Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 March	16 March >

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 redirect to Bergen County Executive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William D. McDowell[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage in reliable sources outside of the routine election coverage. Rusf10 (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless it is significantly improved to meet the criteria. Acnetj (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bergen County Executive. No independent notability, the (very scanty) coverage is in relation to that position only. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bergen County Executive Djflem (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Lots of coverage of this politician and sheriff. First county executive. Try searching Google Books for Bill McDowell Bergen and William McDowell Bergen. I came up with lots of sources in addition to those already in the article such as New York Times articles. Sources include discussion of his election. Discussion of his activities as sheriff. Dennis C. Miller's book discusses him and the union pressures he faced. This is a bad nom. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as a minor local leader. Article even states he had a low-key administration. Not otherwise WP:GNG, as no sources detail him directly outside of the scope of his minor political position. SportingFlyer talk 22:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - fails WP:NPOLITICIAN - Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local coverage is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bergen County Executive or possibly Keep. there was a remarkable amount of detailed and INDEPTH coverage of his career during the years he was active. For example, this reported profile Wheels of change roll slowly through New Jersey county] by Orsi, Jennifer in the St. Petersburg Times, 18 February 1990. The online version I'm looking at makes it clear that this is a story original to St. Pete, (see bottom of text - where \ news wire stories are always flagged as such in stories reprinted in this "Times"; this story says "Copyright Times Publishing Co.", which is how you know it's St. Pete, not NY.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - McDowell was the inaugural holder of the office that governs the most populous country in New Jersey. To put it in perspective, in 1990, during the McDowell's tenure, he governed a county of app. 825,000 resident. By contrast the present-day Governor of the entire state of Wyoming presently governs about 585,000 people. I also agree with other editors that there's more than enough coverage to merit McDowell's bio. Scanlan (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Marie[edit]

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

Not notable - the single independent source establishes that a person (named Vanessa Haraszkiewicz) competed on a reality show in 2009. This is blatant self-promotion. Melcous (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG - no supporting RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belac 360[edit]

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

The article's current references seem to only point to non-reliable sources, passing mentions, simple announcement and places to hear the artist's music, falling quite short of WP:MUSIC, a preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't uncover much else. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references don't seem to meet RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs mostly link to his songs on social media. Szzuk (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references aren't reliable and google news turns up only one result. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive Wireless Path Protocol[edit]

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

This article has been tagged since 2012 for having no references. The external links are to publications by Cisco, whose communication protocol this is. I did not find multiple reliable and independent sources needed to establish notability. Edison (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delet Confusing jargon filled article that reads like a textbook... how has this lived for six years? 💵Money emoji💵^Talk 15:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it stands, needs more RS, most of this is not independant of Cisco material. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references in article and google news comes up empty. Google books turns up a couple of results, but not significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pax et Bellum Journal[edit]

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

Article dePRODded by article creator after adding infobox and ISSN/OCLC numbers. PROD reason was "Non-notable irregularly-appearing journal with only 4 issues published. Not indexed in any databases (selective or otherwise; does not even list an ISSN), no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG" and (apart from the -trivial- ISSN) still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although it is possible for a 3-year-old, student-run journal that publishes infrequently to be notable, I can see no indication that this one is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Albert[edit]

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

Subject does not qualify for inclusion based on GNG and JOURNALIST. He is one of many, many local news/weather/sport on-air talents in the US television industry, and does not have work that is noticeable by the world at large. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 8 sources listed in the last nomination are all obituaries. [2] is from The Patriot Ledger in nearby Quincy, [5] is from Worcester, and the rest are from Boston news outlets. I didn't find anything that wasn't an obituary. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and per myself from the first nomination, which only closed "no consensus" because of two advocates without much of a handle on relevant notability criteria and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Ravenswing 01:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opinions are divided, but the core issue is whether this event is verifiable. "Delete" opinions point out the lack of English-language sources, and "keep" opinions assert the existence of Polish-language sources. While I can't read Polish, my view is that given the circumstances, we need to err on the side of caution:

What we are dealing here is with an article concerning a supposed 1939 massacre of Poles by "Belarusian and Jewish communists". This is the sort of article that needs excellent sourcing in light of the real-world and Wikipedia tensions existing in this topic area, see e.g. the long list of arbitration cases beginning with WP:ARBEE.

While normally WP:NOENG sources are perfectly acceptable as long as no English sources exist, it is my view that controversial issues in WP:AC/DS topic areas do require good sources in more than one (non-English) language in order to allow as many editors as possible, and not just a few or those possibly associated with one side of a conflict, to assess the content. This is not currently possible here, and also, many "keep" opinions do not substantially address the sourcing problems. I must therefore give the "keep" opinions less weight.

Userfication with view to a possible partial merger to the apparently less controversial Skidel revolt, to the extent that consensus allows, remains possible. Sandstein 22:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Brzostowica Mała[edit]

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

Previously nominated in 2008 and closed no consensus -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mala. There are number of problems here - to begin with we have glaring factual and POV problems (communist insurgents being described as "Belarusian and Jewish militias" (such militias did not exist yet in 1939), elsewhere as fifth column, and of course the amazing "Scores of intoxicated peasants and criminal opportunists have joined the fray".... to describe what was not so much an ethnic conflict but a political one (local supporters of the invadind communists - staged a revolt). Much of the content in this article relates to the Skidel revolt (which seems to scrape pass the notability threshold), and is a POVFORK of it...

Beyond the POV concerns, the real issue is lack of WP:RS covering this alleged event in any depth. My BEFORE does not find much. In terms of sourcing the article - ref1 (Wierzbicki) would be acceptable quality wise, however it covers the Skidel revolt and not this incident. Ref2 is similar in that is covers the Skidel revolt, with one sentence mentioning Brzostowica. All the other references are modern Polish newspaper reports relating to an IPN (The Institute of National Remembrance – Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation) - a state agency which is charged with prosecuting crimes by the Nazies and communists (so obvious BIAS issues off the bat, beyond reputation issues of this politically run memory ministry) - who conducted a probe into whether this event was prosecutable following a newspaper report and reached the conclusion that it was not (due to accounts being second hand - rumors). This is basically akin to a police investigation and some reporting on in - with no actual prosecution. Ref3 (broken link) is an IPN report for their yearly activities (where this is presumably mentioned as on-going). Ref4 is a newspaper report from 2001 about the IPN opening their probe. Ref5 is a Wprost article about the Skidel revolt, and mentions the Brzostowica event in 3 sentences. Ref6 is from ultra-nationalist [1] Nasz Dziennik in 2002 complaining (an op-ed?) about the stalled IPN investigation while mentioning their previous reporting (which started the IPN probe). Ref7 is an IPN document from 2005 that covers media coverage of the IPN (getting a bit circular, no?) - which in one paragraph (in the middle, the rest of the document being unrelated) covers the coverage on the IPN's decision to close the case. Ref8 is an archived copy of what seems to be Ref5 (or a reprint of it - text is very similar). Ref9 is again an IPN media coverage overview (but from 2003) which in one very short sentence states the prosecutor said the case would be discontinued for lack of evidence.

In summary - we are lacking reliable secondary RS. Essentially what this is based on is a single Nasz Dziennik article and subsequent coverage of a IPN probe that didn't go anywhere. No new coverage has surfaced since 2008.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~merge (with Skidel revolt) My reading is that this is based on the research of a historian named Marek Wierzbicki. When I do a google book search of 'Wierzbicki Brzostowica', I can see a number of books, most snippet view, where this is discussed.[2] There is a preview of a book in English with an article by Wierzbicki which mentions it,[3] although it locates it in the neighboring village of Wielka Brzostowica. Wierzbicki focuses on the actions of Jews, Orthodox, Belarusians and other minority groups in Poland. I don't have any idea if there is anything untoward in his research. Looking at that book in particular, and what I can find in general, I think this article does not pass NPOV, as we really only have the POV of one historian, and in reliable publications that POV gives very little information, certainly not enough for an article about a massacre. I could understand some of Wierzbicki's view being put into one or two articles about the Polish resistance, but I don't know if that is necessary and I don't see a merge of any material from this article being useful. Perhaps there could be a context section of the Skidel revolt article that could include the list of similar incidents listed by Wierzbicki in that book. There is a far-right historian(?), Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, who also discusses the event in his writings - for instance on the snippet on page 242 here you can see some of it. That text can be read elsewhere on the internet, here is a google-cached version of it[4], it is in an appendix. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article to deal with the issues I could find.[5] I don't find any source other than Chodakiewicz which calls the event a massacre or masakra and none that call it a mass murder. For that reason, I think the article should be renamed Brzostowica Mała revolt. I've moved the Chodakiewicz reference to the end, we don't have an article about the killings of Jews in 1944 in Eishyshok (at least sometimes called a Pogrom), but I've tried to summarize his point. I see my edits as changing the article extensively and would welcome collaborative feedback/criticism. That said, if some form of neutralization along the lines of my edits is acceptable, I would strike my !vote/change my !vote to rename. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: Much better in terms of POV. We should of-course ascribe these attacks to communist or pro-Soviet militants (some of whom were Belarusian and Jewish as well as Polish (see [6] - which is on the wider the revolt). In the AfD - what is lacking in my mind is reliable secondary sources that address this in depth (e.g. books or articles by reputable historians) - the best I saw were blurb/list mentions - did you locate anything better?Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IPN gives a paragraph at (what is currently) ref3[7]. Ref6, Wybranowski 2002, is (as you point out) a newspaper article about the event. Those two are the sources which give the event more than two sentences and the first is arguably a primary source. All of the Wierzbicki sources are just one or two sentences, I think. The Szawlowski and Chodakiewicz books are also just one or two sentences (Note that current ref11 gives two Chodakiewicz sources, but the Polish American Congress document is entirely contained within the 2002 book, so you can see everything that book has on the incident in the document). So I do not find multiple "reliable secondary sources that address this in depth", so there is a case for delete based on WP:INDEPTH. I do not know if Wierzbicki, Szawłowski, or the involved members of IPN are reputable historians, although I think Chodakiewicz may not be reliable. I do not know anything about Nasz Dziennik or Wybranowski, and I have no problem if that paper and its material were cut - and I'd be happy to rewrite those bits if that were necessary. Just to be clear, there is a trick for seeing large sections of material that only exists in snippet view in google books (feel free to ask me on my talk page if you don't know it), so I am reasonably certain about the degree of coverage in sources available on google books. Also, my Polish is not very good, so I use google translate to assist. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IPN does multiple things (education, historical research, archive, and incvestigation/prosecution) - in this case (the not too long I will add - less than a page) this is a prosecutor's investigation report - which I would view as similar (ignoring POV/BIAS/RSness) to a police, FBI, or special commision report - which would be a primary source (as would be Soviet era records). Wybranowski (a career journalist) writing in Nasz Dziennik (a newspaper, fairly extreme in terms of editorial line) would not be a RS for history - it seems this reporting is mainly from second hand witness stories 60+ years later and was for the most part contradicted by other sources (such as they are).Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Note also timing of the initial newspaper report to shortly after the release of Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland (which caused hreat controvesy in Poland and covered the murder of Jews by Poles) - which makes the editorial line here a bit suspect.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to bring up the main content points in talk, but I wanted to put an update here. The source for the statement that as many as 50 people were killed is a genealogist's list, here, which cites Wierzbicki, Marek. Polacy i białorusini w zaborze sowieckim: stosunki polsko-białoruskie na ziemach północno-wschodnich II Rzeczypospolitej pod okupacją sowiecką 1939-1941. Volumen, 2000. I've looked at extended snippets from Wierzbicki for each of the names from the genealogist's list. I don't see snippets for all of the names, but it seems they are all in the book. None of the figures whose snippets I do find from the genealogist labels as being from Brzostowica Mała were said to be killed in that village in that book. Many are said to be from nearby pl:Brzostowica Wielka and other nearby villages. For an example, the first name on the list, Witold Beretti, was according to the book killed near his estate (się w pobliżu majątku) at pl:Parchimowce and was killed on the 22nd, not the 19th. In fact, according to that book, the killings in this region started at least by the 17th and continued until the 22nd when Soviet's arrived. After closely reading this section of the book (p70-74), I agree that these events do seem to be a mass murder/massacre. An article under the title Massacre of Brzostowica Mała should probably focus on the limited number of killings in that place on the 18th, that of hrabia Wołkowicki and his family. Thus, I've edited the article, moving the other events to a context and aftermath section. I still think there are serious POV issues regarding the framing of the perpetrators. I'm not sure what the title should be if the article sought to be about broader events. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my !vote. I don't know if the killings of the hrabia and his family on the 18th should be the main focus of the article, if it should focus on all of the results which took place in Grodno, or indeed all the revolts in Białystok Voivodeship. In the long run, I think articles on each of these are possible. Although there are still issues with POV/V and the title seems off, so I don't think removing the article is necessarily the right outcome. Right now, the article is a hybrid of an article on the killings of the hrabia and his family and an article on the revolts and killings in Grodno. This isn't a perfect endpoint for a stable article or set of articles, and I don't know if the endpoint should be a rename, splits/mergers/rewrites, or something else, so I'm not !voting merge or keep as I'm comfortable with a number of outcomes. For this AfD, I would also be happy with a number of outcomes, including: "keep and work things out at talk", "no consensus", "merge", or "rename". Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: My thoughts were that Skidel revolt should be the primary here (this article mainly duplicating it originally). Skidzyel’ is also in the vicinity of Grodno and is some 38km from Brzostowica Mała. One could imagine a different topic and much wider topic (than the hrabia and his family on the 18th) or inclusion in Soviet invasion of Poland#Domestic Reaction. There are POV issues and selective usage of sources in the present article in regards to the wider revolt(s)/welcoming, and the article would need to be renamed into a more widely used term.Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good outcome, and the sourcing right now seems to support the combining of the events (Strzembosz 2009 here for an instance I don't already see mentioned). I think the only source (and there are many now in the article) which does not report these events and those in skidel together is the 2003 IPN report, and that is only because that report lists events town by town as individual crimes without a section contextualizing them as a part of a larger event - done only because of the nature of the investigation and not meant to be used to exclude the relationship between the crimes. I'll go ahead and change my !vote to merge (with Skidel revolt), as that is the outcome I prefer. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the unifying strand between Skidel, Grodno, Brzostowica Mała, Brzostowica Wielky, and all of the revolts (and they are closely related) is the Communist Party(ies?) of Western Belorussia (KPZB). If the events were merged, a title for the umbrella article could be something like "September 1939 Communist Parties of Western Belorussia revolts". The Skidel revolt was particularly highly organized and successful and may have involved partisan units taking partial control of parts of the town (for instance, of the bridge over the Niemen), and so an article about it independent of this umbrella article might be appropriate. An article about the events in Brzostowica Mała on 18 September seems like it could only really be about the murders of the hrabia and his family, which seems possible but would be a poorly referenced stub. So my proposal to merge with is that the Skidel revolt article continue to focus on Skidel as a part of KPZB activities in the area, while this article, a summary of the Skidel revolts, and some new material about KPZB activities in regions neighboring Grodno be compiled under "September 1939 Communist Parties of Western Belorussia revolts" (or something similarly titled). I like the idea of keeping this separate from articles on Soviet occupation, as the KPZB was closely tied with the Soviets, but calling them one thing would be overstepping. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and very strongly so. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (obviously). References have just been greatly improved there. The crime was committed by a group of men with red armbands (Barkan, Cole, & Struve call them "red militia" in Shared History, Divided Memory). I did not include sources listed in the Notes to new sources: they can easily be traced back. — The nominator reminds me of this article's first AfD nominator, User:Boodlesthecat, both, painting Poland black. User:Boodlesthecat for example, fought tooth-and-nail to have the article Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust (written my me) deleted from Wikipedia in 2008 on (always the same) claims of the Polish internet sources being either fringe, biased, outright nationalist, far-right, diabolic, and bloodthirsty ... whenever the locals were involved in the killing of Poles. Poeticbent talk 11:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shame you did not mention being canvassed. [8].

