Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 February	27 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Smith (Louisiana politician)[edit]

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

Small town mayor who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources used are: 1)announcement of his death in a local newspaper; 2) federal govt records confirming that Smith did, indeed, pass away when he did; 3) unlinked family genealogy; 4) No actual source, just a note from the pages creator; 5) a "statement" from the subject with no link or context as to what said statement is; 6) local coverage about him and 4 others receiving "mayor of the year" from the state association of municipalities; 7) dead link to an obit for ANOTHER mayor, not Smith; 8) Primary election results; 9) an unlinked local newspaper article, of which Smith is not the subject; 10) an unlinked and untitled local newspaper article from 1984; 11, 12, 13, and 14) election returns; 15) his obit in the local newspaper; 16) an unlinked search on net detective, no mention of what results they turned up. GPL93 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors of places with less than 10,000 people (the population when he was mayor) are not default notable. The sourcing is absolutely not enough to show that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- small town mayors have to get a lot of coverage from non-local sources to be notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sherril Lynn Rettino[edit]

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

Tragic and untimely death notwithstanding, this actress is insufficiently notable for a standalone article. [email protected] 22:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One role is not notability for an acting career. Trillfendi (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John L. Molinelli[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NLAWYER or WP:GNG. Autobiography largely edited by WP:SPA / likely sock. Melcous (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill non-notable county prosecutor. No coverage other than that coverage that comes with the job. TJRC (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing but routine coverage. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reads like a resume. Does not meet notability guidelines. Fails WP:NLAWYER and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NLAWYER or WP:GNG. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Procedural close – This AFD is invalid due to the nominator being a confirmed sock now indefinitely blocked. A legitimate editor should start a new AFD if they believe this article shouldn't exist. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last Man Standing (season 7)[edit]

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

~~WP:SPLIT wasn't properly followed. Seasons 1-6 remain on the List of Last Man Standing episodes while season 7 has it's own article. NickBubbleBuddy (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Noting that I have struck the comments of the nominator who has been blocked as a sockpuppet. By rights, the comments should be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - As explained to the nominator this is an entirely valid article. There is no policy or guideline mandating that the season 1-6 articles are created before season 7, which seems to be the nominator's main opposition to the article existing. The article is well sourced and factual. I can't see any reason for nominating the article other than "I don't like it". It's a ridiculous nomination and a waste of everyone's time. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-delete - Other seasons should have similar articles as it is too confusing to nagivate. --CaptainDanger25 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does having an article make it hard to navigate? The remedy would be to create articles for the other seasons, not to delete the one we have and how does one "semi-delete" an article. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Confirmed sockpuppet's comments redacted --AussieLegend (✉) 14:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we don't do the latter. As I explained on your talk page, and here, while it's ideal to have articles for every season it's not mandated. The latest season got a page because the series was revived on a different network. Your concern that to have season 1-6 on one page then having to click a link to view the rest of the summaries doesn't make sense is a really trivial concern. If there were articles for every season we'd have to look at the summaries on 7 different pages instead of just 2. Is looking at more pages more convenient for you? Regardless, we don't delete well sourced articles just because people don't like the look of it. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding nominator's concerns, page split should be carried out properly. Sourced season article doesn't merit deletion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After all this time (9 months and 180 edits by 42 editors), any split concerns can be addressed by the appropriate template. It's certainly not enough to warrant deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and draftify An episode table, a ratings table, and a few sentences of a production do not make a season article. There is nothing here that cannot be included in the parent and episodes article. Merge the content and draft the article until it has been expanded. See the recent Arrowverse articles on how to properly develop an article to be ready for the mainspace. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons (season 30) where an article with considerably less content than this survived nomination. We don't incubate articles in draft until they are GA status. If this were draftified it would be immediately be ready as a stand alone article. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The organization's face[edit]

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

This is about a concept from a book that has no Wikipedia article, and no evidence of notability. Was tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G11 in 2016 and declined. The author's talk page lists several supporting links, none of which do anything to suggest notability of the topic. If there were an article about the book, this could be merged there, but there isn't, so it's best to delete it. The article on the book's author has problems too, but likely the author is notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, nor illuminating. Rathfelder (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any references to the concept as described in the article using Google scholar or Google Books. It's not an easy search, because the three words forming the title of the article are used in that same order quite frequently, but I can't see any hits where they're discussing the subject as described in the article; as such, it doesn't appear to be notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero notability as a concept and unreferenced - references listed appear to be work the author has used as inspiration. I do not see any content worth merging into authors biography. Unoc (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be consensus (though not unanimously) that PROF criterion 2 has been satisfied and thus a keep is suitable (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hanan Mohamed Abdelrahman[edit]

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

Lack of independent third-party non-trivial coverage, the cited referenced are either associated with the award itself, or not about her. Geschichte (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. Possibly speedy keep, because of the falsified and invalid deletion rationale. In what sense are an interview with a different mathematician published by two major mathematical societies (which includes brief but nontrivial coverage of her teaching philosophy) and an article in the major newspaper of its nation (selected from among many many other newspaper articles on the same topic) not independent? In fact, four of the six footnoted references of the article are neither associated with the award nor "not about her". And I would argue that as the winner of her nation's top mathematics education award she clearly passes WP:PROF#C2, that as the subject of stories in multiple newspapers (not just the ones I cited) she clearly passes WP:GNG, and that the other more incidental coverage I included in the article on her book, her web site, and her participation in national education initiatives gives her a pass of WP:BIO1E. I note that this article was taken straight to AfD more or less immediately after it was created. What is it about articles on prize-winning and accomplished young women that acts as such an AfD magnet? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- PS This in-depth profile was published some 7 months after the prize announcement, demonstrating on-going interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C2 and the GNG. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:PROF#C2, Best. Hninthuzar (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF#C2 and also passes WP:GNG. This article is a clear keep. Z359q (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not the slightest bit "clear" that she passes WP:PROF#C2 - there have been discussions on the WP:PROF talk proposing changes that probably would have made it the case, but at present it doesn't say so at all. The gng author line is probably more promising, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly obeys WP:PROF#C2. Kaizenify (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is keep now that the article has been improved and properly referenced to reliable sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omid 16B[edit]

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

Deleted after expired PROD in 2017. Subject's PA has appeared on my talk page requesting restoration. I'm of the opinion that the numerous sources linked on my talk page don't indicate notability (too narrow of an audience, mostly interviews, etc) but I think it would be best if it was looked at by people with interest/experience in the area. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now: I'll chip in here, as this is my area. ;-) If Omid 16B's PA who posted on PMC's talk page is reading this, I was a regular attendee at John Digweed's Bedrock night at Heaven and Red Jerry's Elements club at Elektrowerkz, among others during the late 90s/early 2000s... I mention this because you will therefore know that I will be familiar with Omid's style of deep/progressive house and I have seen Omid play at various nights in London, so there is at least one Wikipedia editor here who is not speaking from a position of ignorance.

The issue Wikipedia has with DJs who were big names before the internet era took off is that most of the reliable sources are not available online – Mixmag, DJ Mag and Ministry have no online archives, which means Wikipedia's coverage of DJs and producers is very biased towards those who have appeared in the last decade, where websites like Dancing Astronaut and YourEDM now cover them regularly. Reviews of Omid's records on Resident Advisor and the like aren't reliable sources for Wikipedia, because they are written by users and fans, rather than professional journalists. And I know he's produced a lot of records, but that doesn't make him notable, just prolific.

So the lack of easily available sources online has resulted in the deletion of article for Omid's erstwhile partners in SOS, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demi (DJ) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desyn Masiello, as well as DJs I certainly consider notable enough (and that reliable sources exist for them) for Wikipedia articles, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Zabiela and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Saiz. From a personal point of view it's frustrating, but there's little that I can do unless the sources can be located and cited (and I live in South America these days, so it's even harder for me to get hold of back copies of the UK dance magazines). If you want to keep the article, you will need to provide the full sources from DJ Mag etc. to be able to provide a basic biographical article – I don't just mean he has appeared on the front cover, but proper articles inside the magazine that say something about Omid, e.g. place and maybe year of birth, any details of his early life, how he got his break, major clubs and events that he has played... not quotes about his own views on his records, or the scene, or his influences, or anything like that. Richard3120 (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi guys & thanks for getting involved Richard3120, good to hear from someone that knows Omid! Wikipedia can be a little complicated for someone who hasn't dealt with it before so excuse me for sending unsuitable links. Wikipedia has been a main source for so many websites for years and I just found so many 'dead' links directing to wikipedia for Omids biography so I'm keen to sort this out. As I mentioned in talk with Premeditated Chaos Omid also has been known under his alias 'Phaser', search for "Omid 16B' and google knowledge graph displays incorrect bio belonging to other band called "Phaser' simply because his biography on wikipedia is not available anymore, ofcourse thats the issue we have to take up with google.

I have found some articles from magazines and took quick snaps. There is much more but it needs a little more digging. Excuse me for quality but with some zooming in it should be possible to read, if not let me know, I might have to scan it. I'll go trough some more over the weekend, flyers or adverts about major events work too?. [1] PA to Omid16b (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be independent and in-depth. Flyers and ads are neither independent (since they are associated with the subject) nor in-depth. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct – many of my friends have been DJs and have flyers of the nights they have played, but it doesn't make them notable... unless it was a major club event that got significant coverage in a music magazine or newspaper, and Omid's name is prominently mentioned in the coverage, it's not going to count. Richard3120 (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the link I included with shots from magazines with articles does not work? PA to Omid16b (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do – I'll have a look through them and see if they can be used for the article. Have you got the date/issue number for the Future Music magazine (last four scans)? Richard3120 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , here is the link to discogs, image shot has front cover with issue/date [2] PA to Omid16b (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should I try to update Omid 16B's wiki page with up to date biography? Possibly then it would be easier to find and include missing sources if any more is required? PA toOmid16b (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Omid16b: I've tidied up the page and added a basic biography based on the scans of the magazines. I'd like to know though, what are the magazines that are the two-page spread between The Face and Future Music, and also the last short article at the bottom? If you have the magazine names and the issue dates that would be a big help, I can't cite them at the moment because I don't know their origins. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richard! I have included scan with issue number for the short article next to it. The other one is Dj mag but we having problem sourcing front cover with issue number (still on the case). I have added some other scans there too if it helps (few more I add later). I also have links to interviews which contains a paragraph or two about Omid coming from a journalist. I've noticed some other dj's have included interviews as their sources on wikipedia. A lot of his discography can also be confirmed via discogs. Let me know if you need anything else. http://omid16b.com/gallery/omid-16b-magazine-covers/ PA to Omid16b (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I'm going to say keep now – there's plenty of reliable independent sources in the article now, and although it's short it still has scope for expansion. But I'm an involved editor now, so it would be good to get some more editors to give their unbiased opinions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sterling work by Richard3120 shows that there are enough sources to meet WP:NMUSIC, and I agree that it's likely that more sources exist offline in the 'old' dance music press. I think there's enough here for an article. — sparklism ^hey! 05:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fair challenge to bring this to AfD; and Richard3120's input now makes it a Keep. Britishfinance (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Tower, Manchester[edit]

