Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 June	18 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 21:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expliseat[edit]

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill manufacturing company making aircraft seats. No indications of notability. The awards appear non-notable. References are not intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — weak vote. The Air & Space Mag and the Aviation Week articles help establish that the company is real and has a non-trivial product. But I fail to find a source that directly covers the topic (the company) in an independent way. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Just a promotional directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 21:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick T. Thomopoulos[edit]

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

Promotional biography created by the comms department of his employer. Spam. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some high cites on GS but too few as yet. Fails WP:Prof#C1 as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I do not have an opinion on the subject's notability at this point but this is not a WP:Too soon case, as the article says that he is a retired professor emeritus who was active in 1970s and 1980s. (In fact, according to this [1], it appears that he died in December 2017; the photo there matches that in his faculty profile page [2]). If he is not notable already, he won't become notable in the future. Nsk92 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nsk92, above. -The Gnome (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claims of notability seem to rest on his many books. But although a couple of them have strong citation numbers, most don't, and I could only find one review of one of them [3] (lukewarm at best, although I don't think that's especially relevant). I don't think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, nor enough to overcome the promotional creation of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, WP:N and WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The editor whose username is Z0 08:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Fenix[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography, tagged for serious policy failures since forever and the only person with any motivation to fix it - the creator - isn't going to, because it's an advert. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian, New York Post, Euro News, Daily Beast etc so passes WP:BASIC. Agree it was far too promotional so have copyedited it to make it less promo, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Not seeing autobio but it was definitely promo, hopefully better now, I dont know if anything negative has been omitted but if so that could be added if its in rs, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep The cleanup by Atlantic shows there is diverse coverage. Could use a little more care from someone, but then again a lot of articles need that!Nobody's Keeper (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since nomination has been edited from a promo into a proper article with sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage now, and thanks to Atlantic306 for the cleanup. — sparklism ^hey! 07:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 21:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Blackiston[edit]

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

Non-notable small town mayor who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE search brought up what appears to be a digitized version of the one source - there's also a possible COPYVIO problem: [4]. SportingFlyer talk 19:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC) SportingFlyer talk 19:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cumberland MD is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but the sourcing here appears to consist solely of his obituary in the town's own local newspaper. That is nowhere near adequate to actually get him over the bar all by itself, however, because it's a type of source that virtually every mayor of everywhere could always show. To make a mayor notable enough for inclusion, we need to be able to write and source significantly more about them than just "(s)he existed, the end". Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a one-year term as mayor needs some strong sources to show notability. Next we face the fact that when Blackiston was mayor of Cumberland it was before the early-20th century emergence of the factories that propelled the city to nearly 40,000 people by 1940. It was still a time when the coal mines and railroad workers dominated, and these were not as concentrated in the city itself as the factory workers would be. When Blackiston was mayor there were only 12,000 people in the city. We need actual substantial sources to justify having an article on the mayor of a city this size. I would note that we lack any information on the governmental structure of Cumberland in our article. This is a major omission that ought to be corrected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of independent notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 21:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridle Post Estates[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable housing development. There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The references present consist of three school rankings which don't even mention the name of the neighbourhood /housing development and a link to the housing developers website which is not an independent source. Whpq (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Housing development with no credible claim of notability per WP:GEOLAND and no reliable source coverage to carry it over WP:GNG — the sources here are the developer's own primary source web page and user-generated school rankings that are irrelevant to the notability of the neighbourhood. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Housing estates can certainly be notable. As can posh neighborhoods. But I have run news archive, book, and general searches on "Bridle Post" + Markham and I am seeing nothing to support the proposition that this is a notable neighborhood. Looks more like a little local real estate PROMO using Wikipedia as a billboard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with above. NN. MB 05:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freewallet[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable bitcoin wallet. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. MER-C 19:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete certainly there's a problem with notability and no reliable sources. Searching around a bit there do appear to be multiple non-reliable sources saying that the company's products are a scam - put your money in their wallet and see it disappear. see e.g. [5]. I'd be uncomfortable putting these accusations in our article, but I'm even more uncomfortable having the article visible in Wikipedia and leading our readers into a scam. Is there anyway to delete this ASAP? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be a case for summary deletion under the crypto sanctions. Since we're here, the deletion notice should be a big enough warning sign for now. MER-C 08:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable & looks like advertisement of Freewallet, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Heshiv (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH failure. Article reads like a brouchre (complete with a features list), and many of the sources cited are not directly covering Freewallet.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Samaritan (comics)[edit]

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

Prod was removed with no reason given, by User:Andrew Davidson. There is no evident reason why this article should exist; it is purely fancruft and fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this accessory will never be independently notable. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The editor whose username is Z0 08:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Parker (actor)[edit]

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

This article has been used as a storefront for years by a series of accounts that only Mary Poppins would fail to conclude are the subject and his PR. The sources are either cast listings or passing mentions, with the exception of his PR bio. He is a bit part actor who does not appear to have played any major roles other than Flying Blind (TV series), which ran for one series and vanished without trace. For example, the "recurring role" on Will & Grace was a 5-episode story arc, according to IMDB. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and salt There has never been a time when it wasnt a TNT case. If it is PR they must be incompetent. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. The infoweb reference prove notability. scope_creep (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's an actor who has had some small parts in some stuff you may have seen. Not enough to establish notability at this point. Shritwod (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This page was started by a PR many years ago. This actor was the lead in "Biloxi Blues," in "How I Got into College," in "Lost Language of Cranes," in "Love Boat returns," in "Eddie Dodd," in "Mr and Mrs Loving," and has worked on many films and TV shows. He is a highly respected stage actor who has worked on and off Broadway. All information is factual and cited. He tried to make some changes but didn't know how. He asked for help on Talk and was honest about his identity. Please consider helping him rather than deleting him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rover4.0 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This actor was the lead in "Biloxi Blues," That will rather come as a surprise to Matthew Broderick. --Calton | Talk 03:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He had a supporting role in that movie. On the other hand, when the sequel to Biloxi Blues was filmed (Broadway Bound (film)), Parker played Eugene, the character Broderick had played in Biloxi Blues. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really. And this has what to do with what I wrote? --Calton | Talk 08:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Parker is not a "bit part actor" but rather someone who in the past played major roles in films from major studios and network television series (e.g. How I Got into College, Biloxi Blues (film), Flying Blind (TV series), Eddie Dodd, Blue Skies (1994 TV series)). I suspect that this article can be improved sufficiently to establish his notability, and I will try to do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a "bit part" actor, as this terribly generic Playbill-style article would lead you to believe. He was the co-lead on a two major network sitcoms (one truly terrible, the other I've never seen), two seasons as a regular cast member of the rebooted Love Boat, and had major parts in Biloxi Blues and The Lost Language of Cranes (where the boilerplate "worked alongside [STAR]" phrasing has actual meaning here). I wouldn't call him a star, either, so I'm on the fence here. --Calton | Talk 03:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Parker is a notable actor and had roles in several notable films and television (and possibly some in theater as well). I did search on Newsbank and found several newspaper articles that address him in-depth and therefore meets the GNG as well.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (edit to add a few more: 7, 8). I don't have time right now to work them into the article, but I'll try to get to it soon if someone else doesn't first. The article clearly needs some work as pointed out by others. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has acted in quite a few movies and there are several online independent links mentioning his roles and career as an actor. I think the article should be allowed.Farahpoems (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ACTOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting, I searched his name and "Biloxi Blues", Biloxi Blues (film). Some reviews just mention his name, others do a little more, for example, the NYTimes review says "Epstein, played by Corey Parker with seriously funny arrogance, ..." How I Got into College was also widely reviewed, he always gets mentioned. that's as far as my searches went. It does look like enough to pass WP:ACTOR, which sets the bar pretty low.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has a large enough body of work and has had leading roles in movies as well as a television series. He is also notable as an acting coach. Reli source (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Custódia[edit]

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

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

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

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

No sign of any notability found. Kleuske (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE No notability established and article is full of WP:PEACOCKy terms. •≈20+π^{(talk to me!)} 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sign of notability through examination of ~~reliable~~ sources. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me when you reply) 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: struck the word "reliable" out. There is one, possibly reliable source, but most of the other references link to other Wikipedia pages. — Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 15:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think he's close to notability, and the article certainly has been picked up by a number of different languages (not a sign of notability in and of itself.) A television show he was on was nominated for an Emmy, and he's sort of notable for being cast as a baby. The problem is there aren't many if any reliable sources outside of the usual unreliable imdb/social media/celebrity-scrape websites. If someone can demonstrate some reliable sources in any language, change me to a keep. SportingFlyer talk 21:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some reliable sources should be added but the fact that there is a kind of fame, based on the languages and an imdb developed page, including connections to relevant celebrities via social media is relevant. The fact that he had a leading role in an international film is also something to bare in mind. I'll try to find reliable sources by respecting the work of at least 10 Wiki pages around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisempra (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Having multiple languages is a sign of notability but, following the Wikipedia guideline there are some reliable sources on the article. The fact that it has been active for almost 2 years shows something too. In individual terms, having the record of being the youngest actor in the world performing a leading role in a TV series, proved by a source or by a quick search online and a leading role in an international film is relevant. At 16, having more than 5 projects in your cv is kind of hard, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:67F3:1201:6D43:ED23:951C:DE05 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not found by existing in multiple languages on wikipedia, since different languages have different notability criteria. It is even less established when those articles in other languages have been created by substantially the same user. I haven't come across "polyglot spam" before, but Wikisempra has made contributions to almost if not all of the languages along with the IP 85.242.113.222. Fact is, I looked through the sources in all of these languages to help see if there were other notable sources and found none. All of the mentions of him in the article are trivial and mostly focus on the characters he's played instead of him. He's currently also undergoing a deletion review in French. SportingFlyer talk 22:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to save the article. My objective is to keep the Wikipedia Community content real and structured by helping in English Wikipedia or in other languages where I feel able to. The kid in question is part of a group of people that I’ve been editing during the last year. I think that it is obvious that it’s sad for an editor, to see articles where you spent time editing, or even creating, being nominated for elimination. I just want to let people know who is the person they’re searching for. Although I think he’s relevant, I understand if the decision is deleting. Yours sincerely, James (Wikisempra). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisempra (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, run on the mill. The editor whose username is Z0 08:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A few more months will probably allow enough time to see if the coverage is enduring or not. Right now there i no clear consensus Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flensburg stabbing incident[edit]

