. The rest seems only to be in the IMDB article, which is almost as useable as a source as Wikipedia, itself.

WP:NACTOR suggests he needs two significant roles to have an independent article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, he needs to have significant roles in multiple notable productions; I always thought "multiple" meant more than one.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One roles is not enough for notability. The guidelines is multiple, which is at least two, but I think meant to in general not be coveraed by a bare two. The public service announcement role is the antithesis of a notable role in a major production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed that he is not notable. Not enough roles or media coverage exists. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:05, 24 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six Sigma Entertainment[edit]

Six Sigma Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't be notable with few films to their name. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for being the production company of several high-grossing films. Mar4d (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are business ventures. So, they need significant independent coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This movie-making company has produced many highly successful box office hits since 2013. This article already has 3 newspaper references and a movie industry website reference. Plus one film industry website IMDb external link. I just rechecked them and they are all working. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a nn production company; significant RS coverage not found. Film producing companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. Created by a SPA. Somehow, it contains a link 2nd ARY Film Awards, which seems emblematic of promo articles that mushroom around ARY Digital. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited. HighKing++ 14:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note that Samee originally closed this as "no consensus" and then (wisely) reopened to allow for admin action instead. There was no reasons provided for a "no consensus" decision. While that decision is puzzling to me and I see no basis for it, I will provide more reasoning to justify a Delete. Not one of the Keep !votes uses policy or guidelines to justify a Keep. The reasons provided fail the criteria for notability - notability is not inherited regardless of any associations with high-grossing movies or movies that were box-office hits. The references included available also fail the criteria for establishing notability.
  • In summary, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 18:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: Maybe it was due to this. Störm (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Störm, that explains it. I agree with what you wrote there, it did appear like a simple !vote count. Still, I felt I should expand on the reasoning (above) to make it clear that there have been no compelling reasons put forward to Keep. HighKing++ 19:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources do not indicate this is a notable topic. Meager coverage as demonstrated by High King above, shows this company fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:N, WP:NRV and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hasse Davis[edit]

Richard Hasse Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local businessman who served on his district council and his industry body, but not notable outside his region or industry. Scott Davis Talk 00:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Scott Davis Talk 00:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to his business, Copper Coast Wines. A non-notable individual with no coverage in independent sources. An OAM doesn't confer notability. Kb.au (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that business meets WP:N either, but haven't decided to nominate it yet. I haven't found definite evidence whether the business survived the founder's death. --Scott Davis Talk 11:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the web site for the brewery (oddly with Wines in the name) appears to be no more, but outside of some caravan trade group coverage when Mr. Davis passed away, there's no sufficient coverage for either him or the brewery. Both fail WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:43, 29 January 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. ^ "RELIGION AND GEOGRAPHY" (PDF). p. 4.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_January_22&oldid=1142616351"