Regarding the added sources - those of them we might deem reliable still mention this locality as just a brief blurb in the context of the wider Skidel revolt. The article still has rather glaring POV problems - possibly reflecting some of the unreliable and highly biased sources it is using (for details beyond a blurb), e.g. the ultra-nationalist [9] Nasz Dziennik which seems to have been the main source to have written at length here. Sourcing here is not close to what we'd expect for history (with an added possible BLPCRIME issue). Even the lede ascribing this (from sourcing on Skidel in general, and not this event) to "Belarusian and Jewish militias" is in this source ascribed to communist supporters of all ethnicities - including Poles. Chodakiewicz does indeed ascribe this chiefly to Jews and Belarusians, however hs is per the SPLC "a long history of right-wing activism and controversy surrounding anti-Semitism", "Chodakiewicz has a history of troubling, far-right views including repeatedly arguing that the killing of Polish Jews who survived the Holocaust by native Poles was not due to anti-Semitism, but rather to Jewish collaboration with Soviets."., "Chodakiewicz’s far-right beliefs have not only centered on dabbling in anti-Semitism. In January of 2017, he penned a piece lamenting what he called the “ongoing genocide against Whites” in South Africa. ". Our article is 'to the right of this fellow - as he even he feels the need to say chiefly (whereas in our article we have created bona fida "Belarusian and Jewish militias" - organizations that did not exist until much later (Skidel, at large, was a communist action).Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not canvassing. The note was made to help verify the existence of this massacre and sent to specifically to Poeticbent for a good reason: he has made significant contributions in this field.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Weak delete - There are Polish sources describing this event; I, however, cannot adequately translate them. POV may be a concern but, as is famously said for the dozens of poorly-written articles on recent murders and terror attacks (with BLPs!), deletion is not cleanup.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheGracefulSlick: POV is a concern - as well as this being a fork/duplicate of much of the content in Skidel revolt. But frankly - if I had been able to locate at least 2 reputable sources penned by historians and published in a reputable outlet at a decent length (say - at least 1 full book page, preferably 2-3 pages at least) - I wouldn't have AfDed - I would've NPOVed it based on the sources. I wasn't able to locate any such source - the most I see (in what I would consider borderline reputable) are blurbs (1 line, 3-4 lines) mentioning this incident in the context of the wider Skidel revolt. WWII is a widely researched topic area written about at length, and we mostly rely on academic quality sources for articles in the topic area. Can you point out to RSes supporting your position?Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Icewhiz I finally got around to translating the reports I found over to English and I wasn't satisfied. I think something happened here, but I don't think we can describe it as a "massacre"; I can only find bits and pieces of an incident, not indepth coverage. For that, I have changed my !vote for now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, I think the killing of of the countess during the pro-Soviet rebellion does probably (did not fully assess the quality of the sources, hence I qualify) pass WP:V - there are short blurbs mentioning this - but that would support a line or two in another article(s), not a standalone or anything close to this length.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The assertion that in 1939 there was a "a mass murder of the ethnic Polish inhabitants of Brzostowica Mała..." committed by "Belarusian and Jewish militias" and that not a single source on this event exists in any Germanic or Romance language is impossible to swallow. I do accept that this assertion is being made by a walled garden of Polish authors. The sole English-language source in the article (source #2., Barkan, Elazar; Cole, Elizabeth A.; Struve, Kai. Shared History, Divided Memory: Jews and Others in Soviet-occupied Poland. Leipziger Universitätsverlag. p. 140.) is used in a misleading manner to source the fact that a "mass murder" took place (in the lede) and to source extreme assertions in the first paragraph of the text. All that the sources actually asserts is that "anti-state revolt(s) occurred in many other small towns and settlements", followed by a list of towns including Wielka Brzostowica. Turn the page and the text continues, "local Jewish communities formed self-defense detachments that were intended to protect the Jews against raids and robberies such as the excesses that took place, for example, in..." There is no mention on pages 140 or 141 of any "mass murder" or '"massacres" in these towns,let alone of one committed by Jews against Poles. I find it frankly impossible to believe that such a "massacre" could have occurred without a source in any language west of Polish. And the sole English source that can be found not only refers to a nearby town with a similar name, it describes quite a different series of actions. Here are some searches on Brzostowica + massacre + 1939. google [10] hits are echos of this article; gbooks [11] nothing; gScholar brings up 4 article that mention all 3 keywords (Brzostowica + massacre + 1939) [12] in articles about massacres of Jews. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like everyone else, I am having difficulty finding English language sourcing. I have found one mention of two deaths by Elma Tryphosa Dangerfield in Beyond the Urals (1946), p. 19, along with other Soviet-related war atrocities prefatory to her discussion of the Gulags. "In the locality of Brzostowica Mala the local landowner, Antoni Wolkowicki, aged 70, was shot, while his wife, aged 60, was buried alive." but this does not really support describing this as a "massacre" and she seems to put the blame more on the Soviets. She also worked for MI9 and Ministry of Information (United Kingdom) during the war, so it's not even clear if this 1946 book is RS. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete in this case on WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TNT grounds. The content is rather poor, samples:

In 2002, the newspaper Nasz Dziennik interviewed a witness who was five years old at the time of the events. His testimony noted that the militants were armed with shotguns and axes and consisted mostly of Belarusians but included Jews and were led by Isaac (Ajzik) Zusko, son of Deli and Borucha and later a leader of the Polish Workers' Party^[1] and by a person named Koziejko from nearby village Małe Brzostowiczany.^[2]
The lack of success in naming the perpetrators by the institute was criticized in an exposé by one of the biggest national dailies Nasz Dziennik, who interviewed the only surviving eyewitness still alive in 2003, who was five years old at the time.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b Wybranowski, Wojciech (2002-10-02). "Kłopotliwe śledztwo. Dochodzenie w sprawie mordu na Polakach w Brzostowicy Małej utknęło w martwym punkcie" (in Polish). Nasz Dziennik. Archived from the original on 26 June 2011. Retrieved 31 January 2014.
^ Instytut Pamięci Narodowej (IPN), Informacja o działalności Komisji Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu w okresie 1 lipca 2002 – 30 czerwca 2003. Warsaw, November 2003. Sygn. akt S 50/01/Zk p. 52 – via Internet Archive.

This is WP:UNDUE weight given to the testimony of a *5-yr* old witness, who remembered the ethnicities and even names of the perpetrators? This just seems bizarre. It's unclear what has occurred so labelling it a "massacre" seems off. Like others, I'm concerned about the lack of secondary RS that such articles should normally be based on: history books, scholarly articles, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. In my admittedly imperfect rewrite I didn't add or remove sources, I just tried to make the article better match what the sources say (and in the process make the article more neutral). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. 60-year-old accounts by child witnesses are not WP:RS. I have tried a number of kinds of searches and am not finding notability for this event as an event. The murder of the 4 members of an aristocratic family could be mentioned in an article on partisan/Communist killings in the days following the German invasion of Poland in 1939, with reliable sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we do understand each other here. – The war ended over 70 years ago. Every single account of the Holocaust is an account of a child nowadays. There are NO other accounts. That includes everything, I mean, every single account of life in the ghetto or in concentration camps. – Have you ever attempted to dismiss them anywhere around here with our community's consent? If not, try it ... Poeticbent talk 04:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed some of the fringe and unreliable sources to see what this would look like if it focused on just what the investigation confirmed. The categories would need to be changed and a move would be needed. This is not a keep !vote, but just an experimental preview. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's not what you did. You and User:Smmurphy before you, changed the meaning of sourced statements to read like the Soviet postwar propaganda which is mentioned below towards the end. – You turned back into a Stalinist legend a band of robbers and murderers some of whom might have been freed from prison by the invasion of Poland, according to citations given. The murders of civilians were never disputed by historians. Poeticbent talk 04:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per the arguments above. There is some reliable sourcing for some, perhaps six, murders committed by undetermined perpetrators that might be includable in an article of more general scope, but I fear that a page on this specific topic will be a perpetual attraction for unreliable and fringe attacks on ethnic minorities. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if we need an SPI investigation here into the activities of 24.151.116.12 (160 edits) limiting their participation exclusively to deletion discussions. Poeticbent talk 16:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Polish-language sources are acceptable. There is no policy-based argument on deleting an article just because there are no English-language sources. Certainly this make verification harder, but so do subscription-based scholarly articles too, for example. I'm not convinced that the Polish-language sources are not RS. Based on Icewhiz's edit note the actual gripe seems to be that some of these Polish historians have "unsusual views, who some call anti-Semitic" (SPLC piece he was probably referencing to). So in essence, some Polish historians have different views on average, than Jewish (or let alone Soviet) historians. Not something we can really do anything about in Wikipedia, unless other historians dismiss their views. --Pudeo (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a double problem here - both BIASED (see later SPLC stmt I was referring to) non-RS sources AND lack of WP:INDEPTH coverage (including the Polish sources) - other editors have attempted to locate coverage of this that extends beyond a line, blurb, or paragraph by reputable historians - and have failed.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that recent edits (with massive reverts to prior POV/Sourcing issues) have added sources that do not mention Brzostowica Mała. For instance this diff, in a SYNTH, added an aside from Gross (an esteemed historian) The Soviet invasion of Poland (which began on 17 September 1939) was welcomed by the local committees. Entering troops were showered with flowers "(Jews seemed to have a predilection for kissing tanks; somehow no one mentions Ukrainian or Belorussians doing this)" wrote Jan Tomasz Gross.^[1]. However while Gross writes about the Soviet conquest at length (a whole book!) - he does not even mention this event in a single line.Icewhiz (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gross, Jan Tomasz. Revolution from Abroad. Princeton University Press. p. 29.