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

An event which seems to have only routine coverage from the day, and day after, it occurred and nothing substantial since. Doesn't appear to meet WP:EVENT. PROD was removed by page creator. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sad, but unfortunately common news event. Lacks coverage adequate for inclusion in Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unfortunate, but unless it's a catalyst for something else occurring (at which point we can always re-create this article, and with more and better sourcing), I think this is WP:RECENTISM as well. — Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 15:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, what a time for Wikipedia when every stabbing by a non-white "needs" to clarify that The incident is not considered terrorism. Definitely a symptom of recentism, but the more pressing issue is NOTNEWS, which is evident by the wire-tap stories we see for a brief while after the incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nomination is defective - The nomination says «only routine coverage from the day, and day after, it occurred and nothing substantial since». This is false. For example, on 7 June, i.e., 9 days after attack, the Flensburger Tageblatt published a lenghty report^[1] (2,035 words, i.e., 5.6 typewritten pages, single space) critizing earlier media versions for inaccuracies —blaming Bild, for example, and reporting on security aboard ICE trains, particularly after the rash of recent knife attacks aboard, which they listed. These sorts of reports continue as the investigation progresses.^[2] Besides, this attack has received international coverage (see sources), so it meets WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:EVENT. XavierItzm (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At this point, it's just a routine crime, with no lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now according to sources the case has been commented by Horst Seehofer, the interior minister of Germany. As such the case has achieved attention at the highest political levels in Germany. If the case turns out to have no long-term notability, it can always be deleted later. AadaamS (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Welle puts the event in the 'Deutschland' category which makes it national news. AadaamS (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The event was reported in Austria.

so clearly WP:SIGCOV has been established, but notability over time is not yet established. AadaamS (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wide media coverage, high level political reception, this is more than enough to keep the article. Above that, it is an unique case: Police officers in German trains or stations are not attacked with knifes too often (ok Hanover stabbing, but the motive in this case remains to be clarified). And XavierItzm is fully right in pointing out more specifics of this case.--Greywin (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has, it's true, received a good deal of coverage in Germany, but, as in other countries, much of this is hysterical media reporting capitalizing on internal racial hatred. I think we need to be exceedingly careful how we cover such incidents. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Rape cases involving immigrants. Deb (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment After reading the references, it became clear that the wording of the article seriously misrepresents the official account of what happened, saying that the police officer was stabbed first, rather than intervening in a fight between two men, which seems to be the actual course of events. Deb (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Deb was mistaken here, apparently misled by breaking news reports and perhaps by reading only English-language media reports. I have updated article from later reports confirming that the policewoman was attacked with a knife by the Eritrean migrant as she moved to the exit, that a man came to her defense, attacking the perpetrator and enabling her to pull her gun and shoot the perp.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I read as many of the German reports as I could access, as well as the English-language ones. Thanks for adding a reference that doesn't conflict with the content of the article. It appears there were no independent witnesses so I guess it's not surprising that the course of events is still not entirely clear. Deb (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deb added inaccurate/outdated information to the article,[6]. When I corrected the misinformation she carried the argument to my talk page [7] [8], and continues here to make what feels like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I have added an eyewitness report confirming the order of the attack: 1.) Migrant attacks uniformed policewoman with knife as she heads to exit door; 2. good Samartian attacks perp enabling officer to reach for her gun; 3. policewoman shoots perp.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My, you're very sensitive, aren't you? All this just because I asked you to add a proper reference rather than reverting without explanation. Deb (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the timeline, I was not responding to your demand). I had checked the false information that you inserted , and was making a series of corrective edits, which included a validating source (3rd in string) completed before you pinged me - although you did move awfully fast. I then added 2 more sources and a couple of edits updating/correcting inaccurate information from early reports. There really is no point in making false accusations like this when edits are time stamped. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I suppose you are aware that when you revert someone - as opposed to just editing the article in a constructive manner - the person you revert gets an immediate warning? Deb (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- For avoidance of doubt: not only «received a good deal of coverage in Germany», but also covered in the U.S.A., the U.K., Austria, etc. User Deb does not imply the contrary, but I felt a clarification was needed to avoid misunderstandings. Thank you. XavierItzm (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RAPID.Lets wait and see how it develops--Shrike (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RAPID; and per international coverage. Noting that attacks by migrants in Europe do attract widespread coverage, that we go by extent of coverage - not by our opinon of what gets covered, and that we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident which Im sure the far right parties will seize upon. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep--APS ^talk 21:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's not snowing yet; numerically opinions are split.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.shz.de/lokales/flensburger-tageblatt/messerattacke-im-intercity-so-sicher-sind-zuege-und-bahnhoefe-id19995127.html
^ "Nach Messerattacke im Zug: Wann gab es ersten Kontakt?". Hamburger Abendblatt. 5 June 2018. Retrieved 11 June 2018.

Keep Has significant coverage, and with the commentary by high-level German politicians it qualifies for WP:EVENT. PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I'm not sure if "significant coverage" is the same as "news coverage". Politicians commented on it which may count a little. It is difficult to tell if this belongs since it was created so soon after the crime so I only weakly support deletion.Nobody's Keeper (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. International news coverage. As for whether this will be continuing or have a lasting impact we need a WP:BALL.Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At this point, it's just a routine crime, with no lasting significance. We also need a WP:BALL at this point to think the incident will have any lasting significance. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage. Per good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NCRIME & per WP:RAPID. The coverage is routine crime blotter; no apparently lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCRIME actually reads: «As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act» Because of the extensive coverage, WP:NCRIME does not apply.XavierItzm (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 21:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priyamvada Pandey[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and there is no evidence in reliable sources that she played a significant role in the serials or film listed in the article. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - significant coverage in independent sources isn't forthcoming, therefore fails WP:NACTOR. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 21:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amagasaki mayoral election, 2002[edit]

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

Full disclosure: I AfD'd this in December in a bundled nom that turned into a TRAINWRECK and ended in a no consensus close. I came across it again in the process of clearing out my watchlist and decided to go again for this one on its own.

Here's my rationale from last time: individual municipal elections for small to mid-size cities and towns are not inherently notable, unless the coverage for them goes beyond WP:ROUTINE local coverage (see the test case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjo mayoral election, 2006, which closed as delete). I was not able to find any indication that this particular election generated anything beyond the typical "hey, we had an election, here's who won" kind of coverage.

For reference, ja.wiki does not have an article about this event. If it were a truly notable election I'd expect that the home-language wiki would have an article. The ja.wiki article for Amagasaki does not mention anything significant or unusual about this particular municipal election, and there are no sources about this election on that article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to keep per the arguments of Number 57 in the last discussion. It's possible that all such Amagasaki elections should be covered in a single article until that article is long enough that individual elections need to be split out, but I don't see any particular reason to delete this information. It seems to me that most elections of this type are significant per WP:EFFECT, and that it should not be difficult to find additional coverage if necessary to show that this passes WP:GNG. For example, this was only the second time a woman was elected mayor in Hyogo Prefecture; a quick search shows that beyond routine coverage it was covered in Sunday Mainichi and Shimbun Akahata at the very least, and there is certain to have been more coverage out there. Dekimasuよ! 05:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NEVENT; coverage is routine for this type of local election. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry to resort to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I don't think we'd be having a deletion conversation here were this an article on an election in a Western country. There were things about this election (participants, results, number of votes, coverage in national media) that made it notable, and this is considerably easier to show than the case of something like Sudbury municipal election, 1929 or Hialeah mayoral election, 2011 or Municipal elections in Torreperogil (or for that matter, routine coverage of one-off sporting events that have articles, e.g 1986 Rous Cup). If articles of this sort are to be debated, there should be more specific criteria involved than just WP:NEVENT, which this at any rate passes in my estimation. Dekimasuよ! 21:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit to the article, and will continue as necessary if that's insufficient. Dekimasuよ! 23:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Personally, I don't think we ought to have those articles either, unless those elections were in and of themselves uniquely notable, and it has fuck-all to do with being Western or not. If I'd come across those articles, I'd have nominated them. But I came across this one, so this is the one I nominated. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of larger article like Japanese municipal elections of 2002 or whatever, but I think it's patently ridiculous to have an individual article about every single municipal election in every single city in the world (Western or not). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references again. User:Premeditated Chaos, I do not mean to imply that you are biased against these articles. But again, if we had more coverage of such things instead of deleting what we have, it would be easier to group them together into a single article of Amagasaki mayoral elections or Amagasaki municipal elections and show their significance as part of a historical narrative. It appears that it would be easy to add coverage of 2006, 2010, and 2014 instead if that would help alleviate your concerns. Dekimasuよ! 02:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article now looks significantly different from how it did yesterday. Dekimasuよ! 03:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources added do not substantiate the claim of notability for the topic of the 2002 election. Analysis as follows:
  - Japan Press: reasonable reliable newspaper, although it's the organ of the Japanese Communist Party, which backed the winning candidate, so I wouldn't call it independent
  - Apedia: City-published wiki/archive, no relevance to notability
  - Amanetzh: Not a reliable source for notability purposes - some kind of disability network website? Is there fact-checking or editorial oversight? Even if it is reliable, it's a scant two sentences - not in-depth enough to demonstrate notability
  - Sunday Minichi: No link so no indication of how in-depth this source is, and the paper's archives are not accessible unless you have a subscription
  - Japanese Communist Party: it's the website of the JCP which backed the candidate so not independent at all
  - Kobe: barely mentions the 2002 Amagasaki election except in one sentence right at the end, so not in-depth
  - Global Greens: not about the 2002 election despite a brief mention of the mayor that was elected in it, so it does nothing to demonstrate their notability
  - Archives: the city's own archives can't be used to indicate notability for the city's own elections, obviously
- If this is the best sourcing possible, this article should be deleted, or at best the information merged and redirected to Amagasaki. Dekimasu, I commend your work here, but none of it demonstrates the notability of the 2002 election specifically in and of itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the sources were added in efforts to establish notability–some were added to support specific statements being added to the article (though as a whole these speak to WP:EFFECT). I would dispute your characterization of the Amagasaki Municipal Archives (#8), which are an academic enterprise jointly managed by Sonoda Women's University. You seem to have skipped over the Iwanami publication (#7) which was jointly written by a professor from Rikkyo University and a professor from the Free University of Berlin. Further, as noted earlier, I would be happy to expand this beyond 2002 to a general article on Amagasaki mayoral elections if that would assuage your concerns. (As indicated by my revisions, I still believe this should be kept and expanded.) But I believe I have demonstrated that the election passes WP:EFFECT, WP:DIVERSE, WP:PERSISTENCE, etc. Dekimasuよ! 05:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think it is still proper to compare this to your test case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjo mayoral election, 2006, which deleted a one-sentence article that made no claim to notability beyond the idea that it was covering an election. There are probably several articles from the previous nomination that I would agree with you on; this just isn't one of them. Dekimasuよ! 05:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics of incarcerated African-American males[edit]