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

No in depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: the best I can find is a mere-mention describing the future building as a "notable project"[3] but providing no other information and another very similar mere-mention in the Manchester Evening News [4]. Likely just too soon, we can write the article once the project is closer to being finished and there's more coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's very little information here at the moment and very little independent reliable coverage online. Considering there is a glut of high rise residential building in Manchester, there's no reason to believe the building(s) will be notable enough for a standalone article. Sionk (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Author comment), Construction is in progress which clearly shows on the photographs, official website does not contain a lot of information regarding the project but Elizabeth Tower is a significant addition to Manchester's skyline and this article should not be deleted. Construction is in early stages and more information will follow, I will be contacting Renaker to see if we can expect any updates on this project. I invested my time in this article and although I realise there is not a lot of information available, I believe it will change. It does not contain any misleading information therefore it has the right to exist, rather than deleting it we can all improve it. Michaelmazr (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Michaelmazr[reply]

Comment. Merely existing, or being true, is not a reason to have a Wikipedia article. Subjects have to meet notability guidelines too. Sionk (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Based on precedent, if we are going to delete this article, then we should be deleting every skyscraper over 100 metres in the UK which is currently under construction? I appreciate reservations given it is 'approved' rather than 'built' but it's a substantial enough tower to warrant its own article. If it placates concerns, I will add more references to the article than the current three that are present. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We judge each building on a case-by-case basis following the critera at WP:NBUILD - height per se is not relevant. A 50 metre residental building in London may be mundane, but a 50 metre block proposed next to Ely Cathedral may be notable and consequently discussed in detail in multiple sources.--Pontificalibus 09:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I prefer that we are proactive in retaining pages by improving them rather than simply deleting them because they "don't meet notability guidelines". That's not what Wikipedia is about personally. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The status of existence of a structure or its size isn’t relevant. The lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is the thing. Too Soon. Trillfendi (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' nothing notworthy about the tower at the moment and a mention in List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester is suffcient. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I almost said "hey, haven't you lot heard of WP:BEFORE" but a search for sources throws up lots of false positives because Rochdale town hall (in Greater Manchester) replaced the Elizabeth Tower (which since 2012 has been the official name for what is more commonly called Big Ben) for "the bells" on BBC Radio 4. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NFOOTY presumes that GNG is met when a player makes appearances at a certain level. This has been challenged here and nothing has been provided to indicate sufficient significant independent coverage exists to satisfy GNG. Ultimately this is a player who played a very few games at a fully professional level and has since, at best drifted into lower leagues or at worst has stopped playing at all. Perhaps he will enjoy a resurgence in his career. If so, the article can always be restored. Fenix down (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoulaye Sanogo[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made 2 substitute's appearances (<10 minutes of total play) for Eupen in the fully-pro Belgian top division, plus 1 substitute's appearance (<20 minutes of play) in the Belgian UEFA Europa League play-offs, during the 2016–17 season. The only online coverage of this player is routine (e.g., match reports, transfer announcements, or statistical database entries). There is nothing discussing his career (to the extent it might have continued) in the past 18 months following a brief article noting that he was one of 19 players out of contract at Eupen after the 2016–17 season ended. Prior consensus (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi) is that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL when an article comprehensively fails WP:GNG - as is the case here. Jogurney (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 20 first team appearances = sufficient. Giant Snowman 10:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: not the case here - see - [5][6][7]. It would seem he made 3 senior appearances in 2016/7 - coming in a as a sub - with a total playing time of 27 minutes. The rest of his appearances appear to be in the in FDB (in 2015/6 and in 2014/5 - 7 games in each season (263 minutes and 184 minutes - so quite a bit subbing in relation to 630 minutes off regulation time in 7 games)) - which per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues were not NFOOTY eligible (this became NFOOTY eligible in 2016/7). A substitute player in a club that won promotion - who then faded away to some unknown location.Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He passes WP:NFOOTBALL by virtue of his appearances in a WP:FPL (4 in 2016–17 season per Soccerway, including Cup games, actually totalling 44 minutes), and given his other appearances in lower leagues this is not a simple case of 'only made 1 carer appearance, should be deleted'. Giant Snowman 12:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to apply NFOOTBALL, let's apply it properly. His substitute's appearance in the Cup match was against 5th-tier amateurs S.K. Berlare (which doesn't count under NFOOTBALL). So his sum total of fully-pro league matches is '3' and the total minutes played is '27' - that's barely scraping over the line. Jogurney (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NFOOTY merely creates a presumption that GNG is met, however in this case this player who barely meets NFOOTY (around 27 minutes of NFOOTY play + maybe a few more minutes in domestic cup play), clearly does not pass GNG - it is actually quite hard to find sources on this Sanogo - there is a more notable individual with the same name (but clearly different - per age) - who was allegdly involved for 30 years in illicit protected species trading.[8][9] As the subject fails GNG, it should be deleted.Icewhiz (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY having made several appearances in a fully professional league. As GiantSnowman pointed out, this is not a case of a player making one appearance and never playing again, Sanogo spent three seasons with the club and made 20 appearances. On a side note, there appears to be plenty of mentions of Sanogo in terms of his time with the Aspire Academy online. I would suspect Malian or Qatari based sources may provide more in-depth coverage. Kosack (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear failure of GNG, which is not trumped by football notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't care if he passes WP:NSPORT because, per that very guideline, Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb... In other words, GNG still applies. SITH (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rashaun Ant[edit]

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

This article does not have sources either references just a vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamzine13 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this needed AFD. Their claim to significance is that he is "a very popular Youtuber with lots of subscribers" and that he came out as gay. The rest is just sexual exploitations that are clearly vandalism. I have Speedied it as A7. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Kelty[edit]

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

Small town Alaska mayor. His office doesn't grant him WP:NPOL and the sources used in this article are almost all primary and those that aren't don't do enough to substantiate WP:GNG. Possible WP:AUTOBIO or WP:PROMO GPL93 (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 18:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 18:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand that there may be notability guidelines that need to be met here, but I would ask that this AfD be set aside and time be given to develop the article. One problem with these guidelines is that there appear to be specific guidelines for certain fields, such as sports, politics, business, and so forth. This individual may look insignificant on the Outside, but we are talking about a person that has been the dominant personality in both politics and industry in a town that is the nation's largest fishing port. Is there a notability guideline that meets that? And I'm looking at the other AfDs listed, some with no sources, some with false information--these I understand cutting. I see in another AfD that there's an argument over whether a player has played enough minutes or had enough appearances in a pro-game to merit an article. I cannot believe that a five-time mayor and major figure of industry in the nation's leading fishing port does not merit more consideration as someone with a 27-minute professional football career. I really don't know. AFAIK, this has never been subject of an AfD, and it likely has not gotten the attention that could bring the article to the necessary levels to keep it in place. I ask that some time (and guidance) be given. It's not like Wikpedia's servers are going to burst if this article is kept in place for another 12 months while it gets properly developed. Un school 05:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note that Unalaska is a city with a population of under 5,000 that is within the nation's largest port of Dutch Harbor, not the port itself. While I understand you on notability guidelines and how sometimes they don't appear to be fair, the ones that you mentioned are inclusionary ones and WP:GNG supersedes all of them. When I did a WP:BEFORE search I couldn't find enough sourcing to establish notability and the article's current sourcing is half dead links and the rest are mostly passing mentions, primary sources, or WP:ROUTINE local coverage. While I certainly agree that Kelty is a very interesting individual, unfortunately pretty often "local legend" subjects fail to meet notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand you on notability guidelines and how sometimes they don't appear to be fair Indeed, as I note below to User:Bearcat, it just amazes me that if this man had run for the Alaska House of Representatives and served just two years in that office, even with no accomplishments, that this would meet notability guidelines, but five terms as mayor and being the most highly regarded authority on the Alaskan crabbing industry does not meet the threshold. Sounds like a case for WP:IAR to me.

Funny you would say that, as Unalaska has had such an individual in its history, Eric Sutcliffe. I probably shouldn't have gone there, as the Wikipedia community has had a hard time accepting that topics notable in the 1980s are still notable while they keep pushing us further in the direction of "the sum total of all human knowledge as far as the 21st century is concerned". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the article's current sourcing is half dead links A fair point. So what would be the harm in giving the article a year to be bolstered by some solid research? It can be done, but the timing of this AfD certainly does not work with my situation right now.
please note that Unalaska is a city with a population of under 5,000 that is within the nation's largest port of Dutch Harbor, not the port itself Not to be pedantic, but it's actually the reverse—the port of Dutch Harbor is entirely within the boundaries of the City of Unalaska. Not sure that makes a difference, just thought I'd mention it. Un school 05:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies on that last point, but the other two still stand. As Bearcat notes below, state reps are inherently more notable. Secondly, most of the dead links and most of the sources in general are primary and as I said earlier I conducted a search to find if more reliable sourcing that would establish notability existed and nothing turned up. If he doesn't meet notability standards now there's a fairly good chance he won't be notable within 12 months. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on the boundaries. I think I didn't register that you had already looked for sources. Thanks. I indicate in my notes below to Bearcat that I don't agree about the state legislator thing, but that's nonetheless the standard. I appreciate your time. Un school 02:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A population of 5K is not large enough to hand a town's mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as mayors — and no, being "the nation's largest fishing port by volume of fish caught" is not a reason why its mayors would be politically more important than other smalltown mayors, either — but this depends almost entirely on primary sources rather than media coverage that reaches the volume or depth needed to get him over WP:GNG. The notability criteria for mayors is WP:NPOL #2, "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", but that's not what's in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A population of 5K is not large enough to hand a town's mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as mayors

Oh, I understand that. But it is not just his role as a mayor. Before and during his political career, he has worked in the Dutch Harbor fishing industry for decades. He is the most highly regarded authority on the subject, and the state of Alaska has frequently sent him to Washington to provide expert testimony on the industry. I find it ironic that if he had run for a single term in the Alaska Legislature and served for two years in Juneau, that he would meet notability guidelines, but serving five terms as mayor and being an expert in industry is less worthy of inclusion. Does that make any sense at all? Un school 05:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A state legislator is inherently more important than a mayor of a town of 5,000. For one thing, they sit in a statewide body and have the power to vote on statewide laws, and for another, they get real reliable source coverage in media — so they're important whether you care about them or not. For a little bit of context, before Wikipedia formally quantified that state legislators are accepted as notable, we used to have constant circular debates around how much "accomplishment" was enough: did they have to have attained a leadership position to be notable, did they have to have sponsored 400 bills before they were notable enough, that kind of thing — even no-brainer notables were getting challenged on grounds best described as "well, I don't personally give a shit about state legislators".