The paragraph in question – in our article – is about the Skidel revolt in particular, and about the Bialystok Voivodeship (during the Soviet invasion) in general. Surely enough, Skidel is in Gross's book along with the Bialystok Voivodeship mentioned throughout the entire volume. The information, provided for the benefit of our readers, serves as practical and useful background to the understanding of what happened in Brzostowica only one day later: it was a cluster of correlated events. Poeticbent talk 22:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything needs to be spelled out in each and every paragraph. Other locations are already named. Sometimes one look at the map of the region would be enough, and the subject is quite familiar to us already. Skidel, Grodno, and Brzostowica form a triangle about 1 hour drive across. Poeticbent talk 22:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there is other background material of relevance beyond Jewish tank kissing (for instance, Poles being a minority in these areas, and say the degree of acceptance by the non-Polish majority of the Polish rule following the Polish conquest in 1921)... However you basically seem to be making the case that this event should be a 1 liner (and it is already there) in the Skidel revolt - as they are closely connected.Icewhiz (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most of the sources are books, and frankly, that is enough. But the whole nomination and the arguments for deletion are, strikingly, attacks on the sources. From the laughably superficial (look, the sources are mostly in Polish!) to the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT ("I do not know if Wierzbicki, Szawłowski, or the involved members of IPN are reputable historians"). This would be fine if these attacks on the sources were citations of WP:RS attacking the sources and were cited in the article, but instead the attacks smack of WP:OR. First, the defective nomination: its (weak) main line of attack is that, according to it, the whole thing is based on an article in Nasz Dziennik, a major Polish newspaper, and the subsequent IPN investigation into it. The nominator says "(getting a bit circular, no?)". But editors have since eliminated the Nasz Dziennik ref (I would not have), and instead now there are 15 other sources, so the nominator's argument simply fell apart. Then you have objections to calling the murders "a massacre", yet in addition to at least 20 murders, the entire family of Count Antoni Wolkowicki was brutally tortured and murdered. On Wikipedia, murders^[1] of single^[2] nuclear^[3] families^[4] are routinely^[5] called "massacres", so this objection beggars belief. You then have attacks on historians: "we really only have the POV of one historian," which is not true, as the events are brought up by several historians, but focus on the real problem with this objection: the objector attacks a historian but produces no WP:RS at all opposing this particular historian's book! The objector simply does not like Prof. Marek Wierzbicki, member of Polish Academy of Sciences, director of BEP IPN in Radom (pl), a historian with over 10 books published between 1993 and 2016. Ugly. The next objection is also remarkable: the whole encyclopedic article is called WP:UNDUE because newspaper Nasz Dziennik interviewed a massacre survivor who was 5 years old at the time. Again, an overall attack on the whole Wikipedia entry based on just one detail of one major newspaper's report. Why so much animosity against a Wikipedia article? Where are the WP:RS objecting to the testimony of a survivor who was a minor at the time? (If you have them, include them on the article!) Anyway, the Nasz Dziennik source has unnecessarily been expunged, so the whole objection is now entirely irrelevant. Finally, it is worth pointing out that the article as it stands now is far, far from perfect, and cleanup is necessary. For example, the Jan Tomasz Gross quote would be more suitable in a "background" section explaining why major or minor portions of some Polish minorities were in favor of the National Socialist and Soviet invasion of Poland (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact); whereas where it sits now, the quote is susceptible to accusations of synth. But per WP:DINC AfD is not cleanup, so the place to raise these sort of issues is the TP, not here. XavierItzm (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XavierItzm I am surprised by your disturbingly low sense of good-faith, especially toward Icewhiz (the nom) and E.M.Gregory. How well did you read the rationales? You are twisting them dramatically to imply bad faith.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm: - Ignore POV and factual issues (e.g. 20 murdered which has been refuted). Ignore the sheer quantity of refs added (edit warring out the cleanup by Smmurphy and the ip). Please examine the actual sources. Some do not mention the event at all (e.g. Gross who is being used to source Jews kissed tanks). Most of the others are one-liners. A few have a blurb to a paragraph. The sole WP:INDEPTH source is Nasz Dziennik, which is not a source we would usually use for history (and one could also question whether an interview is primary or secondary) - but even if it were, we would still be lacking WP:SIGCOV - as we only have a single source (with issues!) that covers this at length. I would appreciate if you could point to sources (preferrably by repuable historians in a peer reviewed journal or book by a reputable publisher) - say at least 2 - with coverage of at least a whole page each (2-3 pages would be better) on which we could base this article?Icewhiz (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

«Ignore POV and factual issues (e.g. 20 murdered which has been refuted)». I wish you would strikethrough that. In the relevant TP you have since admitted that the massacre is at least 22. Thank you. XavierItzm (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm: No - I have not admitted that. I did say that a non-RS (a Polish genealogical site) lists 22 names - this is not an appropriate source (just as non-Polish sites of this nature are not) - it is not peer reviewed. The later IPN investigation - lists 6 victims. And what is generally lacking here - is reputable secondary sources discussing this in WP:INDEPTH - sourcing here consists of one-liners and blurbs, a paragraph by IPN (a PRIMARY source), and a newspaper article in Nasz Dziennik (which is quite a POVish source, and which later sources (e.g. the IPN) contradict).Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Marek Wierzbicki, this source - Shared History, Divided Memory: Jews and Others in Soviet-occupied Poland - discusses him as part of a group of ethno-nationalist historians (Tomasz Strzembosz, Bogdan Musiał, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz). However as sources presented to date have Wierzbicki addressing this event as a one-liner or in a list of locations as part of the wider Skidel revolt - sourcing to him fails on lack WP:INDEPTH regardless.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so you insist in disqualifying the source with the 22 names. Fine, you are still, hairsplitting. You yourself have linked the full text of the Institute of National Remembrance, describing the massacre (including the gory details of the burials while alive), and listing the following victims, which I quote: «They seized the count Antoni and his wife Ludwika Wołkowycki [...] The same group imprisoned the mayor, secretary and cashier of the commune in Brzostowica Mała and the local postman and teacher. Then the perpetrators murdered all detainees». The source is unimpeachable and not wanting to call this a massacre is absurd given the usual Wikipedia standards already cited. But the larger point is that you cannot take a difference of magnitude in the sources of the massacre to memory-hole the whole thing, since deletion is not cleanup WP:DINC. Rather, I would encourage you to constructively edit the article to raise these sorts of issues... one source says, another source says, etc., etc. XavierItzm (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Unless the argument is that this article is about an "event" that did not happen, it ought to be notable. This concerns an area that ceased to be part of Poland in 1939. USSR and successor states would have had an interest in suppressing it, as would communist-era Poland. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an alleged "massacre" of "mass murder" that did not happen. Reliable sources have not been found to support the allegations in the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- POV and unreliable sources. FRINGE.--יניב הורון (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge what is useful of the content into Skidel revolt (if it isn't already there). As per poster there do not seem to be enough RS specifically covering this topic. Until there are, judging from the discussion above, it seems this page is likely to be a lightningrod for POV warring. For the sake of all of our sanities, it seems discussing this in the context of Skidel revolt rather than an article titled "massacre" and attributing it to ethnic fifth columns will likely engender a more civil debate on the topic. If and when more RS emerge or are found that specifically discuss this topic, it might make sense to split again if Skidel becomes too lengthy, but looking at the present state of affairs that is unlikely for the foreseeable future. --Calthinus (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable event and we have reliable sources confirming that it did happen.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. Minor, controversial, but notable event. This is the usual 'Foo-nationality can do no wrong so delete'-type of discussion (at least to some participants, sigh). The event was a subject of scholarly research, and has generated media coverage (at least in Poland, bias of some of that media side). It is notable, and that's the end of the story. AfD is not a place for people to delete things they don't like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenough_Family_Massacre
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbly_Family_massacre
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_royal_massacre
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_attack
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khairlanji_massacre

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Gerry Adams. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Adams[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur; affiliated with one notable company, but that's insufficient for notability. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or self-promotion. Not notable as a media contributor either. Proposing to convert to a protected redirect to Gerry Adams. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article as non-notable; Wikipedia is not a newspaper and per nom, redirect name to Gerard Adams, who was the Leader of the Sinn Féin political party (IRA). Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are ample sources in the article -- including Huffington Post or NJ.com -- that are the in-depth coverage in reliable and verifiable sources that met the notability standard. Simple assertions that someone is "non-notable" that do not address the existence of robust sources should be given little to no weight. Alansohn (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. He's only known to associate with one not that well known company and that's not enough. Acnetj (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fullmer[edit]

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

I couldn't find any sources I could use on this article on Google. No secondary sources on the article itself. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless it is significantly improved to explain why the cited sources are relevant within or beyond his professional sector.Acnetj (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Removed External links in body of article and Selected Works as there was no indication anything is notable beyond just being published. This what is left does not show any indication of notability VViking_TalkEdits 13:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Downing Street Head of Operations[edit]

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

Non-notable political office. No substantial coverage demonstrated or that I can find. Ralbegen (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't an official title, it is a current job description that can change at any time. For example next year it might be "Head of affairs" or "Honcho". The refs don't support the exact title "Head of Operations" and discuss politics instead. Szzuk (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jahid Fazal-Karim[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 20:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Paid puff piece on the head of a low-notability company. Only passing mentions in the sources, for which the one-edit WP:SPA article creator couldn't even be bothered to add the web links. Fails WP:BIO. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Ricke[edit]

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

Claim to fame is a being a contestant on a TV show... does not meet general notability standards. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted, she is not notable enough and none of the other contestants have articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.233.33 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has made the news prior to her television stint. Not every person on a reality competition show can say that, but she can; in fact, she's not the only person from Survivor with an article. Greggens (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Making the news does not ensure reliability. Her roles as a college diver, Survivor contestant and animal trainer roles do not establish notability, either. Fbdave (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If you were to say that she is notable enough to receive her own Wikipedia page, by those standards, every Survivor contestant should receive their own page as well. Goveganplease (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing per WP:SNOW as there is overwhelming consensus that this page is an appropriate spinoff from the main article. User:Malik Shabazz helpfully quotes a paragraph from the guideline that explains the difference between content forks and spinoffs. A summary section should remain in the main article to briefly describe the content of the spinoff page, this can be done after the current protection expires later today. All are reminded that editors who engage in edit warring, whether at this page or the main article, are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany[edit]

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

The Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany article is an example of Content forking. The article was created by User:Piotrus on 14 March, 18 right in the middle of several prolonged and heated content disputes [13] on the Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II page, regarding the Poland section, which resulted in the article being LOCKED by admins [14] and one user was block temporarily for edit warring [15]. But, instead of waiting for all parties to cool-off and resume the discussion, a new article was created from the content that was reverted by admins [16]. This is a very troubling act, as it duplicates the content from the original article, and also tries to circumvent restriction placed by admins, due to disruptive editing that affected the original article. Thus, creating more confusion, gridlock and edit warring. --E-960 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note of criticism to editors from E-960. I'd like to voice my concerns as to what's going on with this topic, though some might strongly disagree with the comment I'm about to make. But, I keep thinking about Criticism of Wikipedia in this case, and how this issue translates to the topic of Polish collaboration.
At this point we have three LONG texts on Wikipedia regarding this subject matter:

Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany - 1,600 words

Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II#Poland - 1,200 words

History of Poland (1939–1945)#Collaboration with the occupiers - 1,000 words
Yet, with the exception of one or two editors, everyone is like — YEAH!! we need more stuff on Polish Collaboration cause two texts weren't enough for Poland — and Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view including UNDUE WIEGHT, BALANCING ASPECTS, EQUAL VALIDITY are ignored and dismissed as irrelevant, just a numbing mob call that this is a VALID TOPIC. --E-960 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Matters of "undue weight" and "balance" pertain to viewpoints within the coverage of a given topic, not to how much coverage on WP the topic is given. If there is a lot of sources about a topic, then there will be a lot written about it here. Luckily the majority of editors doesn't seem to be too concerned with curtailing that in favour of aiding Poland in its current face-saving program, but rather with making available the reams of material that have become available (mostly through a rather pleasing backlash to said whitewashing attempts). We absolutely want articles on similar topics with regard to other countries; but their absence is not in the least indicative of a need to present less about Poland. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, no bias on your part that's for sure... otherwise, how else could you just flat out say "...Poland in its current face-saving program". All you are concerned with is promoting some liberal/left-wing POV onto every topic imaginable. Anything outside of that, is just someone else's "propaganda" not to be taken into consideration, Perfect example of this is how some editors immediately questions historians and reliable sources from Poland in those articles, just because they were Polish, calling them lies or libel — no bias here right. BTW, I'm not arguing to take down a long standing article, but one that was just created, for no good reason. --E-960 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many viewpoints here, I feel that a core component of WP:NPOV is to not let your point of view to influence your opinion wherever possible. Not to metaphorically pick up a war-club and charge at someone with an opposing view, because that is just going to create a problem. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a POV fork but is a valid attempt to cover a complex and contentious topic within it's own article rather then clogging up another (overview) article. The content removed by admins was for no other reason then an edit war and setting back the page to it's pre-edit war state, it was not a comment on the content itself.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete For reasons stated above. --E-960 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)~~ [reply]
- Warning: duplicated vote by the nom (E-960). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator doesn't get a highlighted !vote unless it comes immedately after the nomination and says "Delete - as nom". Otherwise, it is much too easy to take as a second vote. DO NOT REMOVE THE STRIKEOUT. You may have created the nomination, but you do not WP:OWN the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Slatersteven. This nomination was made in bad faith by an editor who for the past month or more has been trying to whitewash the section about Poland in Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, shifting all blame away from ethnic Poles, and over to the Polish Jews themselves (see page history of that article, and compare revisions...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom hasseling editor who voted against deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note to editors: Pls disregard user Thomas.W trolling comment (Wikipedia:Assume bad faith), made without any proof. --E-960 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W, on a side note what you just said is slander, removing content added by an editor that is now blocked for edit warring is not "whitewashing" (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle), and I was not the only one to revert those edits. BTW, how do you shift collaboration, as you say it? What Poles did they did, and what Polish-Jews did they did, and you can't shift the Jewish Ghetto Police on Poles, just as you can't shift the Blue Police on Jews. --E-960 (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Slander"? You must be joking. What I did was explaining to other editors what has happended on that article, and suggesting they check the page history themselves. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W, what you did was to make an inaccurate statement for other editors to stumble on, and just for the record can you explain that glib "shift blame" comment you made? --E-960 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not slander. You DID vote twice. --Tarage (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I think that's besides the point of the direction of where the disscussion went. --E-960 (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I struck the nominator's extra delete !vote, pointing out to them on their talk page that they shouldn't add a bolded !vote since the nomination counts as delete (per WP:DISCUSSAFD]), but they removed the strike, and have thus double-!voted here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany, not any user or any other article, please stay focused.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reason in Talk:Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The modern Polish narrative of Poland being the only nation that did not collaborate has, in a catch22, vastly increased coverage of Polish collaboration. The topic has been covered in depth by multiple RS and is clearly notable. The content in the list article grew to the point a separate article was warranted.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect?Pincrete (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, valid topic. I guess controversial topics will always have people warring over them but that's no matter. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm choosing the deletion. There are various essential reasons for it; I'll explain later. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still waiting... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll skip me explaining as it will not change the overwhelmed "Keep" vote outcome. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- certainly viable as a stand-alone article; see for example: "Why the Poles Collaborated so Little: And Why That Is No Reason for Nationalist Hubris", by John Connelly, Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Winter, 2005), pp. 771-781 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649912. A valid WP:SPINOUT; meets WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom is wrong. This is not a content fork, and had he actually read the guideline he cited he would have seen that:

A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. (underlining and emphasis added)

Clearly there was too much material about Poland to keep adding to Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, and there was a talk page consensus to split the material about Poland to its own article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a no-brainer that this is a valid subject for an article, and has significant coverage in reliable sources. A summary of this article should remain in the Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peacemaker. There is a large literature on this topic, and it's a large enough article to justify being split out. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly enough material for a standalone article, excellent sourcing. The current summary at Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II#Poland strikes me as a little long, but that can always be whittled down. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable subject and easily passes GNG. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a proper subject for an encyclopedia entry. Whether the current article is balanced is a different question (though I think it does a good job for such a contentious topic), but one for future amendment, not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per proposal, besides, there is already History of Poland (1939–1945)#Collaboration with the occupiers. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a proper WP:SPINOUT from a long parent article. Some of this information is also at History of Poland (1939–1945)#Collaboration with the occupiers as noted just above, so a further hatnote should probably be added there and both entries at the general articles may need to be trimmed some per WP:SUMMARY. This is a complex and contentious topic, but treating it in its own article is the best way to provide all the context and viewpoints presented in reliable sources. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a controversial topic but notable and the article is well-written. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well researched and contains details not available in other Wikipedia entries. As a related subject for another discussion, one may argue with the selectivity of this article's creation — there are, as of this writing, only three other such articles, all of which reference adjoining countries — Byelorussian collaboration with the Axis powers, Russian collaborationism with the Axis powers and Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers [the Byelorussian and Russian articles have been currently nominated for renaming to match the form used in the main title header of the Polish article under discussion]. Examination of the all-inclusive article Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II provides links to such articles as Denmark in World War II, but not Danish collaboration with Nazi Germany; Vichy France, but not French collaboration with Nazi Germany; Netherlands in World War II and Reichskommissariat Niederlande, but not Dutch collaboration with Nazi Germany; German occupation of Norway, but not Norwegian collaboration with Nazi Germany, etc. Such titles await creation to focus the same analogous spotlight upon the well-documented collaboration in Western European nations. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think one reason is because these have not had major edit wars recently that have disrupted other articles. Nor (as far as I know) are any of them currently subject to a major (and indeed international) controversy. In most of these countries collaboration in not a hot topic and controversy (a closer analogy might be Germany itself).Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These red links could indeed be spun off as articles in their own right. Sources do exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask all users to comment on this articles deletion, not each other or other articles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you spend time reading that comment it is clear that Roman Spinner does comment on the merits of this article, then moves on by saying As a related subject for another discussion, I don't see any evidence of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments or infact any dubious arguments except the continuation of an edit war by the nom and others over points of view. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was not indented as a reply to him, but as a general request to a number of users.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I was only saying that because it's the most obvious comment where someone could get that impression. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history you will see who I was thinking of.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two points need to be specifically addressed — "In most of these countries collaboration in not a hot topic and controversy" — neither is it in Poland. In fact, it is a source of Polish self-esteem and pride that, as pointed out in the very article under discussion, "Unlike the situation in most European countries occupied by Nazi Germany where the Germans successfully installed collaborating authorities, in occupied Poland such attempts failed." The point immediately preceding — "currently subject to a major (and indeed international) controversy" — concerns not collaboration, but the "Polish death camp" controversy. This controversy is not new — the Wikipedia article on the subject was created on January 28, 2006 as Polish death camps and was twice retitled in 2007 as Polish death camps (incorrect term) [those former main title headers still serve as redirects]. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet not only do we now have anti-polish defamation laws, but a major international crisis. The timing is not accidental.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course, for reasons states already. François Robere (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons stated in my post at the WP:NPOV noticeboard. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a content fork, and a notable subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article provides a venue for clarifying many questions in one place. Nihil novi (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid subject. Agathoclea (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Obviously. Some of the cases quoted represent collaboration under duress, a topic which might be more fully covered in a rather terse lead section. That applies to army conscripts (which seems to include people who would have been Prussian citizens pre-1918); and Jewish Councils (whose members were probably trying the shield Jews as far as they could from Nazi oppression). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. I've created this because the underlying topic is clearly notable. Yes, there's relevant content in other articles (I didn't even know about the section at History of Poland.. article). Now they can be shortened, and relevant debates hopefully centralized in one place. People should not confuse creation of articles on controversial topics with having a particular POV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Obvious political motivation for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Bengal[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)

Article is a biography of a cat which is largely unsourced to RS. She does have an article on Buzzfeed, but it is just a photo set devoid of biographical data. Other sources like catster.com and thepurringpost.com are non-RS. A search on Google News finds less than half-a-dozen references, all of which are either simply one-sentence mentions of Angel's social accounts, or are non-RS such as lifestyle.bg. I also checked JSTOR and Google Books which find no mentions. Many claims, such as that Angel likes to follow her owner Maria everywhere, and likes to cook and clean with Maria are completely unsourced and may violate WP:BLP (in terms of Maria, not Angel). May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all part of an attempt to pimp the cat for financial gain. Must follow WP:BLC Bio of a Living Cat policies. Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just wanted to note that not finding information about a cat social media personality on JSTOR is expected. That's not the sort of resource that would have information on something like that. Also, does a cat even fall under BLP policy? Anyways, I support deleting this article due to notability. _{Vermont | reply here} 19:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If BLP could mean Biography of Living Purrers, then maybe Dax Bane 19:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closer, please note that Angel posted a link to Angel Bengal to her Facebook page [17] a few minutes after the page was created, so there may be an influx of SPAs !voting in this AfD. It also seems the page may have been created by Angel, or by someone closely associated with Angel. Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
aw cute :D -- but seriously, articles on individual animals are rarely notable due to lack of reliable sources, and in this instance there is a major lack of reliable sources. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I do not think I have ever seen such abusive use of language to promote a subject on Wikipedia before. I am still reeling from the unfounded claim that BuzzFeed is a "big company".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vote for keep the article if the merch part will be removed. Also seems the cat supports very important cause of Mental Illness, I checked with GMLP ant it's true. You can find it on their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaGioTV (talk • contribs) 09:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — MariaGioTV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Also seems the cat supports very important cause of Mental Illness" The cat is undoubtedly involved in someone's mental illness. Chetsford (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* DON'T Delete the user Chestford posted wrong information supporting deletion, I look at the Facebook page , it was created long time ago and has 40k fans. Looks like it may be just a conflict of interests because the user Chestford has a cat as his profile pic. IMHO. BuzzFeed article was posted by editorial director Jack Shepard, meaning it has valuable information. Also Vogue mag only supports reliable sources of information.Don't know about other sources though. The cat does really have over 100k fans on Instagram. I vote for keeping the article and also agree that merchandise part has to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenisNYC (talk • contribs) 09:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — DenisNYC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DenisNYC blocked as confirmed sock of MariaGioTV; !vote stricken.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete this is what Wikipedia is not. Dressed up cats - no, no, no, no. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm surprised at the lack of keep votes. Given the very low notability bar for some phenomena. Horrible tho it is , I'm sure there are notable internet cats. Can we keep this article? muck like this is a pleasure to copyedit.TheLongTone (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vimcu. Wikipedian Cat does not approve. (uikipidias mlatu cu zukte na zanru) But in all seriousness, violates WP:GNG. (junri i ti na vajni banzu) lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussions on whether or not the title should be changed should be done as a requested move. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nishiyama Minako[edit]

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

No real evidence of notability. Google search shows that she exists, and shows the usual vanity hits, but no in-depth independent coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Likely~~ keep. On its face, the exhibition at the 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art, Kanazawa (a national-level institution) is good evidence of notability to me. It appears she's also had works presented at the Setagaya Art Museum, among other places. Is there a specific notability guideline for artists that you're arguing this doesn't meet? Dekimasuよ! 21:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, most cites will be under Minako Nishiyama, which is also where the article should be per our title guidelines. Google Books brings back significant coverage in Consuming Bodies: Sex and Contemporary Japanese Art edited by Fran Lloyd, along with hits in Schoolgirls, Money and Rebellion in Japan by Sharon Kinsella, Architecture: The AIA Journal, etc. Dekimasuよ! 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG, in addition to above, Nishiyama has had her work exhibited on numerous occasions at various galleries, here is a list, and another here that includes journal articles. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exhibiting "on numerous occasions at various galleries" is 100% routine non-notable activity for all artists. That is what artists do: make work and exhibit. Exhibiting is only mentioned in WP:CREATIVE for very major exhibitions, so it would be good if you stopped using this for a rationale at AfD because it is patently lame as one.104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why dont u just go and get ...... Coolabahapple (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

by this i mean go and get reading wp:creative instead of insulting people. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it that way. I was merely pointing out that arguing that an artist is notable because they "Exhibit on numerous occasions at various galleries" is not a convincing argument. Nor is it included in WP:CREATIVE. The GIST of WP:CREATIVE is that artists need to have done serious, important shows, created important work, made a significant impact in the field, and/or become a notable and important member of the creative profession as recognized by their peers. Exhibiting "on numerous occasions at various galleries" is like the first rung of the ladder for an artist.104.163.147.121 (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "That is what artists do: make work and exhibit" and thats how their body of work gets "well known", oh look part of no.3 of wp:creative.... and being discussed/reviewed in journals/books (part of what is cited above) the other part of no.3. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read part 3 of WP:CREATIVE, which you are completely misinterpreting it. It says: "3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In short, it says 3a) artist does something important and 3b) someone writes something major about it in a major book, film, etc. MAJOR is the key word. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

104.163.147.121, you are ignoring "well-known work(s), and "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." in your above statement, and placing too much emphasis on the word "major" that in 3. relates to the creation of the work(s) only, whether something is "significant" on the other hand ... is revealed by the 2nd sentence ie. be "the primary subject of an independent and notable work or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the policy. You've missed the phrase "in addition" that joins major work with reviews and criticism. The two go together.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this particular artist has been the subject "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," I'd suggest that this discussion would best be continued on user talk pages. Dekimasuよ! 23:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi Dekimasu, sorry about this, i sometimes(?) get carried away, and will stop this now. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A little searching turns up a long list of national and international exhibitions, as well as multiple references in books about Japanese culture and art. Which I have added. I also agree that the article name should be changed to Minako Nishiyama as per guidelines. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough sources showing passing both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a lengthy Google search for Minako Nishiyama only turns up announcements of minor exhibitions, but no indepth profiles of her as an artist, or even of the exhibitions themselves, except for news about a giant toilet shaped like a cake[[18]], and a paragraph in a book about one work.[[19]] Between what I found and what is in the article, there is insufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG. A french Wikipedia article is likewise poorly sourced.[[20]] The Japanese Wiki site is inscrutable. Are there any accessible sources which demonstrate notability? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Hellbound Heart. Content remains in the history for a selective merge if anyone wishes to do so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lemarchand's box[edit]

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

Unreferenced plot summary. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Hellbound Heart as a notable element of the story but perhaps not notable enough for its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. To hellbound heart or Hellraiser. Szzuk (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced plot not worth merging. Sandstein 22:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hellbound Heart - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Grisham[edit]

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

Any notability Grisham may have is primarily from events he himself has staged to get his name in the news. Grisham is a non-notable publicity seeker. The Grisham page was obviously created by Grisham to increase his public profile.

Grisham is not notable as a military figure.

The Military history/Notability guide lists eight criteria, anyone of which makes a person eligible, Grisham does not satisfy any requirement. There were 2462 Bronze Stars with Valor awarded during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

His “political career” is not notable. He announced a run for State Senate and then dropped out before the primary. He ran for Texas State Representative and came in third of three. He has not held public office.