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

This is a pointless fork from Race and Crime in the United States. Any well-sourced content can be merged with the 'Race and Crime' page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One's decision to keep or delete this article will depend heavily on their feelings towards forking long pages into more specific articles. Personally, I believe the specification of "African-American males" is important enough to justify a fork away from Race and Crime in the United States, especially when considering that the page has had 14,776 pageviews in the past 30 days - a respectable number, and to me indicates that the subject is researched and notable enough to warrant a seperate page. Nanophosis (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Race and crime in the United States as nom suggested, or move to a title like race and incarceration in the United States or something similar, where the subject can be broadened significantly. I agree that the current title is too narrow in scope to have its own separate article. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This is a sheer fork of Race and Crime in the United States. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Statistics of incarcerated African-American males is an unnecessary fork from Race and Crime in the United States. Statistics about African-males who are incarcerated should be a sub-section of Race and Crime in the United States. Knobbly (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per evermorning's reasoning. I'd like there to be more in this article to justify it being forked out, but since there isn't for now it seems better merged.Rab V (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a POV fork. If it were really a page that had been spun out from a parent article due to length I would expect to see a corresponding section in the parent that had been reduced to a summary with a "main article" link to this page. That just hasn't happened either now or when the page was first forked. SpinningSpark 23:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an unneeded WP:CFORK, possibly POV. The subject is already covered in Race and crime in the United States and that is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. A content fork which is not needed and as noted subject already covered in Race and crime in the United States. Kierzek (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Thomas’ Church, Wah Cantt[edit]

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

It can't be notable due to events, create article if they're notable. Nothing historic found. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails, WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The 2011 attack is already mentioned at Catholic Church in Pakistan#Anti-Catholicism. If deleted, I don't see a redirect or merge as necessary. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California Proposition 218 (1996) Local Initiative Power[edit]

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

Absurdly over-detailed, non-notable article discussing an obscure provision of a state law. No independent, reliable sources (Legal citations and webpages of advocacy groups do not, on their own, meet the notability requirement). We're an encyclopedia, not a law review. Any useful content can be merged to California Proposition 218 (1996). James (^talk/_contribs) 18:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to California Proposition 218 (1996) per nom. Definitely WP:TMI. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 19:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into California Proposition 218 (1996). Wikipedia is not for legal jargon. Nanophosis (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of article history, the contents of this article were originally split from the Proposition 218 article in June of 2016. This was done at the specific suggestion of an editor (also an Administrator) commenting on the Proposition 218 talk page in offering possible solutions for reducing the length of the Proposition 218 article. After considering various content options for splitting the Proposition 218 article, including good faith application of the criteria for splitting an article, contents from the local initiative power portion of the Proposition 218 article were split to create this article. For purposes of disclosure, I am the editor that split the contents from the Proposition 218 article in creating this article.

The Nominator has not provided any suggested “useful content” (quoting from Nominator comments) from this article for purposes of implementing any proposed merger. The specific “useful content” from this article that would be merged into the Proposition 218 article is not stated by the Nominator.

Furthermore, the policy reasons justifying merger WP:MERGEREASON do not appear to be applicable to this article, including having the resulting article being too long or clunky which is a stated policy reason for avoiding merger. The Nominator has not cited specific and justifiable policy reasons that would support merging this article into the Proposition 218 article.

As for notability, this article has been in existence for nearly two years and the Nominator is the only known person who has questioned the notability of the article.

The Nominator has expressed an opinion that the article involves an “obscure provision of a state law.” However, the Nominator has provided no specific citations in support of this, and has not cited any foundational analysis (such as good faith searching of the subject matter for appropriate sources and references) on the issue of notability.

The law that is the subject of this article is a provision contained in the California Constitution (the highest law in the state of California) that legally authorizes voters to exercise the local initiative power to reduce or repeal any local government tax, assessment, fee or charge, including a lower signature requirement to make ballot qualification easier.

Recently, this constitutional provision has been used to pursue local initiative measures that would repeal local taxes in sanctuary cities.^[1] This has received widespread coverage in the media. As another example, the constitutional provision has also received high-level coverage in the Los Angeles Times.^[2]^[3] I have updated the subject article to include the referenced newspaper articles in further support of notability.

The California Supreme Court has also previously accepted and decided an important case interpreting the subject constitutional provision and upheld the law.^[4] The California Supreme Court accepts few cases for decision with the primary criteria being the settlement of “important questions of law.”^[5] Briefs in that Supreme Court case were also filed by statewide organizations representing California cities, California counties, and California water agencies.^[6] The foregoing is not consistent with the constitutional provision being an “obscure provision of a state law,” as claimed by the Nominator.

The subject article is notable, and for the reasons previously described, merger would not be an appropriate alternative. X24Delta (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ Svirnovskiy, Rennie (June 22, 2017). "He's out to make sanctuary cities pay – and he only needs 62 signatures to get started". Sacramento Bee.
^ Marcum, Diana (October 30, 1998). "Battle With Water District Could Ripple Across State. Initiatives: Fewer than 300 signatures got fee-cutting measure on ballot in Mojave Desert community. Board says it would go broke". Los Angeles Times. p. A3.
^ Marcum, Diana (November 12, 1998). "High Desert Water District in Fee Fight". Los Angeles Times. p. A3.
^ Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil, 39 Cal. 4th 205 (July 2006).
^ Rule 8.500(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court.
^ Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil, 39 Cal. 4th 205, 208 (July 2006).

a) The "policy reasons" to delete the article are that 1) the topic is not notable and/or 2) the article fails WP:NOT. WP:SPLIT cannot be used to override the aforementioned policy pillars.

b) this article has been in existence for nearly two years and the Nominator is the only known person who has questioned the notability of the article.

WP:LONGTIME, WP:ADHOM.

c} I believe an AfD nomination should imply this, but for the record, I did perform WP:BEFORE due diligence and found no independent, reliable sources (as WP defines them) for the topic. Also, WP:NPA, WP:AGF. I believe my "foundational analysis" is clear from the nomination statement.

d) The California Constitution is one of the longest in the world, and can be (and has been) amended many times to regulate many specific subtopics. Not every provision of that document meets our notability standards, and being a provision of that document does not automatically confer notability.

e) The cited news articles discuss local events related to this provision, not the provision itself. They do not provide significant coverage of the provision, as defined by WP:N.

f) One state court case does not confer notability, either. Due to California's... unique direct democracy and property tax laws, the courts are often called upon to interpret various constitutional provisions. Court briefs and decisions do not establish notability.

Lastly, the arguments to keep are much more applicable to the article California Proposition 218 (1996). Even assuming arguendo that that article is notable, notability has not been demonstrated for the "local initiative power" provision under discussion here. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a policy, it is a guideline, as is WP:SIZE which authorises splitting to reduce article length. WP:IAR can be used to overide all other policies and guidelines. Google Books contains a large amount of coverage relating to the local initiative power: [9]. There are whole chapters of textbooks on it: [10] (and that book is from OUP in the United Kingdom, thousands of miles away, which should indicate the massive global importance of this topic). James500 (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC) I have also pointed out to you that a law report is not the same thing as a court brief or decision and that it contains a detailed commentary by the reporter who is employed by the West Publishing Company etc. James500 (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like consensus that this is excessive detail, but it could be a bit clearer to avoid future disputes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made major article content reductions addressing excessive detail issues. The AfD process is not the appropriate vehicle for addressing excessive detail issues associated with an article. This is not a basis for deletion pursuant to deletion policy. As previously noted, the policy reasons justifying merger WP:MERGEREASON are not applicable to this article. Furthermore, if this article were merged into the Proposition 218 article, the resulting article would be too long which is a specifically stated policy reason for avoiding merger. X24Delta (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Massive oppose. Keep per X24Delta. The topic of this article is notable by reason that it satisfies WP:GNG and WP:LGNC. For the avoidance of doubt, case law interpreting legisation is both independent and secondary (within the historian's definition) with respect to that legislation. This nomination also violates WP:OVERSIMPLIFY. Wikipedia is not a children's encyclopedia for babies of low intelligence, and dumbing down the project is not a valid goal for AfD. If we removed the information in this article, what remains would be a lie-to-children. This nomination also violates WP:SPINOUT. James500 (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: WP:LGNC is a failed proposal that did not gain consensus. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is a draft proposal added after the RfC that resulted in the original proposal being marked as failed. Certain parts of NLAW (such as the courts and judges criteria) do have consensus. It was criteria 1 of CASES that tanked the proposal because the expression "highest court in the jurisdiction" that originally appeared was felt to be ambiguous, coupled with the fact that the original proposal (now heavily expanded and improved by new sections added) was very incomplete. LGNC has about the same status as an essay. Anyway "failed proposal" is not much of an argument, because consensus can change and an RfC way back in 2009 has no relevance now. "Failed proposal" is only relevant if the failure was recent. James500 (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC) I think I will also point out, just in case you are not aware, that the headnote of a law report is actually a commentary on the case in question written by the reporter. Such reporters usually work for an ordinary commercial publishing company (eg West or Elsevier) or a charity. So they are independent even of the judges. The sources of this article are not just "legal citations" (whatever that really means) as you put it. James500 (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: justification of separate article from Proposition 218 per SUMMARYSTYLE: the argument that consolidating the article with its parent would cause a too-long article results from the amount of excessive detail in the Proposition 218 article itself, not due to some inherent quality of either article. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The preceding comment, irrespective of merit, is a policy reason for avoiding merger. However, the nominator has not cited any specific and justifiable policy reason in support of merging this article into the Proposition 218 article. X24Delta (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of merging the article. I have laid out the policy reasons in my nomination for deleting the article. I was merely responding to others' comments above. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per X24Delta. A very extensively referenced (430 inline cites) article about a proposition, passed 22 years ago, which has been described as "one of the most significant laws of the 20th century in California". The article is an invaluable research tool for students of government and politics and, rather than deletion, it should be nominated for Good Article. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to the article California Proposition 218 (1996) or the article California Proposition 218 (1996) Local Initiative Power? James (^talk/_contribs) 15:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the correction. It is, of course, the article California Proposition 218 (1996) that has the 430 inline cites, while the article California Proposition 218 (1996) Local Initiative Power has 56 inline cites, which is more than sufficient to verify and support the content. Although there are two consecutive self-repeating links within the first sentence under California Proposition 218 (1996)#Local Initiative Power to Reduce or Repeal Nontax Fees and Charges which flow to the article currently under discussion, when a detail within an article engenders its own separate entry, that entry should be recognized with a hatnote. If there are sufficient "Keep" arguments to retain this article, below that section header, in the main article, a hatnote would need to be affixed with the text, For article on the local initiative power provision, see California Proposition 218 (1996) Local Initiative Power. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The editor whose username is Z0 08:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeet Rama[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. It's just a develoment wrestler with WWE with just a few matches. It's too son for this article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has reliable third party coverage from both India Times and Times of India (which seem to be seperate entities) So to me he meets the WP:GNC due to that. MPJ-DK 22:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete-Per WP:TOOSOON.The coverage looks encouraging. If the subject wins anything then I am sure we will have enough coverage. Up-till now it is only interviews. — F R ⁺ 06:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)See below[reply]
Keep Sources kept seem enough for WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be enough to support WP:GNG - Galatz ^Talk 17:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indian WWE and has RS. Good for wikipedia, surely interesting. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-After carefully consideration of the sources I concur with the other voters — F R ⁺ 14:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadia Bseiso[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. The article doesn't talk about her wrestling career, just a little bit of background. Too soon for her article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although there are 5 different independent sources discussing it, it all revolves around the same event. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 17:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: @Galatz: @HHH Pedrigree: Please read WP:NTEMP "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." If something that has received coverage from CNN, Reuters, Al Jazeera, The Telegraph, LA times is not significant, then I don't know what is! Makeandtoss (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Makeandtoss: I suggest you scroll down just a tiny bit. Go down just slightly from what you quoted and read WP:SUSTAINED and you will understand better. - Galatz ^Talk 10:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." She is on her way to become a WWE wrestler, how is this a one-time event? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a WWE wrestler does not make her notable, in addition being on her way to is WP:OR. If she would be injured tomorrow and never wrestle again what would make her notable other than this one thing? - Galatz ^Talk 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: "she began her first radio show at 18, and has gone on to become a household name in the Middle East, presenting TV shows including Dubai’s spin-off of The Voice, and hosting live sports and brand events for Nike and Pepsi." Makeandtoss (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - A few sources have announced that she signed with WWE but I don't think that's enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Feels WP:TOOSOON.LM2000 (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: Other than signing with WWE, she is a well-known TV presenter and figure. WP:SIGCOV lists 5 criteria, which Bseiso fullfils: 1-significant coverage 2-from reliable sources 3-from secondary sources 4-independent sources 5-does not violate what Wikipedia is not. WP:TOOSOON is an essay and not a Wikipedia guideline. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'll switch to Keep. I'm not satisfied with the english sources but if the Telegraph is correct about her work in the Middle East then there should be foreign language sources which cover her in greater detail. We often overlook those sources even though they still count.LM2000 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: The subject's native langue is what we often overlook when it comes to sources just because this is the English Wikipedia. I even do it. Just because a subject has more sources in their native language doesn't we should write the subject off as non-notable because it is not English. Being as she is from Jordan, I would presume her native language is Arabic. So you will have to look for sources in Arabic. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources on her spanish page too [11] - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 00:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 21:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UpBuild[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Only mentions in sources are in passing, and there is no substantive coverage by reliable, third-party sources. A good number of the sources listed are self-published the company or people affiliated with the company. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a recent new web marketing firm, supported by routine announcements, primary sources, and inclusion in non-notable lists. These confirm that it is a firm going about its business, but there is no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:NCORP, lack of significant coverage of reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The editor whose username is Z0 08:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The editor whose username is Z0 08:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna McCarthy[edit]