Glaring inconsistencies abound on this topic. We had an editor who not too long ago went around eradicating our coverage of the mayors of Wasilla in order to put more weight on Sarah Palin (speaking of "the sum total of all human knowledge as far as the 21st century is concerned"). The same rationale was applied that Wasilla contains a small population within corporate limits, ignoring that in Wasilla's case, it's a primary hub for an area spanning tens of thousands of square miles and containing at present over 100,000 people. In one case, it was also ignored that the subject of one of the deleted articles did receive significant coverage because that coverage occurred over 30 years ago. The same editor who undertook this deletefest has continued to define Wasilla as he sees fit, making edits related to areas outside Wasilla city limits and claiming those areas to be part of Wasilla on multiple occasions. The mayor of Juneau is a ceremonial mayor of a community with slightly more than 30,000 residents. When Greg Fisk died just weeks after taking office, the national media made a big deal out of it before dropping the story like a hot potato once they realized there was no boogeyman to be found. The various media outlets told their audiences simply "the mayor of Juneau, Alaska has died" without further explanation. Not once did I hear it explained that this is a ceremonial mayor of a place with 30,000 people and as such tends to attract older people to the position, and that it was later revealed he died of causes related to being an older person. All I saw from the rest of the community was that if the national media made such a big deal out of Fisk, why, we're obligated to do likewise, and that we're further obligated to treat the title of "mayor" as being something more significant than it really is. As far as the rest of the community is concerned, they are making a big deal out of the mayor of Juneau because Juneau is a state capital and therefore it's okay to ignore that the position is a ceremonial position and the town is a small town, but I have yet to see one person with the temerity to admit that. I don't have time to look up census data, but I would be surprised if there are 100,000 people in all of Southeast Alaska, which has other hub communities besides Juneau. Also, it should be all too obvious that plenty of members of the community "don't personally give a shit about state legislators". Those editors who spend inordinate amounts of time babbling away on project and talk pages and have little time for content may not have noticed that a small group of editors have turned our coverage of legislatures and legislators into their own private POV fork and have been getting away with it for at least seven or eight years that I've noticed, due to the lack of oversight by the community at large. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And even for "experts" in industry, the inclusion test is still the depth of reliable source coverage they did or didn't get in media. A person testifying in Washington is not automatically notable just because transcripts of his testimony have been published by the government — he's notable if media devote their resources to covering his testimony as news, and not if they don't. These still aren't the sources it would take to make Frank Kelty notable on that basis, because government reports and freelance writers' personal websites and staff profiles on the websites of a person's own employer are never how you make anybody notable enough for a Wikipedia article: the only kinds of sources that support notability at all are media coverage, media coverage, media coverage, media coverage and/or media coverage, and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I follow your points (and agree with all but one) and understand that I'm going to lose this discussion. I recognize that notability guidelines exist because notability is inherently subjective, and such guidelines make it easier to move along without constantly repeating the same arguments. But this does give me cause to reflect. I guess I've never thought of myself as an inclusionist before, but I just don't see what is gained by deleting an article that is factually accurate. It's something that no one will be able to look up, because, well, I don't know why.

The one argument of yours that I find logically flawed is this: A state legislator is inherently more important than a mayor of a town of 5,000. For one thing, they sit in a statewide body and have the power to vote on statewide laws. Well, by that logic, I could similarly state "A congressman is inherently more important than a governor of a state with 500,000. For one thing, they sit in a national body and have the power to vote on national laws." I know, there's the media coverage. I think that's your most powerful point, and I guess your comparison to the state legislators really rubs me the wrong way. I've personally known scores of state legislators in my lifetime, and the vast majority of them had less impact than this man. And not just this guy--hundreds of mayors are more significant than thousands of state legislators, IMHO.

Thanks for engaging me in this discussion. I know you didn't have to spend your time on something like this that is apparently a foregone conclusion. Un school 02:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you're the one who raised state legislators as a comparison in the first place, not me. And analogizing what I said to "a congressman is inherently more important than a governor of a state with 500,000" isn't relevant at all — congressmen and state governors are both accepted as inherently notable, so there's no notability contest between them to worry about. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dinky town mayors are not default notable, and there is not enough coverage to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Another manifestation of the latest disturbing trend on Wikipedia, namely pushing a concept of political biography which amounts to manufacturing a pecking order of titles, which has precious little to do with anything pertaining to the term "biography". This "dinky town" happens to be of national importance as it contains the top fishing port in the United States. I don't watch television, but I'm to understand that the mayor of Unalaska is frequently referred to on Deadliest Catch and has been throughout the series' run. The few higher-tier sources are sufficient enough. As for the rest of the sources, this is what the Wikipedia community gets for pushing the notion that you source articles with whatever crap one finds lying around the web rather than searching out the best possible sources. For example, Laine Welch has covered the fishing industry in Alaska full-time for over 30 years. Google hits are weak, but Kelty appears to be one of her go-to sources. The map of Unalaska's corporate limits shows that Dutch Harbor is within Unalaska and not the other way around, regardless of what GPL93 may believe. Bearcat's statement "the only kinds of sources that support notability at all are media coverage, media coverage, media coverage, media coverage and/or media coverage, and nothing else" is a tacit admission that we're here to be nothing more than a news site, another disturbing trend. Even so, I'd bet that a news archive search would turn up much different results than a Google search. Why is there such a concerted effort to not acknowledge this resource in just about every AFD I come across lately? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't grant all poorly referenced articles a stay of execution just because somebody theorizes that better referencing might be available in news archives they haven't actually checked — the key to turning the tide on a poorly referenced article is to show the evidence that the necessary quality and depth of referencing definitely does exist, not just to speculate that it's possible. Not everybody has access to all of the same news databases as each other — if this guy were Canadian, it would take me less than five minutes to do a thorough and definitive sweep of whether he had enough archived coverage to clear the notability bar for smalltown mayors or not, but since he's not, I can only judge the sources that other people actually show. There's no "concerted effort to not acknowledge this resource" happening at AFD: we just don't assume that archived coverage exists in advance of anybody actually showing the actual results of a search for it, which is not the same thing as not even acknowledging the existence of news archives. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, just because the show Deadliest Catch was filmed in his town does not make the mayor notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after a review of the sources and my own before search, I see precious little (read: no) significant coverage in non-local sources. Fails WP:NPOL, and the sources which exist do not seem substantial enough to pass WP:GNG, ie standard small town political coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo Exclusive[edit]

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

Still no evidence of notability for this company/blog. Only ref is Crunchbase - WP:CORPDEPTH clearly not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with above. Actaudio (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2019 (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)} 18:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: source searches turn up little non-affiliated sources other than the cited one, and that alone isn't enough to satisfy the depth of coverage required for companies. SITH (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SITH. A Google search of the website doesn't show it being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Amir Uddin Ahmed[edit]

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

No reliable source. Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:BLP ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Albeit its texts can be helpful, but presumably its only (one) source is not sufficient to keep it -- unless by adding enough appropriate sources. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2019 (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)} 18:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know the native language and checked the sources among which most are dead and the rest arent's RS of blogs. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per ImmortalWizard. I don't know the native language but when translated by Google, it's clear that these sources are not reliable and are mainly affiliated, thus failing both the biographies of living persons policy and notability standards. SITH (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asgaard (PMC)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, misrepresented sources, almost incomprehensibly bad translation from German ("main field weaver"? I assume that's supposed to be Hauptfeldwebel). Practically every sentence either could do with a {{citation needed}} tag, or they misrepresent the lone cited source (no, Freitag doesn't say they had 100 employees in 2010). If the company is notable, which is not shown, it would be easier to rewrite the page from scratch than to salvage this version. Huon (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company (if it really is that...). Trillfendi (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2019 (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)} 18:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the closest company I could find using the German Trade Register (link, mirror) is ASGAARD German Security Guards - Consulting GmbH, hardly a "mercenary" organisation, and it's based in Hamm, not Münster. Source searches in English and German turn up nothing about a mercenary group, and the sources for the aforementioned company (assuming this is a very bad translation) don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH anyway. SITH (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that it satisfies WP:ORG as a notable company. Edison (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7. Whilst Asgaard GSG [10] does indeed appear to be what might be described as a private military company, the article, at this awkward title, does not make it clear why it is notable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ministry of AYUSH. As WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Officer (AYUSH)[edit]

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

Routine administrative post. Routine mentions in media but not encyclopedic-ally notable. ∯WBG^converse 12:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess NDOCTOR is the only thing that applies here and this doesn’t meet it. Trillfendi (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2019 (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)} 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ministry of AYUSH. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2,3-Dihydroxysuccinohydrazide[edit]

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

Per WP:MOSCHEM, all chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound. A websearch and a search of the chemical literature does not turn up any significant uses or relevant information to indicate that there is any significance to this chemical compound. ChemNerd (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my search effort had similar (non-)results to ChemNerd's. Agricolae (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - no reliable independent sources forthcoming. The author may recreate in draft if needed. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bassingthwaite[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as notable per WP:AUTHOR. This doesn't make any strong notability claims such as winning notable literary awards, but simply states that he and his work exist, so his notability can be judged solely by whether or not he clears WP:GNG on the sourcing — but the only references here are his own self-published primary sources about himself and a Q&A interview on a non-notable blog, and I can't find anything better in any database I have the ability to search. As always, the notability test for writers is not just that his work metaverifies its own existence in WorldCat or an online bookstore: the notability test requires media outlets to pay independent attention to his work, such as publishing book reviews and/or doing journalism about him. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found, otherwise move to draft space so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO created in 2007 by SPA User:DragonReader. Bassingthwaite has written a great many books to accompany a complicates series of interlinked games. Note that the bluelinked subheads are to articles about the sundry games (with lots of PRIMARY and dubious sources,) but that the individual books are unsourced. If you click the links to the handful of individually linked books, you find no sources or PRIMARY sources. Bassingthwaite fails WP:AUTHOR and shold be deleted along with his bluelinked books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the only “sources” are from himself is the biggest red flag. Trillfendi (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat - I can't find any coverage on him and this reads functionally like a CV. SportingFlyer T·C 14:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Mahler[edit]