Grisham is not a significant influencer he has only 725 followers on Twitter. He does not wield influence outside a small circle of people. When he tweets something there are rarely any likes or retweets.
8 of the references are from the Temple Daily Telegram which on it’s best day has a circulation of less than 20,000. Only two different reporters wrote those 8 articles.
Reference #2 and #4 are from the same Army Times article using information provided by Grisham.
Reference #5 is from Grisham’s own blog.
Reference #25 is an opinion piece from an unknown blogger.
2 references are the Army Times and 1 from Stars and Stripes, both are trade publications with a limited readership.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.164.117 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination for IP based on the statement on their user talk page. ~ GB fan 17:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. The second fails because he's a just an unsuccessful political candidate and because bloggers are a dime a dozen. Observation: Grisham never claimed to be an infantryman, but he's wearing a CIB in his photo; curious, that. Fails WP:RS?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing amounts to notability. He is a low level publicity seeker, who has been trounced in multiple state legislative elections. This is not the things notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails W:SOLDIER and WP:POLITICIAN. Barring exceptional circumstances, you have to get elected to be presumed notable as a politician. Willing to entertain arguments about the Army Times and Stars and Stripes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mystery Science Theater 3000. Sandstein 22:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite of Love (Mystery Science Theater 3000)[edit]

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

All plot, no indication of real-world notability. All 22 inline references are primary. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mystery Science Theater 3000 Fully agree about article, and knowing what I did in dev expansion for the main show, the element is just not notable. But it is a searchable term (even if disambiguated. --Masem (t) 17:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a stand-alone topic. I don't see a better merge/redirect target than the main Mystery Science Theater 3000 article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Masem. No independent sources are cited that support the notability of this fictional location. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Masem._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Grabara[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Have only played 1 senior game in fourth tier of Polish football [21]. I don't think U21 cap is enough for him to be notable. — Dudek1337 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY, playing as a youth international isn't enough. NZFC^(talk) 17:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he's only played youth internationals, not senior team. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, if he does go on loan or makes his debut salting won't help. Govvy (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. it's a promo without proper sources or any evidence that it's notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Takwene[edit]

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

I would say that is borderline WP:A7 but not quite. Current sources are exhaustive directory listings (i.e. not showing notability). I can find nothing better in English (though maybe it is better in Arabic), but the fact it has <100 Twitter followers makes me doubt its purported notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe not an A7 because it claims it is a nationally prominent company, but I couldn't find anything in the way of sources, or how we could turn this article into something encyclopedic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff White (actor)[edit]

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

Switching this over to AfD since I don't feel like going back and forth with what is and isn't an RS. Non-notable extra-type actor with single appearances in a few notable shows. No coverage, no significant or lasting work, fails WP:GNG CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete his one mentioned role does not cut it as significant, it was a minor role. Beyond that, the article has 0 reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles have been listed — the notability claim for an actor is not "has had roles", but "has received enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG for the having of roles". But the only "reference" present here at all is his IMDb profile, which is not a notability-supporting source. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if he starts receiving enough media coverage to clear GNG and/or gets an Oscar, Emmy or Canadian Screen Award nomination for one of them — but he's not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

F. M. Khan[edit]

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

Not much coverage, very promotional. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, so its a delete by me. M A A Z T A L K 13:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks any usable sources in the article and my own search is not much better. I found this blog posting discussing the book "The Story of Gilgit-Baltistan and Chitral", but this is not a reliable source. Worldcat shows editons of the book. Two are in English and two are in Urdu. The holdings are scant. The English versions are held in 13 libraries, and the Urdu version in 2 libraries. I don't see being the author of this book as a claim to notability. The other claims to notability are unclear. Being on the board of directors for a chamber of commerce isn't really a strong claim. The claim of being a successful businessman provides no specifics to investigate. Writing some newspaper articles is not a good claim for notability either. The three external links are not useful. The first is a link to the main page of the chamber of commerce; not at all useful. The second is a letter to the editor written by the subject and and the third is a response letter; again not useful. -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus between keep and merge. Sandstein 21:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony No. 12 (Glass)[edit]

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

It's too soon for an article on this musical piece scheduled to debut next year. No information other than announced concert dates appears to exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is somewhat more out there about this long-awaited ([22][23]) work, which will complete Glass's trilogy of symphonies inspired by the Berlin Trilogy of David Bowie.[24][25] A straight deletion of this article seems out of place, since users are likely to be seeking information about the work from now until the premieres early next year; it would be better to keep this or at least find a good redirect/merge target. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this article is not kept, an appropriate merge/redirect target would appear to be Philip Glass#2008–present: Chamber music, concertos and symphonies. ebbillings (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's got good sources (Guardian, LA Times). I agree a redirect/merge target is probably appropriate for the time being as it's still 10 months away. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources are out there to justify an article; we could merge to Philip Glass#2008–present: Chamber music, concertos and symphonies as suggested above, but we'd be splitting it off again in less than a year, which seems like more hassle than is really necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I understand and usually share concerns about WP:CRYSTAL, but this work has generated substantial coverage from reputable sources which justify keeping this article. Further, XOR'easter's point is well made. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The Guardian article (Philip Glass completes his David Bowie trilogy with Lodger symphony) is certainly a WP:RS, but it's the only one and it's not enough. The LA Times article (Solo but Not Alone) is from 1997 and (obviously) doesn't mention this piece. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sabih Mansoor[edit]

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

Not much coverage. Fails WP:NWRITER. Störm (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, not enough sources mentioned, so, I'm going with delete. M A A Z T A L K 13:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Comparison of photo gallery software. Sandstein 21:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coppermine Photo Gallery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable software. There's no doubt that this is used a lot, but I'm not seeing any of the editorial coverage required by WP:NSOFT#Inclusion. It's mentioned in a number of books, some by reputable publishers, but they're all just cursory and/or obligatory mentions in all-inclusive how-to manuals. The first AfD on this was ten years ago, when our standards are lower. If that AfD were re-closed today with the existing arguments, I'm pretty sure it would be closed as delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of photo gallery software per Noyster. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of photo gallery software : Noyster (talk), 18:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zenphoto is more notable than Coppermine Photo Gallery, per talk:Zenphoto. Since the consensus for the more-popular software of Zenphoto was to redirect to a listing of image-gallery softwares, then this should apply to both Coppermine Photo Gallery and Gallery Project as well, especially since Gallery Project is no longer in active development. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenphoto (2nd nomination) Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Crusade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about a fanmade game that hasn't received notability/coverage for similar projects such as Super Smash Flash or Project M. The article is poorly written, talks more about the soundtrack of the game than the game itself, and was only decided as "Speedy keep" in its first nomination for deletion because the nomination was withdrawn sans discussion. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, it has coverage in sources. It needs substantial coverage in reliable sources. What's there now is entirely WP:SPS. Unable to find needed coverage. Simply not notable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Super Smash Flash isn't doing too hot either. Not a whole lot of obvious RS coverage in that article presently. As for this article, there is also a Kotaku review, besides the two SiliconEra items in the article. Maybe there's scope for a Super Smash Bros. fan games article, or a small section (which there definitely should be per WP:SUMMARY) in Super Smash Bros.. I'm somewhere between a "merge" and a "delete" with this one. --Izno (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd need some real convincing that a fan-made project meets notability standards; it's not like a release from a major publisher, where one can assume that some amount of independent sourcing exists, though it may not be enough to meet notability standards. This article simply does not establish the subject's notability.--NukeofEarl (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of cryptocurrencies. Sandstein 21:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of scrypt crypto currencies[edit]

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

Unsourced, useless and inaccurate, completely superfluous to the vastly superior List of cryptocurrencies which includes a sortable table to list by hashing algorithm. Most the entries are fiat currencies: Francs, Rupees, Shilling's. Elements? Einsteinium, etc. The bluelinks are totally not even cryptocurrencies! Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to verify some of them even exist. And I don't understand the need to introduce unnecessary wikilinks that link to unrelated pages. MT Train^Talk 18:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, unverified and probably fails WP:LISTN too. Ajf773 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of cryptocurrencies - redundant, unsourced, and wiki-link problems. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And redirect per power-enwiki. Anyone viewing this AfD is welcome to participate in a discussion on what to do with all these articles on Talk:Cryptocurrency L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a vote for or against but the nominator has been locked globally for socking. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Jones (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Local city councilors are not inherently notable, although for larger cities (i.e. Toronto) they do tend to be kept. I don't think this extends to Calgary by default. While he was the recipient of various awards (two Queens Jubilee award/medals for example), these were awarded to hundreds of thousands of people worldwide (and upwards of 40,000 in Canada alone), so I don't think that is significant enough to warrant notability by default. The article is made up of noting these awards and election results, and while I am somewhat on the fence, I lean towards deletion for this marginal BLP. kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. The actual standard for presumed notability of city councillors is global city status, which has been historically presumed to include Calgary (as well as Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, for a total of six Canadian cities) — but that said, consensus can change, and I can see a case for reviewing whether Calgary and Edmonton should actually continue to qualify or not. (We did revisit the question of Winnipeg's historic presumption of notability last year, and consensus yanked it — so there are valid grounds for revisiting whether certain cities should retain that status or not.)
All of that said, what we need to make an article about a city councillor valuable is substantive content about his political career (such as his actual positions on specific issues, specific civic projects he spearheaded or opposed, and on and so forth.) But apart from the repetition of basic election results that are already in the election articles anyway, the only other content present here at all is the non-notable community service awards, and Kelapstick is entirely correct that those aren't notability claims per se. If the article contained some actual substance about his career in politics, I'd be down with the keep — but all it actually does is list his successive election and reelection statistics, in a way that offers nothing that a reader can't already get just by following the results tables in the election articles themselves, and there's no point in keeping an article like that. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think as a rule Calgary could default to keep as far as city councilors go, provided there is substance to the article or notability outside that role. But as you say, the article should be more than just a regurgitation of election results, which are available elsewhere. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and doesn't appear to meet GNG, the only independent coverage I find is akin to [26] which is pretty trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes the SNG for Politicians as the elected city council member of a major metropolitan center. The population of Calgary is approximately 1.25 million. Carrite (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete, Calgary is on the borderline in terms of scale. Ran a quick search for non-routine coverage, found [http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/ward-10-veteran-councillor-ray-jones-says-this-will-be-his-last-term

Ward 10: Veteran councillor Ray Jones says this will be his last term] in the Calgary Herald fall 2017. I was looking for some indication that he is notable for some issue, some impact, but the best the reporter could do was "longest serving" Calgary councilman. Ping me if I missed something, but it really does look like a case of non notable politician.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Ree[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography. There is some coverage like [27] and [28] and being a spokesperson for Belaire Rosé is probably not something every musician achieves which allows the article to escape speedy deletion. Alas, that seems to be the extent of Ms. Ree's fame since I cannot find anything more than those interviews and a few passing mentions such as [29] or [30]. There seems to be nothing to establish her as notable based on WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Regards So Why 14:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails all criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far far below the threshold for notability. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen (music)[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not just WP:NOTDICT... the article creator seems to be unaware that "evergreen" is a term used to describe many things that are long-lasting, and is therefore not exclusively a music term. Richard3120 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, probably worth an entry in the evergreen disambig page???TheLongTone (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Parsons (musician)[edit]

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

Has received a certain amount of coverage for a Brexit-related song he sung (thus not meeting A7) but that's it. PROD was removed by an anonymous editor. WP:BLP1E applies here as this person has no other coverage apart from the one related to this one song. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 13:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Nom reddogsix (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 13:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. So Why 13:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. So Why 13:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Komodo (cryptocurrency)[edit]

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

Non-notable article about a cryptocurrency. Although the article is not very developed it is not well supported by reliable sources. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. Please note I have not found much at all in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources don't appear to be independent, and they don't say much either, so the article is very short. From reading the article and some of the sources, I can't tell who runs the business, where it's located, who regulates it, has any business been done, etc. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarynews or non-3rd party sources fail WP:GNG and far short of CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 01:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sufficient coverage in RS. It is a reasonably new project so it might one day meet the GNG, but currently does not. TOOSOON. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sirin Labs[edit]

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

Non-notable article about a new startup company and cryptocurrency product. This is too soon at best, with the article supported largely by unreliable sources. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. Please note I have not found much other than promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC) (edited 18:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon, now it's just promotional hype. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a clearcut corp article. Widefox; talk 02:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NCORP. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Petro (cryptocurrency). Sandstein 21:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petro gold[edit]

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

Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency that may never even happen. This is way too soon, fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and it's clearly part of Petro (cryptocurrency). Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with the main article per the reasons above.--Jamez42 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- borderline A7 / G11; promo 'cruft on a nn cryptocurrency. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Petro (cryptocurrency); I'm not sure that's notable either, but for now any of Maduro's public pronouncements in this area can be covered there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petro (cryptocurrency) has some significant mainstream attention due to being the only crypto-currency ever issued by a government, and the fact they did that to illegally evade economic sanctions imposed by the USA. I think that article is pretty safe. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too soon, crystal ball type material, nothing solid yet. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Petro. This should just go under a section of that article, and this should just be a redirect to that section. I don't see why this needs to be an article per Smallbones's Crystal Ball reasonings. I do think it does belong somewhere with appropriate context, and the announcement being included in the Petro article services that.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Petro. Does not meet GNG. (As an aside, George C. Parker would be proud of attempts to sell a "gold-backed" cryptocurrency regulated by the Venezuelan government.) Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TRON (cryptocurrency)[edit]

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

Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is too soon at best, with the article supported largely by original research and unreliable sources. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. Please note I have not found much other than promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom about sources. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in mainstream media. Seems like another attempt to use Wikipedia to promote an obscure coin. Retimuko (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Received some coverage in RS when it peaked in January but not enough, fails GNG. (As an aside, it reached a market cap of well over $10 billion with just a whitepaper and no product; seemed very much like a pump and dump scheme built around the personality of the founder.) Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only coverage is promotional hype, and not so much of it in reliable sources as to make this notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor sourcing, promotional hype. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is all I could find: Newsweek and CNBC. Not sure if that is enough though.Perrythwi (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Openkart.com[edit]

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

One award (that seems to have been reported in only one source, and does not have a byline and reads rather promotional). Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage beyond promotional news releases. Reads like an advertisement. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Tinsley[edit]

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

I do not believe this person meets WP:BIO. The only reference in the article is from his firm's website and I was unable to find any substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire and storm: Just Another Lawyer in Just Another Law Firm ... and certainly this law firm is even more pretentious than most, what with calling former attorneys "alumnus" and describing partners as "Officers." No evidence of notability. Ravenswing 20:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Entirely WP:MILL lawyer, no indication of notability. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Watts III[edit]

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

Website on an otherwise not-notable political candidate fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. Incidental coverage is related entirely to his current campaign. Chetsford (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete plainly does not meet standards for political notability, and no other claim is made. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, as yet unelected candidates in future elections do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. Nothing here establishes preexisting notability, however — winning a youth activism award is nice for him, but not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — and since every candidate in any election always generates coverage in the local media where that election is taking place, just showing a couple of pieces of local campaign coverage does not hand a candidate a WP:GNG pass in and of itself. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here already gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this point he is running for a nomination, not even a direct candidate for the office. Wikipedia is not a platform for posting campaign brouchers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated the article to demonstrate Watts' extensive media coverage of his role in politics in Nevada. He is the chosen endorsed candidate of the Nevada Assembly Democratic Caucus. https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/more-ethics-complaints-filed-in-heller-rosen-senate-fight/ I am open to how this article can be improved or reclassified, but I think Watts is notable enough to be named in the LA Times, Forbes and multiple local news media. Wikimcaffee (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being "the chosen endorsed candidate" of a political party is not grounds for a Wikipedia article — if he wasn't already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he doesn't become notable enough for an article until he wins the general election in November. And having his name mentioned in coverage of other things doesn't assist in demonstrating that he has preexisting notability, either: he has to be the subject of coverage, not just namechecked in coverage about other things, before that coverage helps make him notable. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was the subject of the Nevada Public Radio article. If he wasn’t notable before running, why do major news outlets choose to interview him on a variety of topics? Why was he the subject of an article about notable people in the state capital?Wikimcaffee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nevada Public Radio article certainly would contribute to notability. Now we just need a few more like that to establish WP:SIGCOV. Right now that is the only source that provides deep coverage; the rest are either (a) within the context of his political campaign, (b) incidental mentions, (c) not WP:INDEPENDENT (for example, his participation in a local TV roundtable discussion which provides no information on him which he doesn't vocalize himself). As it is, there is so little reliable biographical information on him we don't even know his date of birth. That's not a bright line, but is usually a good indicator there's going to be difficulty in establishing someone's acceptability under the WP:GNG.