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

Delete An editor and literary agent, just doing her job, no indications of notability. Fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Minimal research shows this person has a long interesting history in science fiction book publishing. She worked closely with Isaac Asimov on his sci fi magazine and her role there seemed important to its historian: "While remaining a welcoming home for new writers, Shawna's Asimov's acquired an edgier and more literary and experimental tone. Shawna published much of Connie Willis's award-winning work as well as stories by Octavia E. Butler, Robert Silverberg, George R. R. Martin, Kim Stanley Robinson, Ursula K. Le Guin, Lucius Shepard, Karen Joy Fowler, John Varley, Nancy Kress, Bruce Sterling, Esther M. Friesner, James Patrick Kelly, Kit Reed, John Kessel, Michael Swanwick, Roger Zelazny, Pat Murphy, Gardner Dozois, and many others. Shawna won a Hugo for Best Professional Editor in 1984."[12] There is also a very interesting in-depth 2012 interview with her, which I had to pay 15 bucks to read, which describes her as follows: "Shawna McCarthy is a former assistant editor and later full editor of Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine. She also edited books for Bantam-Spectra, and edited the magazine Realms of Fantasy from its beginning in 1994 to its recent demise. She has been nominated for the Hugo for Best Professional Editor three times and won it once. She is active as a literary agent." [13]. Much of her notability likely dates from before the internet, however. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Satisfies GNG. Satisfies criteria 1 of ANYBIO for winning a Hugo award. (The Hugo is considered to be one of the five major SF awards). Satisfies WP:CREATIVE. James500 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO, for winning and multinoms of hugo, also these from locus (may also be worth adding to her article) - "Short Fiction Awards Winners and their Editors", and table listing the hugo/nebula winners that she edited/coedited. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oops, in addition she was the coeditor of Full Spectrum 2 a 1990 locus anthology award nominee, and Full Spectrum a 1989 locus anthology award winner (both listed here). Coolabahapple (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Vermont (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 21:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Call of War[edit]

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

Non-Notable HTML-5 game. Fails WP:GNG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fairly detailed article but the subject fails WP:GNG and has no credible claim to significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, has no significant coverage. The editor whose username is Z0 08:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2000s (miniseries)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON; the only non-trivial reference for this upcoming series is a CNN press release. I'm not convinced previous installments are notable either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify, there are a bunch of mentions but this seems to be the only significant independent source. Also fails WP:TVSERIES since CNN appears to be its only network. The editor whose username is Z0 08:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BitGold[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, none provide significant in-depth coverage of the company, references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to originally be a draft created back in 2015 and then approved. While I find the references to establish notability, there should at least be an option to restore the page back to a version when there wasn't any concerns. Handoto (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Goldmoney, as the BitGold name is no longer being used (the website redirects to Goldmoney). The references in this article are high quality - the Guardian article ([14]) definitely meets all the requirements of WP:NCORP - it is long (about 1400 words), is almost entirely about the company, is in an independent, reliable, secondary source, and is clearly written from a point of view independent of that of the company. The Peter Koven Financial Post article ([15]) also easily meets WP:NCORP. The CNBC, Globe and Mail, and CBC sources also meet WP:NCORP, although they cover the company in less depth. This article does needs an update (why is there nothing after 2015?) and could use to less promotional, but those aren't reasons for deletion.-Mparrault (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The criteria for establishing notability goes beyond whether the *source* is an independent reliable secondary source, but whether the specific article meets the criteria for establishing notability including being intellectually independent expressing opinion/analysis and not reliant on company sources. The Guardian article relies almost exclusively on interview/quotation with Crumb, one of the founders and has no independent analysis/opinion. It also follows the format of history/Aha moment/funding/"future is bright" churnalism (a rare find, it has no posed photo) and is really just company marketing masquerading as real journalism. It is not intellectually independent and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. This Financial Post reference (oh look, posed photo!) is another example of churnalism with the same format, etc. It is not intellectually independent, relies on quotations/interview with company sources and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Guardian article is partly based on an interview with Crumb, but there has been independent analysis and fact-checking, thus meeting the criteria for independence of source. Only a small minority of the article consists of quotes from Crumb. Much of the article places the company in context. Quotes: "Essentially, in BitGold, one of the financial world’s newest innovations – digital currency – has run full tilt into one of its oldest concepts, gold as a medium of exchange." (independent analysis of the company's product), "That has some experienced analysts – many of whom have witnessed speculative mining ventures come and go in Canada – raise their eyebrows in incredulity." (information from non-company sources). Calling this article Churnalism is way off base. On another topic, I find HighKing's relentless contempt for companies and their news coverage to be a bit off-putting, especially in one who thinks they should decide which pages live and die - page deletion should be done in sorrow because a page can't meet notability requirements, not with contempt. -Mparrault (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has strong sources and information is verifiable. 207.164.152.162 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH under either name. Sources are not independent, WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and migrate to Goldmoney. Bitgold re-branded to Goldmoney almost 2 years ago. Forbes features the Bitgold to Goldmoney rebranding in this article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2016/06/16/a-cashless-society-based-on-gold/#511324442b50) Which is an independent, reliable and sufficient source. Also, the article was drafted years ago and was approved back then with no issues. The Article has solid sources in general- The CNBC and CBC sources meet WP:NCORP213.139.52.38 (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope. The Forbes article is on one of their "sites" so its a blog, doesn't meet WP:RS never mind WP:NCORP. The CNBC article is a video with the founders - fails WP:ORGIND. The CBC article the same - it even states "As Crumb explained in a promotional video..." - fails WP:ORGIND. Sources must be "intellectually independent" and those two fail to be as both rely exclusively on quotations/interviews with connected source (i.e. company officers). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with goldmoney. Seems this is a leftover article of the old brand, probably should only be a section under the new goldmoney brand. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or weak delete - per WP:PAGEDECIDE. In my view not enough in-depth coverage exists about BitGold itself (many sources are press releases or news stories I take to be routine product announcements), but a merge into goldmoney is also an option (as opposed to outright deletion, which I am not against) given that said firm is involved with BitGold.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Hargeisa. (non-admin closure) The editor whose username is Z0 09:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northstar College[edit]

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

Fails GNG - it appears this is a small local private company that teaches English language. I can't see where it is an accredited college, much less an educational institution based on the sources. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Hargeisa , with which it is affiliated. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree, merge it. Mia Watson (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reise Allassani[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. This footballer has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning he does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Lots of articles are going to popup that will fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, but the guy just signed to Coventry and when a club like that is willing to pay to acquire a player my gut is telling me to give this one a chance and send it to draft, it may be WP:Crystal, but it can't hurt to have this in draft-space. Govvy (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG through this piece in the Independent. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added the Independent source as well as one more, meets GNG/BASIC. Sam Sailor 05:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft - Not convinced that one lengthy article on its own is sufficient for GNG. could well be notable in the near future though. Fenix down (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG per Giant Snowman.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG with sources from Independent, BBC[16] and more. The editor whose username is Z0 09:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Never Enough (Koda Kumi song)[edit]