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

American political scientist. This WP:BLP is essentially unsourced, the only external link is dead. The article was created by a single-purpose account and may be an autobiography ("His favorite colors are maroon and off white"). A Google search provides no indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Sandstein 15:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now notice that we had a precious AfD in 2008, where the person was considered notable. But after 10 years of no improvement I think it's WP:TNT time; we can't allow unsourced BLP content to hang around forever. Sandstein 15:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search does not bring up substantive third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 21:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several source and textbooks in 2nd, 3rd, and 5th print editions. His books show up as widely cited in gScholar and in book searches. I used various keywords: Israel, names of co-authors, Palestine, Canada. He does use both Greg and Gregory. Sources exist to support notability, yet another page in need of an editor. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With (now in the article) at least 14 published reviews of 8 books, he easily passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR as demonstrated by Gregory and Eppstein above. Portions that are unsourced can be tagged or removed. Thsmi002 (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfluence[edit]

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

Unverible and fails WP:NWEB and WP:COMPUTING, plus it is undersourced. Sheldybett (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I prodded this as it is indeed unverifiable (searching for Nfluence + bytebreak gives no results). Fram (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the distinctive name, could only find one ref on a Symantec blog. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pop the Q[edit]

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

Short-lived, non-notable tv gameshow. Article is completely unreferenced and has had no substantial edits in over ten years. Google search finds nothing of value, nothing that amounts to "significant coverage". PC78 (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly non-notable; the article is a relic of Wikipedia's worst years. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without a single source to demonstrate notability it can't pass WP:GNG, and I can't find any. Novusuna ^talk 22:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy (send to Draft). Black Kite (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenair[edit]

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

Little to no third party coverage. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG

Defunct airlines AFDs:

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an airline operating large aircraft that has clearly been in operation for a number of years is noteworthy enough for an article. Being defunct is not a reason for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne, reason is no reference. Even WP:GNG needs third party coverage. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps it should be tagged for references required rather than AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find any references to this charter airline in Google Books / Google News, and even the sole external link in the article is dead. --HunterM267 ^talk 16:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist. Article is salvageable. In extremis, userfy to my namespace, but don't delete. Zazpot (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the statement in the lede is true: "Around late 1990, it was the largest private sector airline in Turkey", then surely it would make it a Keep? Perhaps we would need to scan Turkish sources to get GNG? Britishfinance (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have now sought guidance about this. Zazpot (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per Zazpot. Could be notable, I can't analyse non-Roman-alphabet sources at the moment due to technical issues, so it'd be a shame to lose something that's notable but could be improved, especially when we've got an editor who's volunteering to incubate it. SITH (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy the English-language references in the article now are not sufficient to meet the GNG and keep the article in mainspace, but I would be surprised if there wasn't any significant coverage in Turkish media. YSSYguy (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Sources exist. These sources are verifiable per WP:NONENG. Therefore, this article is Notable. I also want to tally the results so far for the Airline Nominations by Tyw7; AB Aerotransport - keep, Greenair - ongoing (likely Userfy), Venus Airlines - delete, Quikjet Airlines - no consensus, and Finnaviation - merge. There is a strong possibility every single one will have closed with a different outcome. I just find that interesting. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - at the very least, this needs some copyediting which can be done in the userspace. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple votes for "userfy" because the topic is notable, should just be understood as "Keep". People, don't be wimpy!!!! Seems like a notable topic. As others state, sure, tag it for development, but there is a pretty wide consensus that the topic is notable, it seems. So just KEEP it. --Doncram (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, but there isn't enough sources to pass notability. There /maybe/ sources or maybe not.
That's why many calls for userfying. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Church[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, I dont think Cosmopolitan magazine’s ‘Hot Read of the Month’ qualifies as a major award neither do "book of the week" by Sunday times. Also fails WP:AUTHOR, one of his works was of particular interest to a non-notable studio, and a movie was planned but never took off. All his works were only published by non-notable companies, and since he is still actively writing, could be notable in the future, But not now. Daiyusha (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G11 Is this self written or WP:PAIDEDITING? Also it was created by User:Rossychurch which seems a complete conflict of interested. Govvy (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 normally stalks these parts, G11? Govvy (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ Borderline notability for author of thriller/crime novels. His novels have been reviewed - I added reviews to page. I have not found profiles. Article is new, poorly written, and pretty obvious COI. He has just signed a 3-book deal and could become more clearly notable soon. He is close to passing WP:AUTHOR. I recommend that we userfy and urge the author of this page to take a closer look at how articles are written and how notability established for writers by reading and making improvements on other pages about books, writers, Capetown, or whatever topics interest. If some of the forthcoming novels get a little press attention (reviews, author profiles, interviews) this page can be brought back to mainspace. But unless someone can show more reviews and WP:SIGCOV , it looks as though it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no material article on this subject in a major RS. Probably a COI issue here too. Britishfinance (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, it is not necessary for an WP:AUTHOR to have had a profile or article including bio details - I assume that this is what User:Britishfinance means by "material article" - Book reviews in major publications support notability for AUTHORS, and this write has had them in the Cape Argus, Cape Times (hometown) and Sydney Morning Herald (not hometown.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Blocked editor) The article does appear to be COI but the author seems worthy of a Wikipedia page. A lot of edits are needed thoughKleinEthan (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we needed any more evidence of COI activity. Britishfinance (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this time—unnotable. Trillfendi (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both reasons apply 1. sourcing fails WP:N (likely TOOSOON) and 2. promo Widefox; talk 10:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he's so non-notable, how come his pageviews are so high???? Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
reply That's not very high at all! Govvy (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually, for an AFD candidate it is. Really. For example it is c. 60 times higher than the last AFD bio you voted Keep for! Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
striking my "userfy" iVote due to COI concerns. There should be no prejudice against re-creating a page in the event that future books are published and draw attention that carries him past WP:AUTHOR. With the caveat that a new article should be written sans COI.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Marvel Comics characters: T. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talos the Untamed[edit]

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

Comic book character lacking real-world notability. Should be redirected to Skrull#Known Skrulls or other appropriate target. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge to Skrull as suggested by the nominator. He is expected to be an important character in a movie coming out a month from now, so since we do not know what RS reviews have yet to be published, it does not make sense to delete at this time. BOZ (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a comicbook expert. However, even if we ignore WP:CRYSTAL (which we shouldn't) when I look at equivalent level characters at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors most don't have their own articles. I certainly don't advocate deleting, but some sort of redirect, merging information to the destination, seems like the right handling of this character. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion, If you do end up merging, why not put it on the page for List of Marvel Comics characters: T? I think the character is still notable enough to have a piece about him.Voicebox64 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - meets my criteria for inclusion on List of Marvel Comics characters: T. Might even meet the criteria to Keep, but I haven't seen the film yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nom List of Marvel Comics characters: T seems an appropriate redirect target. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: T. If the character gets further coverage from the film appearance, there may be a possibility of recreating the article then, but now it does not appear to have the coverage necessary for an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note I already put up the section on List of Marvel Comics characters: T. Please look over it and make any necessary changes.Voicebox64 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MacOS Server#Server administrator tools. Sandstein 07:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh Manager[edit]

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

Back in November Piotrus PROD-ed this and Champion de-PROD-ed it. I think this makes at best a dubious claim to notability per WP:NSOFT or WP:NPRODUCT, just because it was made by Apple doesn't make it inherently notable. SITH (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Thanks on following up on this. As before, I see some mentions in passing but no in-depth review. Do ping me if in-depth coverage is located and I may revise my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to macOS Server#Server administrator tools as a possible search term. Having merge what's needed to that page. Govvy (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 14:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Fertility Chase[edit]

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

There seems to be no lasting coverage beyond some routine mentions. Madness ^Darkness 19:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, as article creator. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no significant independent coverage establishing notability. Only current reference is to a press release, which is not appropriate for establishing notability. Colin M (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 14:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Mosque and Islamic Society of Darlington[edit]

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

Uncited for over 5 years. While there are quite a few Jamia mosques around the world, I can find no in-depth coverage of this particular mosque. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that if the article can't be developed, it could be merged into the entry for Darlington (which might benefit from a section on religious buildings). But I've been adding in references and we might conclude that the article has met notability criteria after a bit more work. Alarichall (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom now there are thousands of mosques in England .Now it is not clear why this particular mosque is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I appreciate the work Alarichall has put in to improve this article, but I still think it fails notability. The only independent coverage cited relates to crimes reported in relation to the building, but I don't think this reporting speaks to the notability of the mosque itself (see Wikipedia:Businesses_with_a_single_location#In_the_news_because_of_crime). Colin M (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 14:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Passing WP:NFOOTY without also passing WP:GNG isn't a valid argument for keeping. Reliable independent sources are required, and none could be found. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Bittner[edit]

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

While the subject passes NFOOTY by the dint of single appearance in the first team of a 3.Liga team (the rest of the season he was in the reserves) - NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability that GNG is met. In this particular case, after a through review of available sourcing I am quite convinced that the footballer does not come close to having SIGCOV. Please note that there is a Dr. hab Florian Bittner (das ist sein linkedin) who would seem to pass NACADEMIC(1) - however is clearly (age) a different individual.