As an aside, unrelated to the issue of GNG, much of this article is WP:PUFFERY. For instance, this claim - "Watts has educated media and the public about water issues in the West, including the record low levels at Lake Mead" - is sourced to his address and telephone number appearing on an alphabetical list of the 1,050 registered Nevada lobbyists (here [31]). If Howard Watts needs a campaign website he should check-out godaddy.com, not wikipedia.org. Chetsford (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. He has a campaign website... that's not the purpose here. I've removed the fluffy stuff you mentioned and added additional references where he was named "Best Activist" by Vegas Seven magazine; "Local Hero" by Las Vegas City Life (where he was featured on the cover). Between those, the Nevada Public Radio piece, and the Las Vegas Sun piece about him winning an award for activism, that's four major sources where he is the subject of the article. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. Thanks!Wikimcaffee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering what is good for date of birth references. I see a lot of articles that don't even have a source for the dob. I see others where the source cited for biographical information is from the subject's own website. Thanks again for the help everyone. Wikimcaffee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vegas Seven mention is, just that, a mention ... in a local free paper's "Best of" awards along with the Rollin Smoke BBQ restaurant [32] and Penn's Thai House, a restaurant in a strip mall [33]. I checked Vegas City Life's archives and can't find any evidence he was ever featured in it. Chetsford (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vegas Seven article is 200 words, and it's all about Watts. https://vegasseven.com/2013/07/25/best-activist/ That's not a trivial mention: "The guideline has long stated that a one sentence mention is plainly trivial." WP:TRIVIAL Vegas Seven is an independent and reliable source of news. I don't believe whether or not the publication charges is a relevant factor. I have read the article in CityLife and I know it exists and Watts was on the cover. I don't believe it has to be available online to be a reliable source. Wikipedia:AGF Wikimcaffee (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimcaffee (talk • contribs) 06:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be available online but it has to exist, and it doesn't seem to. Further, according to your above description, you inserted a reference based on your recollection of once seeing the article six years ago. The level of detail added for an article you're saying you have had no direct access to in six years and were merely working off memory is ... unusual. If you are Howard Watts III, in the employ of Howard Watts III, or have a familial or pecuniary interest in HW3, your affiliation needs to be disclosed per WP:COI. Chetsford (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, lots of people can be the subject of some purely local media coverage in their own hometowns without qualifying for Wikipedia articles because of it: teenagers frequently get into their local newspaper for "human interest" reasons like winning a high school poetry contest or a battle of the bands competition or trying out for their high school football team despite being an amputee; every single person on a town or city's municipal council always gets some local media coverage; every candidate in an election always gets some local media coverage; and a neighbour of my parents got into the local media a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard. So what needs to be shown to qualify someone for a Wikipedia article is not just "a couple of pieces of local media coverage exist" — if the coverage doesn't verify anything that would pass a subject-specific notability standard right on its face, then either (a) there has to be a hell of a lot more of it than just a couple of pieces, or (b) it has to expand far enough beyond the purely local that the person has a credible reason to be considered notable on a much wider scale. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it's a subjective analysis. The guidelines are relatively vague... it just says "significant coverage." I think 4 articles in 4 different local publications, one with a cover photo, is significant. I can get a physical copy of that article if there's still no good faith being given. Then there are numerous articles where his opinion is sought out by local journalists, with at least one in the L.A. Times and a mention if Forbes. This sort of becomes a "how many pieces of flair?" discussion at some point. Thus far, no matter how many have been cited to, a more difficult standard gets brought up. There's more articles about him than there are opinions here... does that mean there isn't significant consensus, and the presumption is in favor of keeping the article? Wikimcaffee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, we only seem to have one article in one local publication in which he's the subject of significant coverage outside his campaign. Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Las Vegas is a decent-sized market. It's not like we are talking about some little town newspapers. Wikimcaffee (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what size of market we're talking about. We don't just eyeball who the provider of the coverage happens to be, or the size of the media market itself: we also eyeball the context in which the coverage is being given, and whether or not it verifies anything that would actually count as a valid notability claim. Even an unelected candidate in New York City wouldn't get a special exemption from having to clear our notability standards for politicians just because his campaign-related local coverage happened to be in The New York Times instead of the Peoria Pennysaver. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an activist who runs for the legislature is not sufficiently notable to qualify for an article. A shot at persuading me (and perhaps other editors) would require multiple WP:RS covering his notable activism (or some other notable achievement), preferably including two or three profiles or long, profile-style interviews with him. the sole pre-campaign cited source ("Local Hero". Las Vegas CityLife. December 20, 2012.) might count, we would need a link. It would not suffice. Wikimcaffee, we're not picking on your boy in particular, we have rules like this for good reasons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand. From WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE - "On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections (see the specific guidelines for books, films, music and artists); common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available." WP:TRIVIAL "The guideline states that these sources need to provide "significant coverage" of the topic, and this coverage must consist of more than a "trivial mention". The guideline has long stated that a one sentence mention is plainly trivial." OK, I have four articles I will link to here that are MORE THAN TRIVAL by the definition provided. They are in fact articles from independent reliable sources where Watts himself is the subject of the articles. 1) Watts wins a famous award (it's listed in Wikipedia) and an article with about 1,000 words is written about him: https://lasvegassun.com/news/2012/dec/06/progressive-las-vegas-organizer/. 2) Watts named one of the Activists of Carson City. 272 words about him, not some other topic. https://knpr.org/desert-companion/slingshot-and-prayer-activists-carson-city 3) Watts written about with 200 words, named Best Activist. https://vegasseven.com/2013/07/25/best-activist/ 4) 4 paragraphs written in article at City Life where he is named "Local Hero." https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Howard_Watt_III_Las_Vegas_City_Life.jpg - Either there's a misunderstanding about what trivial coverage or not trivial coverage is by some here... or I'm not understanding something.Wikimcaffee (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are several other articles where he is quoted, with more than one sentence. There are several local news articles, the LA Times article cited on his page. He was also on the PBS News Hour (just found this): https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-the-mortgage-crisis-in-nevada-will-affect-voters#transcript Wikimcaffee (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimcaffee, Like all systems with any plausible claim to fairness, we - the volunteers who edit Wikipedia - operate under a set of rules. Your entirely understandable puzzlement is a product of the fact editors who have commented above are aware of WP:POLOUTCOMES which states not only that, "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits.... Note that this criterion has not generally been as restrictive as the criterion for city councillors. City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London." but also that "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted..." To make this even more puzzling to new editors, Wikipedia, like all formal legal systems, operates under a dual system of black letter and customary law. Experienced editors like User:Bearcat, who performs yoeman's labour season after political season researching (often newly created) articles about individuals who have recently declared candidacy for office, gauge whether individuals who are candidates for office are sufficiently notable to have an article by whether or not they have gotten the kinds of coverage that I described to you above. to me, it does not appear that Watts has the kind of sources that we would need to see.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, an award having a Wikipedia article about the award itself does not mean that award is automatically notable enough to confer standalone notability on every individual person who wins it. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so the standard for "notability because he won an award" is not just the fact that the award has an article — it requires a prominent award on the approximate level of the Oscars or the Emmys or the Pulitzer Prize, not just any award that exists at all. Secondly, "one of the activists of Carson City" is not a notability claim, and neither is being named "best local activist" or "local hero" by local media. Thirdly, neither is getting quoted in coverage of other things: a person has to be the subject of the coverage, not a giver of soundbite in coverage about some other subject besides himself, before that source counts toward establishing notability. Purely local media coverage is not enough to make any of that a reason why someone would get an encyclopedia article in and of itself.

What you're showing is not what's required to properly demonstrate that a person has preexisting notability for other reasons: without the candidacy you would not even have attempted this article at all, which plainly demonstrates that the purpose of the article was the candidacy itself, and everything else is just you desperately clutching at straws to find loopholes. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for my motivations? Why don't we stick to material fact please. I am new, and didn't understand the rules about candidates... that's fair. What I have done is try to demonstrate he was notable before running for office, because people suggested here and I have read that "substantial" coverage was what you needed. I thought four articles where he was the primary subject might qualify. You have minimized everything that has covered him at every turn. That is your right, and you have your reasons. I can cite to lots of articles on Wikipedia that have less "extensive" coverage of people... but I know that is not an argument per se. You say you live by rules, but they seem so vague... HOW MUCH FLAIR DO I NEED? (Office Space reference) LOL... That's just where we are. No hard feelings. Let me ask a follow-up question... if this page is deleted, is it possible for him to be included under the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada's page?Wikimcaffee (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the Award does not have a Wikipedia page; the activist in honor of whom it is named has a page.160.39.35.32 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G11) -- second person promotional trash. MER-C 14:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dimple ghosh[edit]

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

This BLP is only sourced to social media accounts. A BEFORE search fails to find significant mentions. Chetsford (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting notability guidelines. Content consists of WP:ARTSPAM w/o RS and w/o notability.12:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Szzuk (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksey Nikiforov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography fails to meet standards of notability. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 10:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussion. In addition, he is the head coach of Lithuania U18 national team per this source. His page needs work, but that does not mean that it should be deleted because nobody is taking time to improve it. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working with a Google translation, but I infer that Nikiforov's big claim to fame is coaching a children's hockey team, so I'm still struggling to see the notability. (I'm not a hockey person, so please forgive me if I'm failing to appreciate something bigger here.) Maybe the Lithuania U18 national team should add a list of coaches past and present, and Nikiforov can get a mention there? There's barely any content there at present. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 13:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing for Dynamo Riga in the Russian Elite League is more than enough for a keep according to WP:NHOCKEY.18abruce (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NHOCKEY criterion #1 (and as noted in the prior AfD, probably meets GNG too even independent of playing for Dynamo Riga). Rlendog (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I gave in a 15-minute clean-up just now in the expectation that it's being kept. It's still pretty crap (and 2 of 3 links couldn't be recovered), but it looks more like a real stub now. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 19:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Flibirigit (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meetsWP:NHOCKEY by playing in Russian Elite League. Meets WP:GNG as coach of a national team. Flibirigit (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he appears to meet the WP:NHOCKEY requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MZ Skin[edit]

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

Highly promotional article. Fails WP:ORGIND. Article from user that jumped the WP:AFC draft process. scope_creep (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks paid, ref bombing of a non notable brand, refs that are there hardly mention the brand and instead talk about the inventor, various non notable awards etc. The brand was created 2 years ago, to get anywhere in that market takes loads of advertising and wp isn't the place for it. Szzuk (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Ogle[edit]

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

Local TV news anchors aren't always notable, and the existing references are local and trivial mentions of this person. I find some coverage of him recently falling ([34]), but nothing substantial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most local TV news anchors are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proshoon Rahmaan[edit]

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

Only refs are two blogs with identical content. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some minor coverage of one of his films, but nothing significant in the articles or information that seems other than from press releases. A decent amount of the article seems copied and pasted from his LinkedIn profile. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Turkish military operation in Afrin. (The current title of Operation Olive Branch.) Sandstein 21:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Afrin City[edit]