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

The result was merged to And (Koda Kumi album). This is a Bartender's closing - there is no clear consensus for an outcome, but consensus is clear that the article should not exist as is. bd2412 T 23:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of notability provided or found, all sources are either trivial, not RS, or non-independent. Fails WP:NSONGS. Hzh (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an official song by a famous artist. It's received rankings on charting sites, like RecoChoku. The song is an official single for her And album. There's more than enough information from verified sources for the single to have a wiki page. Xenobia4 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RecoChoku is listed as one of deprecated charts in WP:BADCHARTS. You need to show that it has charted in one of the accepted Japanese charts. That it is an official single is not a reason for keeping it, you also need to show that it has significant independent coverage for the song itself, not just trivial listing, press releases or coverage as part of the album. Hzh (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed in the article are from various reputable sources. There are songs on YouTube that have solo wiki articles with far fewer sources that meet the guidelines. A physical single by a famous artist should and requires a wiki article. Xenobia4 (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of an article about a song is not inherited from the notability of an artist. Each article would be determined by the sourcing available. Please read WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. WP:NSONG for example says that the song needs to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label and it excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. The sources here are either trivial (simple listings), non-independent (artist's website), not directly related to the subject, or sites that cannot be used to establish notability (Discogs, lyrics sites). Other than these, I can see only one that deals directly with the subject [17], but that does not amount to more than a simple announcement that falls under advertising. If you feel that there are other articles for songs that do not qualify for an article according to the criteria, you are free to nominate them for deletion. Their existence is not an argument for keeping this article. Hzh (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then what sources do I need to keep the page? It's an official single released by one of Japan's top-selling artists, which is typically allowed a wiki article in its own right. Would an iTunes source work, whereas it was also released on that platform?Xenobia4 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no automatic right for any single by any artist to have its own article, and the criteria for an article are specified in notability guidelines already given. Typically you'd need multiple independent and reliable sources that deal with the song in some depth, it would helped if the single has charted, received reviews and discussed in news articles or books if they are older songs. If you can find better sources in Japanese then it can certainly help keep it. Normally when songs by an artist stop appearing in national charts, the media would ignore songs by these artists, and such songs would no longer be considered notable. You can see this in the discography pages of many artists - when their songs no longer chart, their new songs would have no articles of their own. Hzh (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gotcha. It's a learning curve for me. If you would please give me a few days to find appropriate sources, then, before determining whether or not to delete the page? My computer access is (surprisingly) fairly limited.Xenobia4 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to me, but up to the closer, usually an admin. They may choose to keep or delete it, or relist it if they can't decide. However you can also suggest a redirect to the album or discography page (for example a recent one here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Know Why (album). If you can find more sources after it has been redirected, then you can always go back to an earlier version of the article (which could be weeks, months or years later), add the sources and save it, and the article will be back, although it would still be subject to scrutiny. What some people do is to create redirects first, then only turn it into a full article when there are sufficient sources. Hzh (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several more sources, all which are verified and from various sites. Please check them to ensure they meet the standards. Thank youXenobia4 (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good well written article on a well known singer and includes good references. ₪RicknAsia₪ 09:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy. We may like the song, we may admire the artist, and we may find the article "well written" but the relevant policy demands more than that. The song must have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. Importantly, this excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work while also coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. We do not have any of this.

All the sources cited in the text are typical, breathless presentations of the subject, with the routine fanfare, in trade mags, blogs, and sites. Plus, primary sources. -The Gnome (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The CD, despite not charting, has received plenty of media coverage from several reliable sources, including various media sites. Along with a physical release, it also has an official music video that was released to the public. More sources have been added to the article to confirm this.Xenobia4 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of what happens to this article, and since you're keen to improve Wikipedia material on this artist, you might want to try to improve the article on Koda Kumi herself: It's a royal mess, and will soon be tagged. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements of a record's release, in whatever for they take (infomercials, promo pieces, cruft, etc) do not constitute evidence of notability for a song. Neither is a music video, no matter how "beautiful" it is or how much it cost. -The Gnome (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have gone from wanting articles improved to being vindictive. Threatening to tag an wiki page that has gone through tremendous upkeep and sourcing seems to indicate that there is something larger than what you are "requesting." If you continue on this route, I assume you'll be tagging every artist's wiki page; i.e., Beyonce, Celine Dion, Ayumi Hamasaki, and whoever else you seem to have in your pathway. Please keep Wikipedia a respectful place, where people from all over the world get information. Thank you. Xenobia4 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanking" a fellow contributor after you accuse them of "being vindictive" and of having some kind of an agenda in their editing ("there is something larger than what you are requesting") is indicative of passive aggressiveness. Let me assure you that neither of the two attitudes, nor the combination of the two, will take you very far in Wikipedia. You are obliged to assume good faith, to behave in a civil manner, and to work with other editors in a constructive way. If you cannot do this, you have no place editing. Consider this a hugely helpful hint.

On the substance of your remarks:

(A) The argument about other artists' pages is null and void. Wikipedia does not accept as an argument the line "other stuff exists." What might happen to the article on Beyonce, for example has no bearing to what might happen to Koda Kumi's.

(B) The article on Koda Kumi reads in many places as an advertisement, as if written by a fan or the artist's management. Instead of tagging the article, I made a (literally) small note here, where editors interested in the subject are presumably to be found. Yet you chose to turn this around as being a "vindictive gesture."

(C) Wikipedia is all about verifiability supported by reliable sources. Instead of engaging in personal attacks, try to improve both articles. One of them has been proposed for Deletion. That is all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Which I will be tagging soon." Giving that we are in a discussion of deletion, it comes off that you are threatening to tag a deletion note on a page that has even been given a Good Article rating. I have been civilized; however, your remarks throughout the discussion have come off catty, and it does not seem that you are attempting to resolve the original issue or offer any form of assistance in maintaining a page that has plenty of good and verified sources. Xenobia4 (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You're wrong, again. I predicted the article will be tagged; I did not say I will tag it. Please try to read carefully and without emotion. You are getting out of line, here, Xenobia4. I am not being catty or doggy or whatever. I happen to find the subject of the article as not meeting Wikipedia's requirements for articles about songs. That is all. There is no agenda, at least not from me. You, on the other hand, are "a fan of Japanese music". This discussion, therefore, is between a wholly neutral editor and a passionate fan. (And whether or not the song is accompanied by the release of video of great quality or whatever, is irrelevant. Please try to familiarize yourself with, at least, the relevant guideline.) -The Gnome (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if it appears that I am "emotional." Given that quite a bit of a time and effort has gone into the page creation, between finding various sources throughout both Japanese and English sites, you can understand why I am attempting to gain more insight on how to keep the page. I have attempted to locate several sources requesting the information you have said a page needs. I have even located Japanese sites music sites that are independent of the artist and are official, not being something written by fan(s). Xenobia4 (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to add: it is not just a "song." It is classified as a single. Xenobia4 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant in the context of this AfD. We're in an AfD process debating notability. The notability criteria for a single and for a song are the same. Hit the links for WP:NSINGLE and WP:NSONG and see for yourself. -The Gnome (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite not charting, the song is an official single from the album And, released both physically and digitally. Xenobia4 (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fact that something exists ("both physically and digitally"!) has no relevance whatsoever, in and by itself, to its merits as the subject of a Wikipedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very selectively to the album article And (Koda Kumi album). Every bit of coverage of the song/single/video is trivial and/or promotional and/or non-reliable fan site stuff--where, at all, is the substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources? Nor is there a need for a free-standing article, regardless of notability. Much of this article is either redundant to the contents of the album article or is too trivial to be worth keeping--minutiae about release dates and formats, sales outlets, the availability of stickers and tote bags, etc. What's left that's worth keeping should fit easily on the album page. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this is not my area of expertise, my survey of the sources in the article, which supposedly demonstrate notability, found no substantive, independent coverage of this song. I'm not able to find anything that is both substantive and reliable via google either. Vanamonde (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the exact same reasons as provided by Hobbes Goodyear. Goharshady (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Token[edit]

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. MER-C 16:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete No coverage in reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple delete - no indication of notability, no reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical appliances (domestic) laws[edit]

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

I think this falls under WP:NOTMANUAL. Perhaps redirect to Occupational_safety_and_health#Laws as it's feasible that could be a search term. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – only reason I object redirection is that the title of the article is awkwardly worded and I don't feel that many people would search for "Electrical appliances (domestic) laws" before something like "Domestic electrical appliance laws". PCN 02 WPS 18:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTMANUAL. Ajf773 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mason (journalist)[edit]

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

No reliable sources, the creator removed BLP PROD. Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Simply working for the BBC conducting interviews and being one of many signing a letter about equal pay is not sufficient for encyclopaedic notability. I can find the subject and a co-presenter being described as "engagingly nerdy" recently in The Guardian [18] but that is also insufficient. Fails the WP:JOURNALIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when half of the sources are the subjects linkedin profile, we are no where near passing GNG. Linkedin should be a blacklisted source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DovBer Pinson[edit]

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

Tagged as an advert for over six years and never fixed. The sources lack independence with the exception of one passing tabloid-ish mention of a teapot tempest around a single performance in front of the Pope. He has written some books but WP:GNG requires non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources and that coverage is not in evidence. The creator of the article had only three edits: creating this article and editing it, and linking it to another. The username implies it may be the subject or an associate. This is at best a directory entry and at worst self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are independent. Or does the nominator imply that a Jewish newspaper is not independent of a rabbi? This person has also been published, see the Books section. Maybe this article should be a stub and may always remain a stub, but that is not in and of itself a problem. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the incident with the pope is WP:BLP1E, everything else in the article is promotional and sourced to dead links. If there are other references (or a claim that he meets WP:NAUTHOR), please present them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the Pope thing, there was a lot of coverage of his role as the rabbininc mento or boxer Yuri Foreman, [ https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/sports/othersports/03boxing.html The Tale of the Tape and the Talmud] New York Times, 3 April 2008; A Rabbinical Student and the Ring New York Times 10 November 2009', Try searching : rabbi Pinson "Yuri Foreman" [19]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clearly an overly promotional article. Any article that calls the subject "an original thinker" is just inherently not encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reversing close and relisting due to request at my userpage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For someone with such an impressive list of published books he hardly gets a mention by other scholars. There are a few passing mentions coming up, but nothing in depth that can stand up to WP:N. The books are all published by Iyyun Publishing, the publishing arm of Pinson's school, and they appear to have published nothing other than Pinson. So he doesn't even have an independent publisher, not that that would have made any difference - except to suggest we should take a closer look. If all the promotional stuff is removed from the article there would not be much left. As for dancing with the Pope, besides BLP1E, notability is not inherited from the Pope. It is not even in the article (despite the source being a reference) suggesting that even the page creator does not consider that a notable incident. SpinningSpark 15:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. 2 of the 3 current references are dead links. A google search shows that the Pope thing is mentioned in a few other potential sources, but as noted above, this is BLP1E. Fails NAUTHOR, too. Yilloslime (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 14:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shea Stadium (music venue)[edit]

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

Fails GNG as a standalone, perhaps mention of music venue could be made at main article Shea Stadium ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even tell us how long it was open (eight years) going by one source; otherwise just another club in Brooklyn using a defunct venue's goodwill, and in no way related to the stadium. Nate • (chatter) 03:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI to the nomination: this has no relation to the famous stadium other than appropriating its name, so mention of this to larger subject would be irrelevant if it is deemed to be non-notable. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. All the more reason to delete...article lacks context, and notability per WP:NRV No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 14:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Kadado[edit]