A note to keep voters - "Keep per NFOOTY" is not sufficient. Please point out to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (no - interviews and releases by the club do not count).Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL and likely meets WP:GNG with sources such as this. A German-speaker needed to help out with more. Has nominator complied with WP:BEFORE other than a cursory Google search? Obviously not. Article needs improving, not deleting. Good summary of career here which might assist with finding more sources. Giant Snowman 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
fupa.net merely has a list of appearances in non-professional teams. As for www.merkur.de - I found this in my BEFORE, and alluded to this in my nomination - "interviews and releases by the club do not count" - this is an interview with the subject (and quite possibly PR flap by the club) on his joining the 3.Liga team - and thus is not an independent source. Unless you actually produce multiple in-depth reliable sources here (which is quite unlikely seeing this player spent a single season with the 3.Liga team (and that - mainly in the reserves, making a single appearance) - then no - we can not assume GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a stub, the article needs improving and not deleting - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This is a bad faith nomination, nominator didn't even check the German wikipedia for the player. Govvy (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator actually did check the dewiki entry - and found no sources there that would establish WP:GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having had another review of the article, the player is 27 and playing in non-league football, I thought there was a bit for him, but there isn't enough for WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. Govvy (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article about semi-pro footballer who made one 90-minute appearance in the fully-pro German 3.Liga several years ago. Although the interview published by Rheinischer Merkur (which appears to have been conducted by a football blogger) appears to be significant coverage, nothing else suggests this article would ever pass the GNG. Kicker has a profile page but zero articles even mentioning Bittner. Based on prior consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi), a footballer who has a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league such as this doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL if the article comprehensively fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you've acknowledged there is significant coverage how does it fail GNG? Giant Snowman 19:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." I've always read this as requiring significant coverage from more than one WP:RS. We don't have that here. Jogurney (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are also generally seen as primary and non-independent - and usually do not count towards GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are way too inclusionist of the one-sentence 'touched a ball' articles. The sport-spam-flood needs to be pruned. WP:NFOOTBALL and related guidelines contradict GNG and should be nuked. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The claims of notability through NFOOTY are tenuous at best. Yes, he passes the SNG, but only just and is now playing at a less notable level. However, there is also the suggestion, through the provision of a single significant interview that there may be wider GNG in this instance. Given that these sources will almost certainly not be in english language, there seems no harm in extending the discussion to allow for additional searching to establish a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appearance is not notability— even for sport. Trillfendi (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Multiple feature articles in merkur.de. Several before searches show there's a lot of coverage on him generally, not a lot of significant coverage, but coverage you'd expect from someone who plays in a football league with a decent amount of coverage. It's not the clearest WP:GNG pass, and I could see this going either way, but I do think collectively there's enough information out there with the feature stories and continual other mentions (not just game coverage) to get him over the line. SportingFlyer T·C 22:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: please link to specific pieces (the best 3-4) - asserting sources exist without specifying which sources - is not sufficient.Icewhiz (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ananya Mishra[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Made a google search and could not find any RS. Her awards and achievements were removed from a previous version. I tried my best to find RS. Even if they exist, I highly doubt those awards are notable enough. I contested for speedy, but was halted by SoWhy because of the awards. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC) THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if I were you I would have A7ed this. Trillfendi (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: didn't I mention I tried speedy and it got halted? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn’t read that part. No award could supercede an unreferenced two sentence “article” to me. Deletrius! Trillfendi (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. A WP:A7. However, even doing the WP:BEFORE gives little for WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 InterCity (New Zealand). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skip Bus[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Page was earlier moved to draft by User:Discospinster but was moved back to main space few mins later by another new user probably creator. Lapablo (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Intercity (New Zealand) as its parent company. The brand is definitely not notable for its own article and was moved into draftspace already for that reason. Ajf773 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Intercity (New Zealand) with redirect. not yet notable by itself. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Merge to Intercity (New Zealand) since there is not enough coverage (WP:GNG). Add redirect to the page, too.--Hiwilms (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Intercity (New Zealand) with redirect. Lack of sources does not justify a standalone article yet. Akld guy (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maayan Keret[edit]

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

Not enough WP:RS to establish notability. They're quite a few passing mentions from search. Fails criteria WP:NMODEL. Lapablo (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Looking the hewiki and sources for "מעין קרת" / "מעיין קרת" I think she passes the notability bar on Hebrew sources. Less notable as a model, she also was the leading actor of a commercial film (+a couple of significant roles) and is probably more notable as an author/activist in the past few years. Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's actually quite a lot in news archive searches. She was a successful international model.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So many WP:RS that I am surprised about this nomination. gidonb (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vavoom Records[edit]

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

"Vavoom+Records" Source search implies this is a non-notable vanity label for Verity. SITH (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. Agree with nominator, this is just a small private label run by John Verity and his family, featuring Verity and a handful of other local artists, none of whom are independently notable (John Verity does not appear to be independently notable outside of Argent, and even then he joined the band towards the end of their career). Richard3120 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Richard3120. Britishfinance (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Rankine[edit]

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

Article created in 2007. Bad wikification and this living person doesn't seem to have notability. --Bageense^(fala) 12:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article needs work, but Dean Rankine is a significant and well known Australian comic artist, a frequent guest at conventions, and well known for his Simpsons work over recent years. --Ian T

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should be kept, Dean Rankine does pass WP:NBIO, but this article needs to be improved. SwagGangster ^• 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you do not get gigs like he does withpout being recognized by your peers for your contribution to the field. It's tough to find in-depth RS, but I suggest that he meets WP:ARTIST based on peer recognition and contribs to the field.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can find several sources at least bringing Rankine up, but only The Sidney Morning Herald actually writes some information about them. He gets brought in as a guest on a lot of conventions, but I can't find any sources that really talk about his career. I did find one interview, but I don't know if it is a reliable source. I feel fairly neutral on this AfD. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to me to easily get over CREATIVE and AUTHOR. This seems to indicate a major and key role in many publications held by many libraries, both large and small. Aoziwe (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CashmereMedia[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Aside from mirrors and forks, "CashmereMedia" searches turn up little other than affiliated sources. SITH (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Close to a WP:A7 case. Not even borderline GNG/CORPDEPTH. Britishfinance (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If you separate into two names ("Cashmere Media" as opposed to "Cashmeremedia"), you get more results. However, it still falls short of WP:NCORP in my opinion. Mentions of its production credits but nothing in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Old article since 2007 that hasn't had significant press coverage and clearly fails notability. Lapablo (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This currently-operating Irish company does not appear to be the company whose takeover was reported in the sole reference. Nothing in the article text makes a case for notability. Their website mentions a 2008 ICAD award [11], but that does not appear innately notable. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lourdes 04:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urapopstar[edit]

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

The two passing mentions cited are insufficient for passing either WP:NVG or WP:GNG. SITH (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The scotsman has me veering towards No true Scotsman in that the piece doesn't have an author on the byline. The Guardian piece (or observer?) is a very brief piece. looking at URAPS Wiki I don't see much more in sourcing (other than ourselves). The forum and [https://twitter.com/urapsofficial?lang=en twitter are dead. And I can't find much else in terms of sourcing - so fails WP:SIGCOV. I would expect sources to be online - this is from the internet age (an online game from the aughts). Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leung Lan-kwai[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, sources are of very dubious quality. As bas tas I can deduce, all we know of this person is that in Wing Chun tradition, he is said to have passed traditions or knowledge on from Leung Bok Chau to Wong Wah Bo. Fram (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find coverage in independent reliable sources. I found lots of "it is said" and "reportedly", but there's a lack of actual supported facts. The current sources in the article consist of a blog, an online wing chun course, and someone's diagram of the wing chun family tree. None of those sources qualify towards meeting WP:GNG. Show me some good sources and I'd be happy to reconsider. Papaursa (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Up to you, I translated from the Chinese wiki zh:梁兰桂 and I admitted that I had difficulties looking for proper sources, maybe one can add in the word legendary there to solve the issue just like what was seen on the legendary woman Yim Wing-chun, and yes, I had even considered about creating her husband Leung Bok-chau article, but no Chinese wiki article been created yet.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argos (dog)[edit]

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

This minor character in the Odyssey doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Beyond being quite present in the Odyssey (does not confer notability - yet I would question the assertion of being minor) [12], Argos has been the protagonist of a number of full length books - e.g. - Argos: The Story of Odysseus as Told by His Loyal Dog, Argos as well as being discussed at length in a scholarly context - e.g.

Rose, Gilbert P. "Odysseus' Barking Heart." Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 109 (1979): 215-230.
Köhnken, Adolf. "Perspektivisches Erzählen im homerischen Epos: Die Wiedererkennung Odysseus: Argos." Hermes (2003): 385-396.
Rohdich, Hermann. "Der Hund argos und die anfänge bürgerlichen selbstbewusstseins." Antike und Abendland 26.1 (1980): 33.
Scodel, Ruth. "Odysseus' dog and the productive household." Hermes 133.H. 4 (2005): 401-408..

I will further note that the status of Odysseus as part of the corpus of Homeric literature probably confers notability on all charachters even but mentioned (due to subsequent derivative works and analysis) - however this should be evaluated on a case by case basis. In this case, the barking friend of Ulysses is eminently notable - above and beyond WP:SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Icewhiz. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Icewhiz. Britishfinance (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and express pity for Nom's ignorance of Classics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Argos, noble hound who was renowned for not losing a wild beast in the forest once he got its scent and who alone among mortals recognized his returned master has been lauded often and at length as noted above. The idea that he does not merit an article? That dog won't hunt. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. Another item worth mentioning is the short story "The Immortal" by Jorge Luis Borges. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. Edison (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lourdes 04:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Kreizman[edit]

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

Article has one single primary source and Google doesn't turn up any RS discussing her (a few mentions in passing). I believe this is completely non notable. WP:ORPHAN, and the fact it's a stub are just the icing. Hydromania (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment seems the article was tagged for deletion 5 yrs ago and then withdrawn a minute later diff I can't find it in the AfD archives so I don't know if it was actually submitted Hydromania (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG requires multiple indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'- No sources, does not pass WP:BIO--Rusf10 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep with RefImprove tag. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William I. “Bill” Fine[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP and WP:N. Former elected-official no longer in office. Insignificant coverage in reliable third party sources. Comatmebro (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOTTEMPORARY. State rep (verified - here - the sources in the article do not actually quite establish this I think) 2014-2016 passing WP:NPOL. Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former member of the Indiana House of Representatives. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that he was actually a Rep, he passes notability criteria even if the article is anemic. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Rename to Bill Fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we keep state legislators.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep stupid!! According to WP:NPOL, Current MPs or former MPs or Long long ago MPs or removed position MPs are alway notable and meet WP:NPOL !!! Hninthuzar (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the term "MP" is not used to mean state legislators in the United States. I'm mentioning this because you also changed the article to read "MP" instead of "member" — but state legislatures are not parliaments, so their members are not "members of parliament". Yes, they serve the same function as a parliament, but they're still a different thing. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your explain Bearcat, In my country Myanmar, state legislators is called State and Regional Hluttaws, "hulttaw" meaning in Burmese language as "parliament". And member of the state legislators are called Regional MP of the State or Region Parliament. Thanks Hninthuzar (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with refimprove tag. Does need improvement, but people who can be verified as having served as state legislators have a straight and clean pass of WP:NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German youth language[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH and likely an A10 duplication of something - This is a translation of de:Jugendsprache, a generic page on "youth language", enhanced by a horde of IP editors, with the word "German" thrown in a lot. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to be notable.^[1] Benjamin (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22German+youth+language%22