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

"The Battle for Afrin City" has not happened yet, going against WP:CRYSTAL. The titled of the page if the battle were to ever occur should also be Battle of Afrin to follow the standard of all other modern battle articles. The page was created by @Deathlibrarian: and has been primarily edited by this editor. It is poorly worded and poorly sourced and seems to just cover Turkish military operation in Afrin. Though the page is meant to be about this battle that hasn't happened yet, it only talks about a partial encirclement of the city. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple articles saying the city is encircled, so this is the first stage of the battle, with all roads under direct control of the TAF, or under fire control so people can't get out. It doesn't make sense to nominate this for AFD based on what stage it is at. AFD could take a week or more, the battle could be over by then. In any case, the battle is at its first stages, and "Water cut in Syria's Afrin as Turkey completes encirclement" "Turkish forces surround syrian kurdish city" https://www.sbs.com.au/news/turkish-forces-surround-syrian-kurdish-city "Turkish army: Afrin city center surrounded" Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion - I've changed the title to Battle of Afrin City as Afrin is used both for the general cantonal area, and the city, so we need to differentiate for the user to be clearer. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me to be a partial siege, not a battle... For now, a Battle of Afrin has not started yet, and keeping the word "City" in the title still doesn't follow what any other modern battle article has as a title. It also does not change the fact that the article covers nearly nothing and was poorly sourced/written. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The battle had started, and is now over (2) "Battle of Afrin" redirects to the overall Afrin Canton *campaign* - city is need to differentiate between the two and makes it easier to find for the user (3) The articles covers the battle in full, in as much depth as is normal for en encyclopeadic wikipedia article (but by all means, feel free to add more) (4) The article has just about every single line referenced, 38 references in total, and mostly good RS (I admit there are couple that could be replaced).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I'm the author of the article) The city is now officially surrounded by Turkish forces, they have cut off the water supply, the internet, and they have indicated they are going to attack....and now they are bombarding it with artillery. How is that not the start of a battle for a city?Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not not need its own article yet, since it is mostly WP:CRYSTAL. Applodion (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough information to warrant own article. 2001:16B8:115E:4D00:6836:93D:2B13:820 (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deathlibrarian. On March 12, Turkish Forces had severed the water supply to the city of Afrin, and also cut off the city's internet access suggests the battle has begun, so it's not WP:CRYSTAL. There are sources such as [35], and the topic seems different from Turkish military operation in Afrin, though I'm not opposed to a merge. WP:NOTNEWS generally doesn't keep this type of article out of mainspace. Rename proposals should be done on the talk page through a WP:RM; I have no idea what the correct name for the page is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Turkish military operation in Afrin. This new article is really just a content fork. Start a new section on the Battle of Afrin city when it begins. Editor abcdef (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Way smaller battles than this are justified as having their own pages, eg Battle of al-Rai (August 2016), a battle where only 10 people were killed. This is a major battle, with Turkey attacking the largest city in Afrin Canton, currently with 350,000 people in it (some sources saying 700,000), with thousands of troops on either side. It *clearly* passes WP:notable and WP:EVENT as a notable event, in order to justify its own page, and has lots of RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Battles that have their own articles have actually started/happened :-) Maybe when that's the case for Afrin, a Battle of Afrin page will be started. At the moment, your The Battle for Afrin City page does nothing to help any reader. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Battle of al-Rai was its own operation. It wasn't part of any larger offensive. On the other hand, this Battle of Afrin is part of, and is the main objective of Operation Olive Branch. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Battle of Tabqa (2017) has it's own page, 300 people killed, so no where near as large as this, and that was part of the Raqqa campaign (2016–2017). Same with Battle of al-Bab, which was part of the Euphrates Shield Campaign. With between 350,000 and up to 700,000 people in Afrin city currently, and the SDF having mainly pulled back thousands of troops to Afrin city to mount their defence of the canton in the city, this is clearly a major conflict. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, looks like there is no major battle in Afrin after all. The SDF simply withdrew from the city today. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe city is now officially surrounded by Turkish forces--Panam2014 (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Operation Olive Branch. I don't think there is going to be significant action in Afrin city to warrant a separate article. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with the Operation Olive Branch. Not notable enough nor enough info to warrant its own separate article. EkoGraf (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Operation Olive Branch. I think is superfluous. Iulamgiha ^{Talk to me} 02:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Operation Olive Branch. Looks like not much can be said other than that YPG deserted the city in a matter of 24 hours while causing a mass exodus of refugees out of the city as Turkish rebels pillaged it. That's something that can easily be described at the OOB article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as others, but with no criticism of the creators of the article intended. The situation has moved on considerably from when this AfD began and the article was created. The SDF withdrew and the city was taken without much of a fight. If there are further developments, a separate article can always be re-created. Bondegezou (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crazygames[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. No independent and reliable sources and thus no evidence of any notability. Pure advertising. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per the nominator, it's also an awful article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shuchi Singh Kalra[edit]

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

Non notable author of 2 non-notable books, Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete- Fails WP:NAUTHOR. FITINDIA 20:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwavir Ahuja[edit]

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

No independent notability apart from RBL Bank.UPE Spam. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per the nominator no independent notability and a bit puffy too. Subject does not warrant a standalone article. FITINDIA 20:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. COI and advertising - user sternly warned. Alexf^(talk) 13:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhana Tv Series[edit]

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

No significant content other than an inforbox. No references. No evidence that it has been produced. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:GNG. FITINDIA 20:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giglio S.p.A.[edit]

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

Fails subject-specific notability guideline and general notability guideline.UPE promo-spam.Typical PR sources. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly promotional article with sources consisting of Churnalism and routine press coverage. Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this spam. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter and complete spam ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Pollution Drive Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable company.Fails subject-notability-guideline.Trivial mentions.Probable UPE Spam. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this spam. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. scope_creep (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SpamSpamSpam ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jyanto Durga[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM by a mile.Non-notable documentary.Part of a promotional walled garden around Arin Paul. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NFILM. FITINDIA 20:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist (2010 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM by a mile.Non-notable short-film.Part of a promotional walled garden around Arin Paul. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable film with no coverage. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evandro Costa[edit]

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

Most likely self-promotional biography, none of his occupations seem notable enough. The subject's nicknames, Mono and Ev, are the same as the author's username, ‎ElMonoEv3. Google searches give minimal and unreliable results[36][37][38][39][40] (there's a musician of the same name, but he is also non-notable).[41] The Portuguese Wikipedia has no results for the subject either.[42] The majority of the subject's mentions on Wikipedia pages come from an unsourced addition of the article in the Template:Animal rights by an IP from Rio de Janeiro, where the subject comes from; both the IP and ElMonoEv3 have edited many of the same articles and they're probably the same person.[43] I already nominated it for WP:PROD but after one day the author removed the tag. Edit: I just realized that minutes after removing the tag, the same user created the article in the Portuguese Wikipedia as well, but it was immediately nominated for speedy deletion there. Ojo del tigre (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has some information moved from the Portuguese Wikipedia where it too has been selected for speedy deletion. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't read Portuguese--so take that for what it's worth--but I don't need to to see that 5 of the provided references are blogs, one is a dead link, and the others look like promotional content from the radio station he works with. The nominator lays out a good case all around. Clearly a vanity page. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm brazilian and affirm, it is self-promotional biography.Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Balance[edit]

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

almost no evidence for notability -- clearly promotional article ~~by apparently paid editor.~~ DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, this wasn't created by a paid editor. It was created by an editor who for a while had a bee in her bonnet about these sorts of programs. My impression was that she created the articles with the intention of "exposing" the programs as unscientific. She also created LearningRx and the now deleted Power Brain Education and extensively edited Cogmed and Arrowsmith School. The talk page of the latter and its archive are quite revealing of the mindset. Of course, once articles like these are created, they then attract COI/paid editors who try to skew them in a positive direction. Leaving all that aside, this program has had a fair amount of coverage, most notably a lengthy article in Bloomberg Business Week by Dune Lawrence who is quite a well-known investigative reporter. There's another lengthy article in Science-Based Medicine, which needless to say is very critical, this symposium paper from Valparaiso University, and this lengthy article (also critical) in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. I'm not sure there's a valid argument for non-notabilty, but there is undoubtedly one for quackery or something approaching it (yes, I know quackery isn't grounds for deletion). Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is a quack topic that fails WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I would withdraw the AfD if I could. The references above are sufficient . Voceditenore, could you please supplement the article with what you've found. (except that the symposium paper is an undergraduate work, in a symposium for undergraduate research, & the author does not qualify as an expert that their opinion can be used). I'm also a little dubious about using a newspaper article for a medical topic. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, the Science-Based Medicine and The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel were already in the article. It just wasn't obvious from the scant bibliographic information in the refs. I've fixed that. I've also added the Bloomberg Business Week feature, not to talk about the program itself, but about the Brain Balance business which is run on a franchising model with 110 centers and an annual revenue of $41 million. Other than that, I have no interest in working further on the article. Those subjects are utterly thankless tasks. Voceditenore (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per NFRINGE fringe topics are acceptable as stand-alone articles provided they pass GNG, which this does in my opinion. The downside, of course, is that if the article is kept, it will need constant watching for the addition of promotional content. Brain Balance is not only a fringe theory, it is also a fairly large business with well over 100 franchisees. Voceditenore (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there's anything promotional in that article, I clearly missed it. I also missed where it fails WP:GNG. I've read that guideline and all the sources support the current article text. They also fall under WP:RS. I also agree that additional coverage can be found. It's so obvious it doesn't need to be mentioned. Just seems like another random deletion nomination. This is one of the more common complaints about Wikipedia--Dr Silverstein (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't work at random--I look for promotionalism and conflict of interest and weak referencing, all of which usually go together. Sometimes I misinterpret, and sometimes I try to define the consensus on something which I think to be borderline, but nonetheless over 90% of my deletion nominations via our various processes are successful. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be quackery, but it's notable quackery. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided above are sufficient to establish notability. The sources in the article add to that. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coinigy[edit]

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

Unimportant cryptocurrency platform, with only minor references from sources which try to cover every such scheme. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non-notable cryptocurrency platform, fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources aren't reliable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable coverage typical of a new startup. scope_creep (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Heinrich[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable model. Does not meet WP:NMODEL and significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions / non-independent sources, which are insufficient for notability.

First AfD closed as "Keep" in 2004; the second was also "Keep" in 2011. However, the notability guidelines have been significantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that this article was kept in 2004 and 2011 is a symptom of all that is wrong with Wikipedia. She has not even a remote claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable awards ,fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent (Dominica)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I cannot find any reliable sources that would indicate that this newspaper meets any of the criteria listed at WP:NNEWSPAPER. Existence is not sufficient to maintain an article: there must be reliable sources that have written commentary about the newspaper, and none exist as far as I have been able to find.

I checked Google, GBooks, GNews, GScholar, Highbeam, JSTOR, Newspapers.com, and WorldCat and came up with nothing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete 4 Years is not enough for a newspaper to become notable.--Biografer (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this was a newspaper published for four year in a market of 72,000 people. I've witnessed the stark poverty firstand in this country; there are not enough of a middle-class readership to afford to support several newspapers. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, can't find any sources beyond mere existence. Biografer, I don't think this qualifies for any CSD options, but four years is certainly enough time for a media organization to become notable. Less likely in the late 90s, given the media environment, but certainly possible. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Cataldo[edit]

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

Promotional article by now-detected paid editor . No actual notability , only a few press releases and listings DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, after source review. No sources provide notability. SportingFlyer talk 04:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete claiming to be the #1 life coach on Twitter suggests non-notability, and none of the links convince me otherwise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manjinder Sandhu[edit]

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

Based on press releases rather than independent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to suggest meeting WP:GNG, poorly sourced self-promotion. Melcous (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm unable find coverage in reliable sources that would be sufficiently detailed to warrant an article. Does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete puff piece lacking all traits that indicate notability.104.163.147.121 (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is a medical director and the article lists membership of some professional associations. Of the sources currently used: two are webpages selling his services, one looks like a churnalism story on World heart day where he is quoted from a press release, a further source has him named as the source of an explanation within an article on a new type of stent, the fifth is a journal article where he is listed as a co-author. Notability has not been demonstrated when judged against WP:BASIC or WP:ACADEMIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Doc James rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Demir[edit]

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

Promotional and non notable. Does not meet WP:PROF--there is one paper with 81 citations published when he was a post-graduate student, otherwise the highest number of citations is 17. This is considerably below the stand in a heavily cited field like biomedicine. Does not meet WP:GNG, outside of the NY Post, all the references are local PR based articles mostly celebrating a very unimportant Guinness record. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author and I agree the current format is promotional. He still is notable with all the publications, I don't know what you are searching through but on pubmed he is cited widely. Maybe consider rolling it back to my original article? 4.15.15.126 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find very little coverage of this doctor, and nowhere near enough to pass WP:GNG, and DGG's assessment of his citation count is spot on, showing that he doesn't meet WP:PROF either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs are mostly primary and there is too little claim of significance or notability. Szzuk (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are differing opinions about whether the coverage of this (apparently fringe) theory is sufficient for an article, but the "keep" side has offered references that aren't substantially criticized here, so on balance I think this rather trends towards keep. Sandstein 10:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Differential K theory[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage from outside the walled garden of racialist research publications except for a scant handful of criticisms. The criticism I see is not enough to justify an article. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 00:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Differential K theory seems to easily pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines - of course saying that it's notable is completely independent from issues like whether it's debunked, fringe, correct, whether criticisms made of it are justified, etc, etc. Our job as editors is to determine whether there are enough reliable/notable sources to write an encyclopedia article on this subject, and there are. Personality and Individual Differences, a peer-reviewed journal with respectable academics on its editorial board (elsevier.com/journals/personality-and-individual-differences/0191-8869/editorial-board) has published multiple articles (1985,2008,1995,2012,2013,2014,2016) on differential K theory. There are more sources that could be included too.^[1]^[2]^[3] NPalgan2 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Differential K theory seems to easily pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines Based on what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 01:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the current article (only one of which is by Rushton), the additional references I listed above, etc. It seems that differential K theory has, since 1985 received "significant coverage [note: much of it hostile] in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We could write an encyclopedia article based on the takedowns alone! NPalgan2 (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not seeing the slightest evidence that this theory has any traction outside its little walled garden. --Calton | Talk 01:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not true that Rushton's theories are ignored outside a "walled garden of racialist research publications". Personality and Individual Differences is a mainstream journal, not a pay-to-publish scam. Rushton contributed a chapter on his closely related GFP theory to this handbook in 2011; a compendium of "the top global researchers within the area of individual differences" aiming to give "authoritative and engaging surveys of current scholarship, and lucid and provocative synopses of contemporary debates". http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781444343120 NPalgan2 (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mealey, Linda (1990). "Differential Use of Reproductive Strategies by Human Groups?". Psychological Science. 1 (6): 385–387. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00247.x. S2CID 143173481.
^ Musek, Janek (2017). The General Factor of Personality. Academic Press. p. 169. ISBN 9780128112496.
^ Gabbidon, Shaun L. (2015). Criminological Perspectives on Race and Crime. Routledge. p. 40. ISBN 9781317575900.