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

This page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. The books mentioned are available on Amazon, but are not actually in print and aren't sold in stores. The national TV appearances mentioned cannot be found via search engines. The book signings and appearances cannot be found via search engines. The awards the book has won cannot be found via search engines. This person has not published any actual major works of literature or journalism that can be found when searching for them on search engines. The most notable thing in the article is this person meeting Bob Woodruff, but that does not make him personally notable. The information about this person's work is poorly sourced and questionable. Anon11000 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anon11000: An ebook author (Somebody who doesn't have their writings in print. Someone like me who has 23 ebooks for sale at Amazon) can be notable. I checked on Kadado's publisher. There is a facebook page and a dead webpage for a Moore Publishing of Michigan. So I don't think he was self-published (BTW I am self-published and done alright enough for myself to form a S corporation for my books), but one 98 page ebook (or 23 ebooks of various lengths) without acclaim or awards isn't going to make its author WP notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE: Appreciate the note, and while both self-published and ebook authors can certainly be notable. This author's work does not pass as notable, the books have not won awards, have not received acclaim and are not even in print. Note the publisher's dead webpage and inactive Facebook page. This page seems to have been created for past promotional purposes, but lacks relevancy considering the publisher is not active and the books are unavailable. Author is not WP notable.Anon11000 (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The lack of information, proper sourcing and conversation about this person/page online highlights lack of notability. Seems to be a purely promotional page, linking books that are not in print. Not a significant journalist that has done enough relevant work. Should be nixed. Anon11000 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student journalist with unique name, making him easy to search, fails WP:JOURNALIST despite a moment in a very minor spotlight.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he got a special selection to work on a journalism team when he was in high school (or maybe not that), this is not the stuff notability is made of. My sister-in-law Emma Penrod has multiple books that are actually in print, was a reporter for the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune and now free lances for publications like the High Country Times and the Utah Business Magazine. She is much closer to being notable than Kadado, but is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail WP:JOURNALIST as well as WP:ANYBIO or simply WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 10:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 14:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emercoin[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable cryptocurrency. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. MER-C 11:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standard mentions by non-discerning crypto-magazines. I wonder if for most CC this is a case of churnalism. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per L3X1. Also read Emercoin#Usage - enuf said. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no signs of notability Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There're many mentions in articles click and click in «Reuters». In Newsweek, in Forbes
Those references are not significant coverage. MER-C 11:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Forbes source is the only none trivial mention and it may have reliability issues considering the promotional tone of the article. W 42 13:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cointelegraph[edit]

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

Non-notable website. Quoted a couple of times in reliable sources, but lacks the significant coverage required for notability. MER-C 10:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. MarginalCost (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see an sources that actually talk about them (rather than the occasional story that they've covered). The references are clearly padded, e.g. The ref to The Yale Journal of Regulation leads to a Cointelegraph story being mentioned in one footnote of a very long article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Smallbones and delete looks trivial and promotional. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McManus (journalist)[edit]

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

fails WP:PEOPLE – Lionel^(talk) 10:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 10:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I think this does meet the notability criteria - ie., Mike McManus is a notable Canadian journalist and television host who had a prominent TV show on Ontario television. On the show, he interviewed prominent Canadians including Margaret Atwood - the wiki article links to an online archive of his interviews. I was interested in learning more about him after watching a show that he hosted.

Amita 64.229.98.73 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say, looking at the notability criteria, that he is a journalist who "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." His television show, "The Education of Mike McManus" is significant, given that it presents a window into prominent Ontarians in the 70s. It has also been mentioned in two books: "Understanding Me: Lectures and Interviews" about Marshall McLuhan, and "Paikin and the Premiers: Personal Reflections on a Half Century of Ontario Premiers" by Steve Paikin. His show is also the subject of a post on Ted Barris's blog: http://tedbarris.com/2016/02/11/tried-by-judge/

Amita 64.229.98.73 (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His program is listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TVOntario#Former_programming and all the other programs there have been suitable for entries in Wikipedia. Prowsej (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional and lacks signs of notability. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hosting a TV show that was broadcast in only one province is not an automatic free pass over our notability criteria for media personalities — it would be enough if he could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG for it, but it is not enough if you have to rely on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things as your sources. He has to be the subject of coverage about him in unaffiliated sources, not just have a content directory on the website of his own former employer or get passingly mentioned in coverage of other things, to establish notability. Our notability criteria are not passed by what an article says — they're passed by how well the article references what it says, but the sources here aren't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for this comment. I found it helpful. I added some links, in particular to one Globe and Mail article that focuses on him. Prowsej (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a page created by a blocked editor evading a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bedårande barn av sin tid[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM - not enough coverage by multiple independent sources. lovkal (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a page created by a blocked editor evading a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Det ljuva livet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM - not enough coverage by multiple independent sources. lovkal (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sidekiq[edit]

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

I can't see the notability here. Demonstrated coverage consists of incidental mentions only (basically, "we used Sidekiq to do that"); plus one book source I can't check. Maybe that's considered sufficient for such appl;ications, but i don't think so. Ruby/netdev-savvy people please assess. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sidekiq article is a stub about a component used in Ruby web software with heavy processing, like Diaspora or Mastodon open source social networks, GitLab or Discourse software. There are sources to computing conferences. The fact there are several "incidental mentions" in articles from several years show it's a well used software, and as such, is notable. As a "beyond the scene" "infrastructure" component, the visibility is perhaps difficult to see for final users, but from a Ruby web developer point of view, Sidekiq is notable. --Dereckson (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article. The fact there isn't much news coverage, makes this page all the more important to preserve. Downloads are a limited metric, but as a ruby developer I confirm the importance and prevalence of it. Here are some download stats from official Ruby Gem distro library Shushugah (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to follow the lead of people with greater knowledge here, but I'd like to point out that "The fact there isn't much news coverage, makes this page all the more important to preserve" is directly contrary to our requirements of established in-depth coverage. We don't create the coverage, we merely document its existence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I learned a policy or two. There are many (non news) reliable sources for its notability, but most of them are not written in very accessible way. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. They also suffer from SEO problems when googling (Alexa ranking is fortunately not a factor for determining quality of citation), so Wikipedia plays a vital role in being that first stop. Shushugah (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you still need to specifically point out these sources here to make the case ;) For referencing purposes, it's no problem if they are off-line or hard to parse. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnabus & Bella[edit]

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

Previously deprodded stub about a 30 minutes long musical-film in Latin produced by high school pupils. No reliable sources with significant coverage have been found. Sam Sailor 08:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a passing mention in a book that bills itself as a collection of the trivial, and mention in non-reliable sources like IMDb do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as no external reviews at imdb and no listing at all at Rotten Tomatoes so does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Ellwangen police raid[edit]

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

Likely failing WP:EVENT. While this was picked up internationally (seems all based on the same original Reuters agency report), reporting focussed on and around the date it happened. Therefore, this lacks persistence of reporting. Analysis in the aftermath seems limited. While there has been political commentary, this is all in the wider context of the migration debate and not necessarily centred on this event. Therefore I believe this is run-of-the-mill news reporting of a non-notable crime/event with lacking enduring significance on its own. Also worth considering that German WP does not have an article on this. While irrelevant in this project, I usually consider this indicatively. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep This case was in nationwide media for weeks and the debate about it contributed very strongly to the actual situation between the CSU and CDU parties. Media like Die Zeit wrote about the case weeks later, and there are much, much more sources to be evaluated (Dobrindt's interview alone - see Die Zeit article - strongly fueled the debate). This nomination is incomprehensible and defective. The German WP is missing an article, but this is only a reason to write one - which I won't do there because there are more of such nominations for unclear reasons over there. Above that all there is good international reception and more to add. Addititon: For the fact alone, that politicians of the Green Party are praising police operations, the article has to be kept. This is truly unique in German political history.--Greywin (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recently expanded the article massively, adding a dozen of further sources, national as well as international. I also added that the case was ruled by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany which should make clear that it is definitely a case of national and international interest. Thus I appeal to the nominator to withdraw his nomination.--Greywin (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greywin, many thanks for continuing the work. I'd like to pick up some of the points you made above. Firstly, the Federal Constitutional Court did not "rule" on the case, it just found a potential lawsuit inadmissible. Looking at the 2016 statistics, the vast majority of cases brought to the court are not admitted. Surely, being one of thousands of rejected cases does not make this one notable. Secondly, I am not convinced that Mr Dobrind's comments are suitable to establish notability of this event. While he spoke about the general topic of deportations, the Ellwangen incident was used exemplary for such practices. Your references 15 and 16 don't not mention Ellwangen at all, 14 has it in passing. The Bloomberg article uses the incident as starting point before spending most of the time discussing, again, the general topic. Most of the sources are centered around the date of the incident with significant tapering off - of course some follow-ups here and there are to be expected. I'd like to use the 10 year test: will this incident, that is being politicised, still be relevant in years to come or will it just be a side note about deportations of rejected asylum seekers? _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, we routinely keep articles on crimes and riots that get this kind of coverage. Articles on topics like Germany deportation policy can usefully link to this and similar articles on notable specific incidents. Your point about this riot being "being politicised" is relevant her only to the degree that it has generated coverage in WP:RS, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and when an EVENT generates this sort of media and political brouhaha, the question of how admirable the motives of the editors, columnists, and politicians were does not come up, only the extent and depth of the coverage. The other points you bring up can be handled by improving the article or discussed on the article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with E.M.Gregory. And I have to correct you, Jake Brockman, reference 15 does mention Ellwangen, 16 is only an addition to show that there were complaints against Dobrindt. Maybe I find a better source for it, mentioning Ellwangen. But: Dobrindts statements are clearly and inseparably connected with this case. This incident will be remembered as one that created an own debate and lifted the German general actual political debate about migration on a new level, as you can see these days in the Bundestag and regarding the quarrel inside the German Federal Government.--Greywin (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following WP:HEYMANN upgrades by User talk:Greywin, and also because WP:RAPID. There has been WP:SIGCOV of this riot, more than enough to warrant keeping.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nomination is defective. The nom reads: «While this was picked up internationally (seems all based on the same original Reuters agency report)». This may have been true when the article was younger, but it is false now. It is simply not true. For example, Swiss media continued to cover the event weeks after it took place (see the Basler Zeitung citation). In fact, the case became so notorious in Germany and elsewhere that the media adopted a nickname for the case and its protagonist: the «Togolese from Ellwangen» (see the Pfalz-Express citation, etc.). Clearly an important case widely discussed in Germany and around the world. XavierItzm (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfortunately, there is enough media coverage of this incident, but it is clearly one of many being hijacked by certain political factions in Germany. I have made some changes to reduce the POV wording, but it is inevitable that some contributors are using it to further a certain agenda. I would repeat what I've said on the NPOV noticeboard - I'm becoming very concerned about the recent nature and number of edits on the topic of incidents involving migrants in Germany. We all know they have a problem, but WP:SYNTH is greatly in evidence, as well as unbalanced editing. Deb (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll jump on this keep bandwagon, lots of soruces here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment couldn't agree more with Deb. In addition to my comments on the NPOV noticeboard, we do see media coverage of such cases, however I am also concerned that the "free press" is being chased with two motives: a) over-reporting so they cannot be accused of under-reporting or cover up (which is a common mantra of one side of the political spectrum) and b) gladly over-reporting as means of revenue generator (advertising page impressions) on a topic that will definitely get traffic because of emotions at the time. As such, WP may fall victim of living in a "non-NPOV" world resulting in distorted article creation. This being the case, IMO, other rules and guidelines should get more weight, such as a 10YT and NOTNEWS. I remember the article about the South Kensington traffic accident (resulted in deletion which I cannot seem to find). The event resulted in a WP article basically while police was still on the scene. Of course, this was breaking news across the globe as media outlets literally fell over each other suspecting terror, which was not the case.