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the Google scholar search Benjamin has provided, this subject appears to get plenty of coverage in academic sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this appears generic at first glance, but beyond the lede is actually quite specific to German youth slang. Well okay, about 3/4 of "Characteristics" is waffle and could go. It doesn't help that like with everything ported from dewiki, it's weak on inline cites, but the sources are present. - If already covered elsewhere, I'm not seeing that? --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
Comment and objections. The problem is that the sources are about "youth language" and are written in German, they're not about "German youth language" as far as I can tell. IT IS WP:SYNTH to assume that the German-language sources are talking about German language teens simply because they are in German. I know there isn't a rule requiring English sources - but unless one is found, I will continue to believe this is a mix of "unsourced slang", and scholarly papers that aren't intended to be specifically about German but simply get the word "German" thrown in a bunch during bad translations to English. It is as if I translated Youth culture into French and called the article "American youth culture", claiming that "in English speaking countries, there are many distinct and constantly changing youth subcultures". IT IS WP:SYNTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the article text: all the stuff in "Features", which is the meat of the article, is specific to German. Based on the sources: refs 2-6 are also German-specific - clear from short title for all but #3, and that is given in more detail under "Sources" as a chapter of "Die deutsche Sprache zur Jahrtausendwende". The only ref likely to be generic is #1. Really, this looks topical enough. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kettle Restaurants[edit]

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

Unable to find multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd say the newly added sources are enough. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 07:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Chip[edit]

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

This unreferenced article is either:

Promoting CloudChips' products (its website appears defunct) or technology by associating its concept of a cloud chip with that of an experiment Intel processor that coincidentally has a similar name
It's attempting to invent a neologism by synthesizing a definition from things that have "cloud chip" in their name or that have been as described as such. 99Electrons (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. SwagGangster ^• 03:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is a definition of an old concept trying to promote a likely finished company. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 07:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article probably verges on TNT, but the term seems notable and refers to products by different companies - e.g. Microsoft 2018, Cambricon Technology (China). I would lean towards a redirect if there is a suitable developed target Icewhiz (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Manycore processor. The name is a plausible search term and may warrant a full article (but not at present state). Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: "Cloud chip" might be a plausible search term, but it's sufficiently ambiguous that redirecting it to Manycore processor is pointless. "Cloud chip" literally means "an integrated circuit designed for use by cloud computing". Thus, redirecting it to a specific type of integrated circuit (a many-core processor) is arbitrary, and doesn't make much sense. 99Electrons (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RailYatri[edit]

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

While not "exclusively promotional" (granted the first two sentences could be construed as non-promotional, but the rest of the article is clearly promotional) the article is simply a promotional brochure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 03:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 03:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 03:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another generic entry. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 09:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has references from reliable sources such as The Hindu and other national newspapers. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neutral about notability, but the content is predominantly promotional, and it's not realistic to expect this kind of topic to be cleaned up or remain cleaned up. Sandstein 07:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DannyS712 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dogsbite.org[edit]

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

This website lacks notability. WP:FAILN. The talk page indicated that this topic is controversial. The page is written as an attack on the website host personally. WP:ATTACK. I'm not sure that more editing can bring in a WP:NPOV nor am I sure that this subject is notable enough to bother. Tangurena (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The site is ranked about 494,000 on Alexa which certainly shows a lack of reach. Tangurena (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tangurena (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject covered by multiple independent reliable sources in a non-trivial manner, meeting WP:GNG. Article content reflects the reliable sources and is not an attack page. PearlSt82 (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tangurena (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tangurena (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bronwen's book, PT, Buzzfeed and Radio-Canada.ca. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes GNG. Does come across a bit as an attack but 1) that's a reflection of the sources 2) can be remedied. Hydromania (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be a notable crank website. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean 'notorious', Guy/JzG? Nomopbs (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The whole pro-pitbull/anti-pitbull debate is not a mainstream topic (even though passionately polarized) and the article is about one bit player. There is not sufficient coverage to maintain a NPOV, therefore the article is a not notable topic. The article was originally created as a WP:G10 criticism, and despite edits to migrate towards NPOV, it continues to veer off of NPOV towards criticism with every other edit. Is there WP:COI with editors, or is the subject simply not sufficiently notable to attract editors with more NPOVs? Nomopbs (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's true, ctrl-f "pit bull" in Breed-specific legislation and you get plenty of hits. Articles like [13] seems to hint at mainstream-ness. Anyway, NPOV in the WP-context "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So, per definition, any article that passes GNG can be NPOV (I'm not saying this one currently is), even if the usable sources are 100% critical. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another user mentioned that the site is below in Alexa, it is indeed in position 481.694 in the world, BUT it is 127.728 in the USA. Considering how strong the breed Pitbull is in the USA compared to other countries, this would favor a keep. No one will dispute there is a bias in the site, just as there is a bias in PETA, but the notability guidelines it passes, when it comes to dog people a high amount of people know this site and the media mentions it on occasion. Also, although the site may be biased there is a ton of research that really highlights the pitfalls and dangers of a pit bull:

http://sma.org/southern-medical-journal/article/characteristics-of-dog-bites-in-arkansas/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5682160/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305270428_Characteristics_of_1616_Consecutive_Dog_Bite_Injuries_at_a_Single_Institution https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261032/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51034290_Mortality_Mauling_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs Considering these factors it would be better to keep the article.Garlicolive (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically, there is a clear consensus to delete. This means, in order to arrive at a "keep" or "no consensus" outcome, the "keep" arguments would have to be significantly stronger in terms of our policies and guidelines. I can't say that this is the case here. The dispute turns on whether the categorization undertaken in this list is (a) notable and based on reliable sources, or (b) not notable and/or original research by synthesis. While legitimate arguments have been advanced here for both points of view (together with not-so-helpful political arguments), I can't, as the closer of this discussion, make an authoritative determination about who has the stronger argument. Ultimately, this is a matter of our individual and collective editorial judgment, and not a cut-and-dried application of policy. Given that the outcome is clear in terms of numbers, and ambiguous in terms of strength of argument, I have to find a consensus for deletion here. Sandstein 07:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK. Content was removed from the already questionable new article Illegal immigration to the United States and crime, so this one was created a few hours later as a POVFORK. We should be an encyclopedic resource based on high quality sources/research, not stringing together news coverage of a bunch of individual incidents to give the impression of a trend contradicting that research. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An ANI thread has been filed for article creator E.M.Gregory. !voters for this AfD are invited to join the discussion there. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is the third related article or category in a series that have been created in quick succession by this editor - despite the fact that with each fork the content has been getting less encyclopedic, not more. Furthermore, "illegal alien" is something of a bigoted slur and I object to Wikipedia using it as part of an article title where it is absent any context. Simonm223 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Move This should be moved to "List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal immigrants" because even if "Illegal Alien" is a law term, its offensive and shouldn't be in a neutral point of view encyclopedia. "Illegal Alien" isn't a term that makes sense to use in the context "List of crimes committed in the United States". For one, aliens are not even confirmed to be real, so using in a context which makes the term seem ordinary or eminent doesn't make the slightest sense. The term "alien" is being used to list articles where the offender is a illegal immigrant, that is both offensive and not for a neutral point of view encyclopedia. SwagGangster ^• 03:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, and sanction the editor from creating more of these WP:POINTy monstrosities. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is not an encyclopedic entry. I also concur with other editors here that use of the term "illegal alien" is a slur that is not presented as a neutral term. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal alien is a tight, legal term, see: Alien (law)#United States.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tight, legal term? Absolutely not. PolitiFact: "The term appears--yet scarcely--in federal law. Best we can tell, though, no law defines the term as referring to all individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization. Where the term does appear, it’s undefined or part of an introductory title or limited to apply to certain individuals convicted of felonies."[14] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the bigoted government of the United States insists on using a bigoted and dehumanizing phrase to refer to immigrants, we, at Wikipedia are under no requirement to duplicate their egregious bigotry. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me, then, how bigoted Bill Clinton is, along with Barack Obama. Not only is the term in longstanding federal law,[15][16][17] but the Supreme Court (the liberal/centrist wings, specifically) have used "alien," "illegal alien," "illegal immigrant," and similar wording in Arizona v. United States[18] and in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte[19] -- in short, the term is appropriate, and it's the legal term. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you under some illusion that I don't consider Bill Clinton to be something of a bigot? Oh wait, this is the default American assumption that nobody exists to the left of the political center again. I'll reiterate, Wikipedia is under no obligation to repeat, in Wikipedia's voice, the bigotry of the US state or any other. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If "illegal alien" has a precise legal meaning, then we need to make sure that every entry in the list is described as such by reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the list is merely a recap of a bunch of blue-linked articles that already exist. It is WP:COMMON on Wikipedia to have such lists. It would be quite the NPOV violation to exclude out on lists of unpalatable subjects. The nomination ought to be withdrawn on the simple grounds that "individual incidents to give the impression of a trend contradicting" is one of the clearest case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments ever seen on the 'pedia. XavierItzm (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the incredibly loaded language of the title, along with a heavy dose of recentism. Nate • (chatter) 07:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: The title almost satisfies CSD G10, and per nom, a clear POV fork. Since the creator is clearly trying to WP:POINT, I'd say salt the earth as well. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 07:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If the content was removed from the broader article, this can't be a WP:POVFORK. For the definition of "illegal alien", see Alien (law), specifically "an illegal alien is any foreign national inside a country where he or she has no legal right to be". It is definitely not a "slur". This article is ineligible for speedy deletion and it shouldn't be salted (or protected whatsoever) because it has never been deleted. wumbolo ^^^ 09:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "illegal aliens" is a contentious label (WP:LABEL) that is widely considered by reliable sources to be pejorative. The term is one of affinity to racists and far-right publications. The term is not frequently used in reliable sources, certainly not more so than the synonyms "illegal immigrants", "unauthorized immigrants" and "undocumented immigrants". Major news org style guides prohibit use of the term, such as the Associated Press[20], The Washington Post[21] and the New York Times[22]. The term does occur in law, but according to PolitiFact[23], the term only occurs in "scattered mentions" and does not refer to all illegal immigrants (in other words, the legal term "illegal alien" is different from conventional use). This is the summary of the PolitiFact piece on the term: "The term appears--yet scarcely--in federal law. Best we can tell, though, no law defines the term as referring to all individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization. Where the term does appear, it’s undefined or part of an introductory title or limited to apply to certain individuals convicted of felonies." Furthermore, Operation Wetback was a thing, yet we wouldn't refer to illegal immigrants as "wetbacks" in Wiki voice. I do not see why Wikipedia should use a contentious value-laden term that reliable sources characterize as pejorative when there are readily available synonyms. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there are readily available synonyms That is contradicted by the Politifact article, which says that these terms are not synonymous. The title and scope of this article may be POV but that's not a reason to delete and there are no similar articles. Whether racist people use a word is not relevant; [24] [25] unless there are obvious non-WP:LABEL alternatives (which there aren't here), there is no need to use words that mean something different for Orwellian reasons. wumbolo ^^^ 12:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The legal term is not synonymous (because it does not refer to individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization), the way the term is used conventionally (for example, by you and E.M. Gregory who use it to refer to individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization while also misusing the legal term) is synonymous with "undocumented immigrant"/"unauthorized immigrant"/"illegal immigrant". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding If the content was removed from the broader article, this can't be a WP:POVFORK - ?? From that page: "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." Content of the other article was removed. Editors disagreed. Discussion is still ongoing, even. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, EM Gregory created another article on the same subject with the debated material. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list was created after the article creator failed to get approval to fill several immigration-related articles with similar anecdotal content (e.g. "illegal immigrants XYZ committed grotesque murders"), had his category "Crimes committed by illegal immigrants"[26] deleted, and created the dubious Illegal immigration to the United States and crime for the sole reason to list these individual crimes (though the list within the article was eventually removed)[27]. The editor has in the past recognized that the academic research on the topic of crime and illegal immigration disagrees with him[28], and the desire to highlight individual crimes by illegal immigrants seems intended to give the false impression that illegal immigrants are particularly crime-prone. Lastly, "illegal alien" is a pejorative and fails WP:LABEL. Wikipedia is not Breitbart, and the desire to introduce the equivalent of Breitbart's "Black crime" category[29] should be frowned upon considerably. If this article is OKayed, it'll be propagated by every white supremacist, racist and immigration hardliner on forums and in social media to give the appearance that illegal immigrants are particularly crime-prone (even though the research on the subject completely debunks that notion). It is utterly beyond me how editors can claim there is no NPOV problem here. I eagerly anticipate "List of crimes by African-Americans" and "List of gang rapes by Muslims" now that some Wikipedia editors want to open this pandora's box of , and allow this website to corrupt public discourse and perception in this way. It is no coincidence that this list mirrors the Trump administration's Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement initiative, the sole purpose of which was to race-bait and scapegoat illegal immigrants by highlighting all the grotesque crimes committed by individual illegal immigrants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Of course there are notable propaganda subjects, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience etc. We can create pages about such subjects as long as they are clearly described on the page as propaganda/falsehoods. But unfortunately the lists, categories and infoboxes have no such NPOV protection. Simply by creating such list one makes a political statement, which is inherently POV. That's the problem. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal alien is a tightly defined, technical, legal term, see: Alien (law)#United States. Euphemisms such as undocumented alien are neither used in law nor are they tightly defined by American law. Dislike for a legal term does not change the fact that it is the accurate and legal term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that the term is not a "tightly defined, technical, legal term". It's a term of affinity to racists, immigration hardliners and far-right publications. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Used in law, in courts of law, judicial opinions, and academic legal journals. I am not opposed to using the more common phrase "illegal immigrant," but since this is a list of a legally-defined, I did think that the legal term of art was appropriate - to keep the definition of eligible crimes precise.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, just because some bigoted US courts use a racist and dehumanizing phrase does not mean we need to also use it in Wikipedia voice. You are calling for Wikipedia to endorse a racist construct to-whit that immigrants are A) not human and B) can possibly be intrinsically illegal. Both of these constructs deserve scrutiny. Both are deeply, fundamentally and offensively racist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
US courts have also used the words "negro" and "Chinaman", yet I still don't think those are appropriate for article titles. Leviv ich 06:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. We have a page on this subject that KEPT at a recent AfD. More to the point, we have a substantial number of bluelinked crimes committed by persons in a specific legally defined category, which makes creating a list WP:COMMON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for closer This user is the creator of this page, and this page is part of a WP:POINTY series of page creations from them recently. Their !vote should be considered in that context. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further comment - If sanctions are considered as a result of this AfD, this user's history should be examined. NickCT (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - E.M.Gregory, "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT" is the lamest possible argument you can use in an AfD. Come on: you know better than that. It violates AGF, it flies in the face of the arguments and discussion, and it's just plain silly. You too, XavierItzm. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - If it's such a weak argument why has a "seasoned editor" whose edits you just described "typically neutral and well-sourced" [30] used it literally hundreds of times to justify his reverts? [31]. I refuse to believe an experienced and principled editor like yourself would apply wikipedia standards arbitrarily just to win arguments. 2606:2E00:8003:12:216:3EFF:FED6:D880 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - The creator of this page decided to create this without any consensus at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States and crime#RFC on including an embedded list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the U.S. This could potential be notable enough list for stand alone, but they clearly ignored the discussion. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty clear WP:SYNTH, WP:N, WP:POV issues here. NickCT (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and - Per User:Malik Shabazz - Salt and sanction. NickCT (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on sanctions too because of their disruptive behavior. At the very least, they deserve a warning from an admin. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP used to be such a nice place before those people moved in. NickCT (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While many of us may WP:IDONTLIKE that this is a notable topic - crimes by illegal aliens are clearly discussed by the news media - and heck the President of the US - as a set. This is not a WP:POVFORK, as this content does not appear in the parent article (and perhaps it shouldn't). The article amply meets WP:LISTPEOPLE / WP:LISTCRITERIA. There may be scope for a merge to the parent article - but not on notability grounds (based on editorial discretion on whether the list should be separate from the article). WP:NOTCENSORED is a thing too - even for topics we don't like. "Illegal alien" is a legal term - there may be scope to change the title to "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented immigrant" - which all mean basically the same thing - but that's for a move discussion, not deletion.Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After seeing a comment along the lines of "the list just collects bluelinks," I looked at something that seems worth noting here. In addition to creating this list and illegal immigration to the United States and crime, EM Gregory is also the primary contributor to fully half of the articles on this list (creator of most of those), and has made multiple edits to all of them. Now, I know EMG well enough to know that he often edits articles about crimes, so I'm trying not to leap to a conclusion, but it's hard not to see this list as unifying a lot of effort creating the appearance on Wikipedia of a link between illegal immigration and crime. I'd love to be shown to be wrong here -- it's just unusual to see a controversial new article and its constituent parts be the product of a single editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Honestly the more time goes by and the more this gets dug into, the more it seems like sanctions might be appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1.) creating well sourced articles on notable events is a positive contribution. 2.) I create articles on a wide range of topics. 3.) It is not true that I created "fully half" of the articles on the list, although it would not be improper to have done so. And also Note that one of the linked pages Ángel Maturino Reséndiz includes and embedded list of the murders he committed. Such lists are COMMON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed several entries for suspects who have not yet been convicted, as these are likely BLP violations. The whole list needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact COMMON practice to name perps in crime articles once the crime becomes notable enough to have an article but before the conclusion of the trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's uncommon to adhere to WP:BLPCRIME when you can make political hay by ignoring it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notwithstanding Dlthewave's efforts to bring it weakly into compliance, this page, as it stood was in pretty serious violation of WP:LIBEL. And I don't have any faith that it won't fall into that trap again immediately if scrutiny slacks in even the least degree. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It beggars belief that anyone with even the weakest grasp of BLP could think it's ok to treat "list of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens" as though it were "list of acts in the United States for which someone who might have been in the country illegally has been accused, regardless of conviction" ... and even restoring such material after it was challenged on BLP grounds... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're actually extremely careful about how we describe suspects in situations like this. Even when there is no question that the suspect pulled the trigger, there are cases such as Shooting of Kate Steinle (one of the examples which I removed from the list) where they are later acquitted of the murder charges for various reasons. –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me clarify, I'm thankful for your efforts to remove overtly libelous material from this page. I don't think it could get better than weakly compliant, another reason for both deletion and sanctioning the article creator for this lapse of judgment. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread that policy. Editors who create and edit articles in Category:2010s murders in the United States do indeed "consider" whether a crime is notable enough to have a page, but when a crime and the name of the suspect has been splashed across the front page, it is COMMON to include the name and, indeed, no court in the United States would listen to an assertion the suspect in the recent Marshall County High School shooting, Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, Thousand Oaks shooting, or Juan David Ortiz and Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman are protected by libel laws from having their names published. Nor will their names be protected form libel laws in the event that ehthey are acquitted, articles in reputable publications will state that they were "acquitted due to ...". E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your common practice that is a problem, as WP:BLPCRIME says For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. nableezy - 18:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is a pattern in the creations of such articles as 2002 Queens rape, Murder of the Zhuo family, Murder of Eliud Montoya, Tulare County spree shooting, Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman and this list. That pattern strikes me as eerily similar to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander. Particularly contributions to Wikipedia concerning individual [illegal immigrants], lists of [illegal immigrants], ... can reasonably be perceived as consistently reflecting negative views of [illegal immigrant] individuals and [illegal immigrants as a group]. There is a strong and persistent tendency to depict both individual [illegal immigrants] and [illegal immigrants as a group] in an unfavorable and/or stereotyped fashion. I suppose that is a matter for an arbitration case or an RFC/U though. But here, this article, should be deleted as a BLP nightmare. You would need sources for both the person who commited the crime to have been an illegal immigrant and sources for a criminal conviction (and being in the country illegally is not a criminal offense, it is a civil one, so there would need to be a conviction for a crime other than unlawful presence). Beyond that, the intersection between illegal immigrant and crime may be a popular one right this second, but I dont see how it merits a list. We dont have a list of crimes committed by native born Americans. We dont have a list of crimes committed by legal resident aliens in the country. We dont have a list of crimes committed by naturalized citizens either. This is just another in a string of articles created to perpetuate the lie that illegal immigrants are causing mayhem in the streets. nableezy - 18:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory are you stating that you consider violating WP:LIBEL to be common practice? Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that American libel law does not regard reproducing or citing material about suspected perpetrators like statements made by police, and district attorneys and published in major newspapers as libel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my question. Do you see violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:LIBEL to be common practice? Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for two reasons. First, this has been already deleted as a category (see here). How one can make a list about something that should not be combined as a single category? Second, one could make similar lists about crimes committed by homeless people, supporters of Republican party, ethnic minorities in the United States, and so on. Should they be kept? Importantly, there is actually a negative correlation between the numbers of crimes and someone being an illegal alien. Therefore, I think this list can qualify even as an attack page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have a great many lists of crimes organized by the legally defined status of the perpetrator: List of Albuquerque police shootings, List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses, List of United States state officials convicted of federal corruption offenses, List of United States local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses, List of United States unincorporated territory officials convicted of federal corruption offenses, List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, List of Irish Republican Army ambushes, List of war crimes. In addition, there are many embedded crime lists, such as ISIL beheading incidents, and the "victims" subhead in Ángel Maturino Reséndiz. The fact is that Illegal immigration to the United States and crime is a notable topic, and the arguments to delete this List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens amount to WP:IDONTLIKE, but this is a list of well-sourced, bluelinked articles, and WP:NOTCENSORED. As that POLICY states: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia".E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All lists you included above are fine, unlike this list. I would say only the List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States might be challenged as POV, but it is arguably OK because shooting by police officers during arrests does happen very often and therefore relevant. This list, however, is inherently POV, just as would be a List of killings by Jews in the United States, for example. Hence delete. My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that U.S. unincorporated territory officials convicted of federal corruption offenses "happen very often"? And what about the "List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses" and "List of United States local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses" articles? There are thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of federal and local officials (particularly local officials). These articles (particularly the latter) comprise only a tiny sliver of the total number of federal and local officials. By your logic, we should delete them too, as they're POV against federal and local government (and yes, there are people who oppose the existence/powers of either one or the other).