Keep While there is an identifiable group of authors who write on this subject and a small set of journals which publish the majority of the papers, these are not the only cases where it is referenced. Some examples, in addition to those already cited, are:

Zack Z. Cernovsky (July 1995). "On the Similarities of American Blacks and Whites: A Reply to J. P. Rushton". Journal of Black Studies. 25 (6): 672–679. doi:10.1177/002193479502500602. S2CID 59065836.
Weizmann, Fredric; Wiener, Neil I.; Wiesenthal, David L.; Ziegler, Michael (1990). "Differential K theory and racial hierarchies". Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne. 31 (1). American Psychological Association (APA): 1–13. doi:10.1037/h0078934. ISSN 1878-7304.
Figueredo, Aurelio José; Vásquez, Geneva; Brumbach, Barbara Hagenah; Schneider, Stephanie M. R. (2004). "The heritability of life history strategy: The k‐factor, covitality, and personality". Biodemography and Social Biology. 51 (3–4). Informa UK Limited: 121–143. doi:10.1080/19485565.2004.9989090. ISSN 1948-5565. PMID 17019827. S2CID 13911060. (This author has published many artilces on the subject, several with Rushton)
* Voracek, Martin (2009). "Suicide Rates, National Intelligence Estimates, and Differential K Theory". Perceptual and Motor Skills. 109 (3). SAGE Publications: 733–736. doi:10.2466/pms.109.3.733-736. ISSN 0031-5125. PMID 20178273. S2CID 39724327.
* Figueredo, Aurelio José; Vásquez, Geneva; Brumbach, Barbara Hagenah; Schneider, Stephanie M. R. (2004). "The heritability of life history strategy: The k‐factor, covitality, and personality". Biodemography and Social Biology. 51 (3–4). Informa UK Limited: 121–143. doi:10.1080/19485565.2004.9989090. ISSN 1948-5565. PMID 17019827. S2CID 13911060.

While the theory is offensive it is unquestionably part of the academic discourse, even if only to refute it. Unfortunately we are not in a position to judge even some of the journals in the 'walled garden' as unreliable. How would we make that decision? Are the topics and theories which are offensive not-RS while they are OK to cite for the positions which do not offend us? Do we have any reporting which brings the credentials of Personality and Individual Differences and Intelligence, both published by respectable scientific publishers, into question? Are journals like Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology not reliable because they have published Rushton on this topic?

I am quite willing to be convinced otherwise, but until I see some way to segregate, by policy, evidently reliable sources by some criteria other than a value judgment on their research I have to say Keep. Jbh ^Talk 16:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also per nom, but not I am not strong on what constitutes an academic discourse or a walled garden. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that differential K-theory is a notable topic in mathematics (see for instance, this survey) that is unrelated to this topic. --Mark viking (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jbhunley, but willing to change to Delete if the sources can be shown to be unreliable or non-notable. —Ashley Y 04:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance FC[edit]

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

I don't see or mention "Alliance FC Brooklyn Park" anywhere else in the sources or even that Wikipedia article. I searched for the keywords but can't find relevant Google hits. This is going to be a long standing hoax that lasted for over eight years. Eye snore 00:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure if it's a hoax, but it certainly, absolutely, completely is not a notable soccer team. Never played in the NPSL and cannot find any record of it existing. SportingFlyer talk 04:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable team. NZFC^(talk) 07:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable if they do even exist. If they exist, the fact no-one can find sources about them demonstrates that they're not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen County Executive[edit]

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

Unnecessary WP:SPINOUT article. The history section is already adequately covered in Bergen County. The remainder of the article is about election results and mini-biographies of non-notable people including those who were recently deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James J. Tedesco III Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a valid deletion reason. --RAN (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic itself is notable, but this is a continuation of a conflict involving New Jersey politics: this page, while notable, was created to get around WP:BLP for several recently deleted articles, including the one the nominator mentions. The politicians really should be in tabular/list form, similar to other county executive pages, for instance: King County Executive. SportingFlyer talk 03:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At above mentioned article: A picture is worth a thousand words Djflem (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific part of WP:BLP are you using to support your claim/contention?Djflem (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clear WP:BLP1E for most of these officials, and not only that, they're not notable enough for their own page, so why should we be including everything that was on their old page on this new page? Also see the first sentence of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. SportingFlyer talk 14:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Well sourced piece Wikipedia:Verifiability about a major political position consistent within Wikipeida. Weak Nomination rationale: persons in article were/are Bergen County executives.Djflem (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Individuals interested in the position of Bergen County executive are more likely to find information if it's in a page of its own rather than small section in a page about a county. Perhaps Tedesco needs to be shortened because it's too much irrelevant info in a topic about an elected position, but the others don't break BLP since they are standalone pages themselves. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. It looks like at least two of those politicians would be good candidates for AfD (McDowell, McNerney). The other two served in the state assembly. SportingFlyer talk 14:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Must be something terribly broken at Wikipedia:NPOL if:

a person representing the 36th Legislative District which as of November 30, 2017 had 121,360 registered voters from a population of 219,354 (+/-) does gain automatic inclusion

BUT

a person representing all of Bergen County, where on Election Day 2017 there were 593,454 registered voters^[1] from a population of 939,151 (+/-)^[2] in a notably "more powerful" public office doesn't.

Wouldn't you agree?Djflem (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it, take it to a policy forum. For the record, I completely disagree with your logic. WP:NPOL has nothing to do with how many people a politician represents. SportingFlyer talk 03:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To understand, it's not my logic, but that of GNG/NPOL being applied: A member of a state legislature gets an automatic pass (even w/o sufficient coverage) but a high-level county official with extensive coverage doesn't. Is that correct? What is the logic behind that?Djflem (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on a prior consensus. The logic is that state legislatures are well covered by reliable sources so the required sources for WP:GNG can be presumed to be there. This is not based on population, since population administered does not equal greater coverage (or at least not the presumption of greater coverage). Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The question is whether the logic of prior consensus is sound, let alone valid. And yes, all state legislatures can be presumed to to have the required sources for WP:GNG. Why does that presumption extend to individual state legislators? (who in many cases do not have extnsive coverage)? Why doesn't constituent population matter? Why wouldn't the size of the district, and whether the role was in a execuive, legislative, or judicial function, be considered a viable measure of the relative weight with regard to politicians' notability?Djflem (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it is simply an assumption that the subject passes WP:GNG, not a free pass. This policy just means you have to make more effort with the local politicians. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems like a free pass if it's an assumption.Djflem (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it seems that way, but that's only because it is hard to check every possible place for sources, and show you have done so. It's much easier to nominate for deletion when the onus is to prove the sources are there. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're trying to argue is that the guidelines should be changed, this is not the place for that. Perhaps the answer is all state legislators should not be considered notable, but that also would require a change to the guidelines. Unless the guidelines are changed, your argument about population is irrelevant.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, REFRAIN from statements like "what you're trying argue", this is not the place for that (nor is anywhere else on Wikipedia). My statement is relevant to the above discussion about consensus/guidelines into which you inserted yourself.Djflem (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I started this discussion by nominating the article for deletion, so I don't understand the "inserted yourself" comment. Second, you can refrain from telling me how to word my comments. And yes, your are clearly questioning the current guidelines. Just because it is your opinion that they are not logical, doesn't change the fact that they exist. If you don't like them, fine, propose a change, but here is not the place to do so.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)Djflem (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC) An attempt to censor another editor by saying that a matter of relevance in this AfD discussion may not be brought up or that "here is not the place to do so" is an attempt at the suppression of ideas, information & inquiry. It not only contrary to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, it is anathema to those trying to create an encyclopedia. No one is required to participate in discussion on a topic pertinent to clarify Wikipedia:Consensus and should not if they don't like it/feel it's the inappropriate forum. Nor should they interject with personal opinions as to what other editors should or should not do. Again, statements which addressed "you" followed by assumptions or unsolicited advice are unwelcome and rude, so please refrain.Djflem (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability standards for politicians are not based on the number of people that happen to reside in the person's ward or district, but on the level of government at which they serve. A state legislator is not relevant only to the people in his or her own district, because that person has power to vote on legislation that affects the entire state — so he or she is a topic of statewide and often even nationwide interest beyond just his or her own district itself. But a city or county councillor is not typically of wider interest anywhere beyond his or her own county, which is why city or county councillors have to clear higher and tougher standards of notability and sourceability than state or federal legislators do. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the argument fails to consider is that there are executive and legislative branches of government. At the county level, a county executive, being the highest elected-at-large official is in a position to exert more influence through appointments, approvals/vetoes and fiscal allocations. It also fails to acknowledge that there are several states with a population less than that of Bergen and numerous other US counties. (When the first executive was elected in 1978, The New York Times stated that that the position of Essex County Executive was "considered by many to be second in power only to that of the Governor.") Current consensus is unsound and gives disproportionate undue weight (a freebie which I support) to a member of a state legislative body over a county official without consideration to the power of political office and the population of the constituency.Djflem (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kudos to Djflem for creating an article with nearly 50 reliable and verifiable sources about the position that is the highest elected office -- directly chosen by the voters -- in a county with 939,000 residents, the largest county in the state of New Jersey and among the 50+ largest of the 3,100+ counties in the United States. The article meets and exceeds the notability standard and is entirely consistent with community consensus for Keep reached ten days ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey that the notability standard is met and reviewed and affirmed two days ago at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 6 where the close stated that "Overwhelming consensus here that the AfD close was correct." Sure, consensus can change, but this article surpasses its Atlantic County equivalent as a model and there is no evidence that anything has changed since the previous close. WP:BLP has been brought up as an argument for deletion without any explanation of how any of the criteria for BLP deletion are met. WP:BLP1E would be relevant if the county executive fell down a well and that was the entire subject of the article, but that seems even more tenuous as an argument for deletion. The article stands on its own separate and apart from the article for Bergen County, New Jersey with greater detail about the county executive, but if the argument for deletion is based on WP:SPINOUT, the appropriate solution would be a merge not deletion, as described by WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. The position is notable and the reliable and verifiable sources about the position, its history and the people who have filled the position meet and far exceed WP:GNG. Alansohn (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the position seems to meet WP:GNG well enough. It's not a major political position, but I feel Wikipedia can cope with articles like this in general. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC) The way it;s written makes it is a placeholder for 4 or 5 non-notable politicians to still have biographies here, it's kind of a composite stub. This is just so off style-wise that I can't support it. I fixed the issue, but was reverted and told I was agreeing to the biographical information being included in excessive detail by !voting keep here. Please consider that now retracted. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep, well-written, well-sourced article about a significant political position.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that notability standards are going to go by the wayside here, but I have to go for deletion. Regardless of how populous the county is, the coverage of these figures is strictly local— and yes, the NYT is a local paper as far as this is concerned, and the coverage seems to be pretty much routine stuff that I would expect any local paper to report about county politicians. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean notability standards are going to go by the wayside here. The article is about a political office, the chief executive of a large county. It consistent with community consensus, as seen in many of the articles found at Category:County executives in the United States Djflem (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Verty strange nom. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but prune. It's not an inherently invalid topic to have an article about — we frequently do have articles about city or county councils when they can be properly sourced as a topic. What's inappropriate here is not the concept of there being an article about the council at all, but the misuse of it as a compilation of mini-BLPs of all the incumbent councillors as a dodge of their failure to survive AFD discussions as standalone topics. The content of the list still has to meet the same standards as any other article: if a person does not qualify to have a full standalone BLP, then pasting all of the same content into the council article in lieu of a standalone article is not an acceptable alternative. The article can include a list of the councillors' names; it cannot include extended biographical sketches of anybody who doesn't qualify to have a full biographical article of their own. That content needs to be pruned, but a basic overview article about the council as an entity is not an unreasonable thing for us to have. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that rule so I can read more about it. --RAN (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

t would be very useful to read elsewhere about the claims being made to back up the validity of the opinion (which includes assumption, accusation, and insinuation) being expressed.Djflem (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer There is discussion on the article talk page directly relevant to elements of this discussion. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Position is notable; form of the article is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Statewide Voter Registration Summary" (PDF). New Jersey Department of State. November 7, 2017. Retrieved March 1, 2018.
^ State & County QuickFacts – Bergen County, New Jersey, United States Census Bureau. Accessed March 10, 2018.

[Wybranowski2002-1] Wybranowski, Wojciech (2002-10-02). "Kłopotliwe śledztwo. Dochodzenie w sprawie mordu na Polakach w Brzostowicy Małej utknęło w martwym punkcie" (in Polish). Nasz Dziennik. Archived from the original on 26 June 2011. Retrieved 31 January 2014.

[IPNown-2] Instytut Pamięci Narodowej (IPN), Informacja o działalności Komisji Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu w okresie 1 lipca 2002 – 30 czerwca 2003. Warsaw, November 2003. Sygn. akt S 50/01/Zk p. 52 – via Internet Archive.

[Gross-3] Gross, Jan Tomasz. Revolution from Abroad. Princeton University Press. p. 29.

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenough_Family_Massacre

[5] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbly_Family_massacre

[6] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_royal_massacre

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_attack

[8] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khairlanji_massacre

[9] Mealey, Linda (1990). "Differential Use of Reproductive Strategies by Human Groups?". Psychological Science. 1 (6): 385–387. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00247.x. S2CID 143173481.

[10] Musek, Janek (2017). The General Factor of Personality. Academic Press. p. 169. ISBN 9780128112496.

[11] Gabbidon, Shaun L. (2015). Criminological Perspectives on Race and Crime. Routledge. p. 40. ISBN 9781317575900.

[12] "Statewide Voter Registration Summary" (PDF). New Jersey Department of State. November 7, 2017. Retrieved March 1, 2018.

[Census2010-13] State & County QuickFacts – Bergen County, New Jersey, United States Census Bureau. Accessed March 10, 2018.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]