As for this event, yes it does have a nickname (as does Christopher Chope for his rejection of a certain bill that resulted in a redirect being created (Choping)), but I strongly contend that this all fails any kind of 10YT and falls into the category of WP:NOTNEWS on its own. This event may have a place as a chapter in an article about deportations as part of the so-called migrant crisis. This is largely the context in which this case seems to be disucssed._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few remarks on that issue: If you are worried that the press is "over-reporting" in Germany: This is clearly not the case. Leftist/liberal media are still wavering when it comes to these crimes. There are many cases like this one if you read the local press closely, which don't make it into nationwide media. You can find riots in asylum shelters, shootings, stabbings, rapes and other sexual crimes all over the country day by day by day in the last two or three years. I live in this country for decades, and never have seen anything like this. To make it crystal clear: I don't deny that there are also enough crimes by Germans. But the rise of certain serious crimes that are connected to the migrant crisis is obvious and there are studies and figures that prove it, the Lower Saxony study among others. The number of sexual crimes has been rising strongly in the last two years, while only 6 percent of them were reported to the police according to another study. [20][21] Whatever the causes are, there is a notable development, which also strongly affects German politics. See e.g. the statement of Armin Schuster (CDU) in the article, a man who has the insight of the Parliamentary Oversight Panel, Interior committee and several committees of inquiry: "In our constitutional state, there are clear red lines, which are now deliberately exceeded almost daily by asylum seekers." This is no illusion and no racism, this is the statement of a man who knows what he's talking about. And finally: One may find the comparison to a traffic accident a little strange. These are no accidents, these are serious crimes and riots, which justly distress the people.--Greywin (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievably, you have just written an entire paragraph of personal opinion which makes it clear to anyone reading this that you are not editing from a neutral point of view. Do you really not see that comments like "the rise of certain serious crimes that are connected to the migrant crisis is obvious" are not neutral and have no place whatsoever in an encyclopedia, even on a talk page? Deb (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you do? And Jake does, writing "an entire paragraph of personal opinion". What is unbelievable? That I added neutral sources for what I wrote, what others weren't doing? That I wrote a neutral article? Just because I have an opinion - as everyone - that doesn't mean that I can't write a neutral article. You don't share my opinion, where is your problem - as long as the article is neutral in the end? And that Schusters statement is not "neutral" should be clear to everyone. He is a politician an is paid for making non-neutral statements. ;) But I tell you something: I read much about the issue, local press, regional press, national press, international press. I added some more sources for you, only from today, only one day, only a quick search. Could link hundreds more. [22][23][24][25]...--Greywin (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable that you don't understand what you are doing wrong in trying to persuade User:Jake Brockman to adopt your personal prejudices and apparently even thinking that this will in some way relieve his concerns about your edits. Deb (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I try to persuade no one, and above I wrote no personal prejudices, but a jugdement on the base of hundreds, if not thousands of WP:RS read. What I think is more remarkable than this, is the content of those sources, but maybe we simply differ there.--Greywin (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Victory (Modern Talking album). Sandstein 06:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Tour (Modern Talking tour)[edit]

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

Article seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR. It also has been unreferenced since its creation in September 2009 (almost nine years ago!) and tagged as such since November 2015. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 21:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Modern Walking. The info is likely correct but unsourced and not notable enough to justify a page. Legacypac (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the better redirect target would be Victory (Modern Talking album), but in any case is it useful to redirect this article to either of those pages, when they don't mention the tour at all and there are no sources online to reference it within those pages? For the record, the page was created by a now-indeffed editor with a long history of disruptive editing (see here for the reasons behind the block) – that's not a reason itself to delete the article of course, but it might explain why it was created in the first place with no sources. Richard3120 (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, you are being very uncourteous - although I did make trouble, I did tons of hard work and created thousands of articles. I know some are and were not in the greatest shape, but several were even promoted to good and featured status. This article, specifically, was a translation of content from (IIRC) the German Wikipedia. I'm not sure. Couldn't find sources myself but thought it was harmless. I think it should be redirected. --201.241.33.3 (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lathrup Village, Michigan. Sandstein 06:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Lathrup Elementary School[edit]

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

A defunct elementary school. There is an uncited, and apparently unfounded claim in the article that it is the village's only historic landmark. While Lathrup Village Historic District does exist, it does not appear to key on this particular building. In fact, that article doesn't even mention this building. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources for that point. A picture of the building appears on the cover of every report that has come out about the Lathrup Village historic district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jskarf (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was in the historic district and then in 2010 it was rezoned to the Village Center. It's claimed to be on the National Register of Historic Places. It's known more as Annie Lathrup School, a private/charter school and is now vacant. I would see it redirect to Lathrup Village. [26] But it seems like they still haven't figured out what they want to do with the building as it's been empty for many years, maybe 1999 [27][28] some use as a farmer's market for the parking lot [29] [30] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC) updated 00:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the HD or village article: The Annie Lathrup school is one of 994! contributing buildings of the historic district, and is one of 10? non-residential buildings. It is not individually listed of the NRHP. The nomination document has three paragraphs on the school building. It does not seem to have a whole lot of notability on its own. (on a separate point, the HD article is less extensive than the section in the village article, and should maybe be merged there) Chris857 (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Lathrup Village article. Given two reasonably related merge targets, I would go for the one where it should be of more substantive importance. I think there is more than a redirect in play Nosebagbear (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above comments. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monetha[edit]

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

Promotional article about yet another blockchain related company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Possibly native advertising, given the thin edit history of the creator. MER-C 21:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent references. According to to the article, they haven't actually done anything except raise money. But it "is a blockchain company creating a universal, transferable, immutable trust and reputation system combined with a payment solution." If that's not promotion, I don't know what is. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - many references are indeed independent, including Forbes; Bitcoin.com; the-blockchain.com; NB Forum and more. It is disrespectful to even consider a deletion without doing any research on the topic as Monetha has released a public mobile (beta) app which is updated weekly and already has active users (and e-commerce integrations) for anyone to use on iOS, Android devices and any compatible e-commerce platform and that was before the article was considered for deletion. Monetha has also been included into Forbes as one of the most promising projects. Please remove "deletion notice". Deelillo (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC) — Deelillo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What is your connection to the subject of this article, given that Justas Pikelis is the creator of Monetha and MarijusPikelis (talk · contribs) is the creator of this article? Actually, I now have a reason to use general sanctions to delete this page, because the author has an obvious conflict of interest. MER-C 10:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It has nothing to do with the fact of who created the article and as I can see the last edit by MarijusPikelis (talk · contribs) was done on January 21, which is certainly being improved from that time. I add and contribute to the page and have no interest other than to provide encyclopedic content for the product I'm a fan of. So, no there is no reason to delete the page. --Deelillo (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the entire article is promotional and I see no good references. The bitcoin.com reference is a "Paid Press Release", and the founders being on a "30 under 30" (which, IIRC, actually included 900 people under 30) doesn't make their company notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not delete~~Comment I have removed parts of the article that could be regarded as solely promotional. References are indeed good and always being added. Not only has Forbes included Monetha co-founders in their 30 Under 30 list, but also named Monetha company as one of the boldest blockchain companies, which certainly has a lot of substance behind it. And that doesn't end there, as one of the co-founders made the list of 25 and Under in Northern Europe by the well-regarded news source Nordic Business Report, with famous founders like Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum) and Markus Villig (Taxify) also making the mentioned list. Monetha is one of the most notable blockchain projects with the continuously growing notability and is not even a year old! There are more than enough of good references to back the facts presented in the article. Deelillo (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please be aware that each contributor only gets one !vote. I have struck your second !vote above. Also, please read WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The criteria for establishing notability requires 2 references that are "intellectually independent" and goes beyond the standard set for using references to support facts/information within the article. WP:ORGCRIT specifically mentions Forbes articles as the type of article that does not meet the criteria for establishing notability. Having famous co-founders does not count towards notability as notability is not inherited. There may very well be good references to support the information in the article, but there are not any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or an alternative Yellow Pages. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Kühbauch[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, just two passing mentions found nothing in depth. Edidiong (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, relevance is given, author and musician works with well-known musicians and his works are available worldwide - so there should be a chance for people, who don't know him and speak English, to inform themselves about him. If there are any technical losses of the article, please let me know, I will work on it immediately! user:springfountain —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

springfountain, for an article on the English Wikipedia, a musician should pass the criteria for WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources should not come from the artist's own social media websites, blogs or simply links to iTunes, Amazon, etc. which simply prove the artist's music exists. What we are looking for is significant coverage of Svensson in reliable, independent sources such as national newspapers, or established music magazines with editorial oversight, either in print or online format. The fact that he has worked with other notable musicians does not make him notable just by association with them - see WP:INHERITED. Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indeed fails WP:MUSICBIO. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Wan[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:NMUSICBIO. Hiàn (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the article has sources, only one or two come close to being reliable. I can find sources attesting to the existence of the subject's music, but multiple, independent, reliable sources that'd support an article do not appear to be out there. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 12:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Meng Fuat[edit]

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

Non notable MCA candidates. angys (Talk Talk) 17:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected politicians are rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 05:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Family bum[edit]

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

Non-notable show failing GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a very brief and non-informative article, and just because a show won an award does not automatically make it notable. Vorbee (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very short article, gives no information about what exactly is notable about the show (other than that 2013 award, which is the only content on the page besides the infobox). Lots of things have won awards - that does not mean everything that ever has gets its own Wikipedia page. Fails GNG. Tillerh11 (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trash, nothing of interest in this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [31] is a non-trivial source about the show. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Military equipment of the European Union[edit]

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

This article lumps together all the military equipment and weapons of member states as if they are available to the EU. Very few military assets are directly assigned to EU missions so this article is very misleading. The only "military equipment of the EU" is material directly held by the EU Military Staff, so this article's misleading nature means it should be deleted. The military equipment of the EU Military Staff can be addressed on that page. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Article is properly cited and the lead clearly explains the context.~~

"This article outlines the military equipment owned by the member states of the European Union (EU), multinational procurement and EU-level facilitation of such procurement."

"In accordance with the Treaty on European Union it is the national armed forces' assets that are made available for the implementation of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), which involves overseas operations (since 2003) and an obligation of collective self-defence."

~~I don't see an issue with it. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 04:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

I don't know all that much about the topic, so I'm withdrawing my comments and deferring to more knowledgeable editors. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 17:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per (see here) - ^theWOLFchild 04:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject lacking independent notability, then Merge what's not already there to the Common Security and Defence Policy article about the European Union's defense arrangement. No encyclopaedic purpose is served by having a separate article for its weaponry. -The Gnome (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge what could be merged into Common Security and Defence Policy or EU Battlegroup (if possible), per Gnome. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CSDP article would become too big if these tables were merged into it. - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are collapsible in Wikipedia so as to enable editors to include long tables and lists inside articles. See H:COLS and Template:Collapsible list/doc. -The Gnome (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the tip. However I don't see why these tables can't be in a separate article if it's acceptable to have these in Wikipedia at all. -Ssolbergj (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the lists are kept in a separate article, deleted, or merged, is the issue discussed in this ongoing AfD. All I did was point out that the technical objection raised against merging the lists is groundless because of H:COLS. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is seriously misleading. It seeks to project the idea of a unified EU military capacity when all the assets are under national command. The inclusion of the Border and Coastguard agency is wrong as it is not a military organisation. The mention of Multinational development suggesting it is or was EU led is simply untrue, all of the material listed were the result of individual companies and sovereign states which just happen to be in a country which is part of the EU collaborating. The EDA has produced nothing as yet. The tables give an EU total under states for each type of materiel (which even include Denmark which has opted out of the EU Military arrangements) when in fact the EU has nothing, the sovereign states comprising the EU control everything. A true title for the article would be Military equipment of the sovereign states comprising the EU however then the text would have to be totally rewritten to eliminate any POV editing so its simpler to delete the article and await someone creating a factual article without spin Lyndaship (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The mention of Multinational development suggesting it is or was EU led is simply untrue" The article doesn't state that all multinational development is led by the EU, but it does point out where the EU seeks to facilitate such processes. I agree that excluding Denmark would make sense. I don't see what's POV in the article currently, and a title such as Military equipment of the sovereign states comprising the EU would be ludicrous and POV - referring to them as member states is conventional. But if people want a rename, that's fine. Please propose a serious new title in that case. - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case you missed it my vote was Delete. No problem with a new article using member states as opposed to sovereign states. I'm not surprised you see no POV in the existing article or title - you created it! Lyndaship (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then, instead of a ‘new’ article a rename would be appropriate. 95% of the content was created by other editors. And in any case, let’s discuss the article’s content instead of raising doubts about other’s motives.-Ssolbergj (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I invite other editors to look at the revision history and the xtools page history which shows that 97.7% of the text has been added by you (Ssolberg). Lyndaship (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have created 0% of the tables, which constitute most of the article. And who's made the content is irrelevent anyway. - Ssolbergj (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Member states' capabilities are highly relevant as the CSDP involves a mutual defence clause. The range of equipment that may be used in 'ordinary' EU operations is also relevant. The European Defence Fund also marks the EU's entry into the domain of facilitating the national aquisition of defence equipment as well as funding defence equipment research. The article makes no secret of the fact that the equipment is owned by the member states. The name is [...] of the European Union, not [...] owned by the EU. The content is relevant in any case, and if Wikipedians believe the current title is misleading I'd be ok with it being renamed National military equipment of the European Union, Military equipment of European Union member states or something similar. A decade ago I'd support the article's deletion, but the remarkable development of the CSDP recently justifies its existance entirely in my opinion. - Ssolbergj (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New editors should note that the article's present intro is quite sober and precise, before they react based merely on the article title: "This article outlines the military equipment owned by the member states of the European Union (EU), multinational procurement and EU-level facilitation of such procurement. In accordance with the Treaty on European Union it is the national armed forces' assets that are made available for the implementation of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), which involves overseas operations (since 2003) and an obligation of collective self-defence.[a] It should be noted that CSDP decisions, adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC), generally require unanimity between member states. Consequently, any deployment of national assets in a CSDP context is voluntary on the member state's part." And as I've mentioned, renaming the article is clearly an option in any case. I do however believe the EU connection, through the CSDP, justifies the article's existence, based on arguments shown above. -Ssolbergj (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extremely misleading. All equipment should be already covered under the various nations' respective military articles or list articles thereof. - BilCat (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is factually correct. Compare, for example, the listing of the Italian armed forces in the contested article with the articles on Italian Army, Italian Navy, and Italian Air Force. -The Gnome (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose the relevant question in this case is wheter an overview of CSDP member states' equipment is something Wikipedia should have. (I think it should.) What you refer to as misleading is a different matter, and is unclear. - Ssolbergj (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, "an overview of CSDP member states' equipment is" 'not' "something Wikipedia should have", as it implies the EU has a dedicated military force of its own. That is what is misleading. - BilCat (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. While it is quite likely the EU will field a common army if it continues on its current path, this has not come yet to pass. EU level military cooperation is quite limited and scoped to very particular issues (e.g. the immigration ships in the Mediterranean) - without a formal structure in place for large scale hostilities (which would probably be NATO led).Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Rename - distinctly misleading as it stands, but the actual content of the article would seem a reasonable basis for an article. As Ssolbergj points out, anyone who is happy with the content but thinks it is misleading/misdirecting etc and wants a new article should be asking for a re-naming. As the initial suggestion for comments, I offer:

Military equipment of European Union member states

-Nosebagbear

Support rename I support Nosebagbear's proposal. This really is about member states' capabilities, and how these are procured and developed - sometimes in a multinational context, and in the years ahead likely supported by the European Defence Fund as mentioned in this news article for instance. -Ssolbergj (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the title is definitely better but is anyone happy with the existing content (other than the creator)? I refer editors to a previous blanked article [32] which had to my mind more balanced and nuanced text created by multiple editors. This article was redirected to the CSDP article after a poorly commented merge request. It was also the source of the unattributed tables in the current article Lyndaship (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merger of CSDP and ‘Military of the EU’ was in fact undertaken by conventional procedure. And I would like to underline that the tables were made by other editors. - Ssolbergj (talk)

Delete The EU itself is not a military alliance. 344917661X (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@344917661X: - that wasn't denied by anyone on the "keep side". Their argument is that as a close political group with a mutual defence obligation this was a reasonable list of lists. What specific grounds do you think justify deletion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs)

The EU's mutual defense obligations are very weak - extremely weak - while the clause does enable cooperation, it does not require it. It furthermore has a carve out for members pursing a neutrality strategy and specifics that NATO is the main forum for collective self-defense for those members that are members of NATO - which is most of the EU (with the exception of Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Malta and Cyprus - many of whom have a neutrality police). Saying that this state of affairs is a firm commitment for mutual defense is stretching it - and furthermore implementation is bilateral (between states) without involving the EU's appartus.[33][34]Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is speculation to claim that the EU mutual defence clause is weak. The Western European Union - a mutual defence alliance - was dissolved because it was considered redundant after the Treaty of Lisbon gave the EU its own mutual defence clause. The treaty reads: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power" Although untested, this is in fact a legal requirement.-Ssolbergj (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It actually has been tested.[35][36].Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it has been activated once. Many would however argue that this was purely symbolic move by the French president, and that the significant question is how it would be upheld if let's say Finland was attacked by another state. That would be the true test. - Ssolbergj (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First of all, as the article itself clarifies, there is no unified command and the military "body" of the EU itself cannot buy much more than office equipment. Therefore all these assets are entirely notional. Any Wikipedia readers will be misled by this article discussing an imaginary army. Europe's defense, to the degree it may exist, is entirely predicated on NATO and on national defense forces. To further twist the knife on just how misleading this article is, did anyone read the news last week? Germany, for example, has only 4 out of 138 Eurofighter jets combat ready.^[1]. In February it had 9 Leopard/2 tanks ready —out of a NATO commitment of 44. Same with the Tornado jets and CH-53 helos.^[2] Now look, these comments are quite relevant... the article as it exists is misleading to the reader. The force it describes has no mandate; the force has no commander, and the "assets" it describes exist only as equipment in various states of disrepair inside warehouses, not as actionable "military equipment." Finally, what's up with the "Industry" section? No sources, and while having an industry means potential, it has zero relevance to an entry entitled "Military equipment of the EU". Nuke the article from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.XavierItzm (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Only 4 of Germany's 128 Eurofighter jets combat ready — report
^ German military short on tanks for NATO mission

Comment 1) Common Security and Defence Policy#Mission/operational headquarters clarifies what the EU's operational commands are. The Military Planning and Conduct Capability is being established as a single EU operational command, whose authority is expected include operations with combat elements from late 2018. 2) The article makes no secret of the fact that the assets are owned by the member states. I do however support renaming this article Military equipment of European Union member states. 3) Germany's number of Eurofighters is irrelevant in this context. 4) The article describes no force, it is merely an overview of national capabilities within the CSDP, as well as mulitinational coordination - and EU support - related to development etc. - Ssolbergj (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASSING A message asking others to comment giving the posters personal view of the discussion has been placed here [37] Lyndaship (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out Lyndaship. Ssolbergj while posting a link to the AfD on the project may be okay, giving your personal view on it outside of the actual AfD is not. I have deleted your personal view from the comment - apologies for amending an editor's comment, but minimising the blowback for Canvassing seemed preferable. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally proded the article as I found it misleading, it implied that the EU operates all the military equipment listed (including nuclear weapons - since removed), In fact as a political organisation it doesnt have any standing military force and borrows capability from members on the few occassions it has sanctioned operations in its name when required. Some of the equipment listed is under national and NATO control and highly unlikely would not be released for EU operations. MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or redirect/merge to Common Security and Defence Policy. Run-of-the-mill list about a notable topic (EU military cooperation). The article does not imply that the equipment is owned or operated by the EU, but rather by its member states. Nonetheless, in view of efforts to bring about EU military integration, the list grouping makes sense. Sandstein 06:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nirajan Pradhan[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/model. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR and the awards are not verifiable. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd agree that this article does not meet the standards set forth in WP:ENT ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 04:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 05:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Whiteman[edit]

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

I'm struggling to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Seems to me to fail WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with your reasoning for deletion. Citing your own flickr account is a new one for me. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 04:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is a run-of-the-mill working journalist. Most of the references are things written by him, and none are to reliable, independent sources devoting significant coverage to him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While the subject appears to be a fine journalist with one AP award, the article fails notability criteria. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like it was created as promotion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially promotional, no evidence of notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.shz.de/lokales/flensburger-tageblatt/messerattacke-im-intercity-so-sicher-sind-zuege-und-bahnhoefe-id19995127.html

[2] "Nach Messerattacke im Zug: Wann gab es ersten Kontakt?". Hamburger Abendblatt. 5 June 2018. Retrieved 11 June 2018.

[3] Svirnovskiy, Rennie (June 22, 2017). "He's out to make sanctuary cities pay – and he only needs 62 signatures to get started". Sacramento Bee.

[4] Marcum, Diana (October 30, 1998). "Battle With Water District Could Ripple Across State. Initiatives: Fewer than 300 signatures got fee-cutting measure on ballot in Mojave Desert community. Board says it would go broke". Los Angeles Times. p. A3.

[5] Marcum, Diana (November 12, 1998). "High Desert Water District in Fee Fight". Los Angeles Times. p. A3.

[6] Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil, 39 Cal. 4th 205 (July 2006).

[7] Rule 8.500(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court.

[8] Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil, 39 Cal. 4th 205, 208 (July 2006).

[9] Only 4 of Germany's 128 Eurofighter jets combat ready — report

[10] German military short on tanks for NATO mission

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]