As I've stated elsewhere in this discussion, this article (like all the other articles mentioned by E.M.Gregory) do not imply that the various crimes are widespread or common. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, based on your response and response by E.M.Gregory, you both think that a red-linked list as above would be just fine? Sorry to disagree. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The constant dismissal of people’s opinions of this amateur personal essay (that’s what this is) as “I don’t like it” is stupidity. I for one couldn’t care less about the article’s topic, to be honest. But what is really the point of an article pinpointing 10 random crimes as if it in itself correlates to a larger trend. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Trillfendi (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article's existence does not imply there's "a larger trend" -- User:E.M.Gregory pointed out several article lists, but none of them imply any "wider trend." For example, the "List of United States local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses" and "List of United States unincorporated territory officials convicted of federal corruption offenses" articles don't imply that extremely rampant corruption exists among local and unincorporated territory officials, just as this article doesn't imply that illegal aliens are all mass murderers and criminals. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be okay with List of crimes committed in the United States by Mexicans? nableezy - 03:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Editors come to the page knowing that they WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, but can see that the previous editors who share their POV brought invalid arguments. So they come up with an invalid argument that has not been mentioned before. The fact is that some topics that WP:IDONTLIKE are valid topics. But the wild casting about for a reason to delete an article that many editors simply DONOTLIKE is itself an indication of POV motivation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets WP:GNG and WP:STANDALONE. It meets WP:NPOV just like similar list articles in existence and is supported by WP:RSs. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily passes notability. QED. Markvs88 (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, QED is an acronym someone usually uses after they've demonstrated something or said something smart. NickCT (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it means "thus it has been demonstrated", which it has been. By way of comparison, snide comments are not. QED. Please keep your opinions on other people's opinions to yourself, or to user talk pages, they are only noise here. Markvs88 (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And there I was thinking it meant; I have no idea what I'm talking about, and try to disguise it with latin. NickCT (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with others that subject is notable and it meets WP:GNG. All listed links are blue link articles as well. Don't see any indication of bias here. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand this is a controversial subject and I want to tread lightly. I consulted the appropriate policy, WP:SAL, and I don't see anything to suggest that the list be deleted. As long as each entry is properly cited to address BLP concerns, I don't see a policy reason for this to go. I don't think the topic is inherently so POV that it must be deleted on those grounds. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Sans, do you believe it would be fine to have the lists "List of crimes committed by African-Americans", "List of white serial killers", "List of gang rapes by Muslims", and "List of crimes by outspoken Donald Trump supporters"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great question. I think it demonstrates just how much of a judgment call can come into play when we're talking about stand-alone lists, which are by definition aggregates of sources and requires at least a little editor influence into what we collate into stand-alone lists. The issue of crime as it pertains to those who have entered the US illegally is a topic that is often discussed in reliable sources and is therefore a topic of encyclopedic interest. The examples you gave are much different. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The context in which it is discussed by RS is to debunk the falsehood that illegal immigrants are particularly crime-prone. The creation of this list serves to magnify and promote that falsehood without identifying it as a falsehood. Also, crimes by African-Americans and gang rapes by Muslims are two topics that are covered extensively by RS. And it is in my mind bizarre to argue that it would have been OK to create "List of crimes by African-Americans" in the 1960s just because prominent racists at the time promoted the myth that blacks are crime-prone and RS covered their racist propaganda (even when describing it as such). I mean, would we seriously OK "List of child sex abuse committed by LGBT individuals" if a hateful homophobe somehow managed to make this into a topic that RS had to repeatedly debunk (and thus got RS coverage)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As nasty as it sounds, if Wikipedia was around in the 1960s and if it had the same policies as today, you'd probably a lot more than just that list. The standard of Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability in reliable sources. The reliable sources of the day were very racist, and that would have shown through here. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point was lost. If every RS had covered that as a falsehood, why then would Wikipedia have covered the lie as if it were correct? That is where the NPOV violation lies. The article creator has already copped to holding a FRINGE POV on the subject and been unable to insert this race-baiting propaganda into various immigration-related articles, but now looks certain to finally get to create a propaganda piece where this lie that illegal immigrants are crime-prone will reach the masses and get the Wikipedia stamp of legitimacy. If this gets OKayed, it will be the most insidious and heinous Wikipedia page, and do nothing but misinform and stir hatred. And editors are OKaying it because it happens to have been covered by RS (which universally debunk the falsehood). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't think this article is stating or implying that illegal immigrants are crime-prone. It lists nine incidents over the past 27 years. If the article was a screed about how terrible illegal immigrants are, I'd agree with you, but it seems to be a stand-alone list referencing existing Wikipedia articles. Everything on this list has a corresponding Wikipedia article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's not true, especially for some types of crimes or some groups of immigrants. Plenty of RS support it (or don't say that it is false) [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. wumbolo ^^^ 17:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should strike your comment: (1) The Pew source is about the crime of illegally crossing borders. Of course, this is a crime that illegal immigrants are overrepresented for. (2) This is a Fox News analysis of data (data conveniently not made available to anyone else) by Malia Zimmermann (who has no research expertise on this or any matter) who was also behind the Seth Rich hoax story. (3) The third source is a non-peer-reviewed paper by John Lott, who is renowned for his shoddy research that conventionally always supports rightwing talking points (his papers are literally used in methodology textbooks as examples of rubbish research designs and methods). (4) The fourth source is not about undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, it‘s for federal crimes, which are an infinitesimal share of crimes in the US. (5) Not a RS. (6) Can‘t see what this has to do with the topic. (7) The Economist piece is gated, but it would astound me if a quality RS like the Economist would promote the falsehood that undocumented immigrants are crime-prone. (8) There is nothing in this study about illegal immigrants. A separate study by the same authors explicitly concludes that deporting illegal immigrants would likely not reduce crime.[42] (9) Not a RS, it‘s an op-ed by a nobody. (10) CIS is renowned for its shoddy reports, which all conveniently find, in conflict with nearly all other studies, that immigrants and immigration are harmful on every level and dimension. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with no prejudice against a second nomination if a non-trivial number of the blue-links are deleted. This meets my WP:SAL criteria - it contains blue links, is a grouping often used in "the media" to describe many of the events, and those events aren't on other WP:SAL pages. Whether those pages are notable events or not is a different question. All murders are tragic, but not all are notable. If a contributor feels that all murders committed by illegal immigrants are notable because they are committed by illegal immigrants, they will likely be rebuked for a WP:POV violation. The various problems with news coverage on Wikipedia are prominent here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Nabra Hassanen for deletion based on this theory. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Power~enwiki: - With respect, "illegal immigrant" in America is often an ethnic distinction. I could make any number of "List of crimes committed in the United States by Ethnicity X". Many of those lists would meet the criteria you've laid out. Do you feel they too would be appropriate? NickCT (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't the bar exam. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Power~enwiki: - Granted. But it is an examination of what should and shouldn't meet our rules for inclusion. NickCT (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:SYNTH & WP:POV, along with WP:BLP concerns. The edit history shows edit warring by the article creator to introduce material on individuals who have not been convicted. The page appears to be an example of using Wikipedia for political advocacy. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 24#Category:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants, created by the same contributor. The category was deleted and so should this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - This user creating a list so soon after having the same category deleted seems like bad faith. NickCT (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article uses solid sources and the criteria for inclusion are unambiguous. I don't really understand how it could become a POVFORK when the criteria for inclusion are well-defined and based on facts that have been reported clearly in reliable news articles. The topic itself is undoubtedly notable, and I think that a list to accompany the article Illegal immigration to the United States and crime is worthwhile.Worldlywise (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable topic. Passes WP:GNG. Sources such as The New York Times and The Washington Post are fine. Is it the widely used term "illegal alien" that some people dislike? Perhaps a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The legal system in the United States has used the term "illegal alien", even if some people may be sensitive about the term. At WP:NOTCENSORED, it states: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. I'm sure that out of the 5 million or so articles on Wikipedia, there would be some I dislike, but an encyclopedia provides content and information to people and this article passes notability guidelines. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because notability is based on the group and not the individual list items, per our notability guideline for stand-alone lists, WP:LISTN: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." In this case, while the individual crimes may be notable, the group "crimes committed by illegals" is not notable (reliable sources do not publish a list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants), and therefore, this should not be a stand-alone list. For us to compile such a list when no RSes compile such a list would be original research. (Unlike a list of terrorist attacks, which many RSes have published.) When the category was deleted, editors !voted delete based on SYNTH and POV (which others have covered above). Same at the ongoing RfC for the embedded list. Same here. I hope !keeps will reconsider that all the sources are for individual list items (and look how short it is btw), and there are no RSes for the list as a group. Delete, it's POV SYNTH that fails to meet our LISTN notability guideline. Leviv ich 07:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: - that is a somewhat untenable policy position - as this seems to be covered by sources - Trump asked for a list of crimes committed by immigrants. So where is it?, Trumps reads out list of criminal offences committed by illegal immigrants in the US, Trump administration publishes first 'weekly list of crimes' committed by immigrants, Independent, President Donald Trump to publish weekly list of crimes committed by immigrants, Indpendent. I am willing to re-consider my !vote above, but the sole policy grounds I see is at the moment WP:IAR (based on such a list being inappropriate - and reading the arguments above, I do think that List of crimes committed by class of people X can be offensive and with a bad taste - which is more a comment on the underlying society that has made this a notable topic). I don't see what WP:NOT this fails (and the inappropriate argument - seems to run foul of WP:NOTCENSORED). In short - if sources do cover this type of list - on what policy grounds to you exclude ? Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, not IAR this time :-) The policy is WP:NPOV and WP:OR and the guideline is WP:LISTN. Your sources are good examples: It's Trump who is trying to say that a "list of crimes by illegal immigrants" is a thing. You can see how the media talks about "the list", but they themselves do not actually publish a list of crimes (so-and-so killed so-and-so on such-and-such a date, like our list has). Donald Trump himself is a primary not secondary source (he's just repeating the list, not analyzing it or anything). But reliable secondary sources like scholarly journals or reputable media have never (AFAIK) published a list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. They talk about crime and immigration, including illegal immigration, in the sociological sense (and we have an article on that, Illegal immigration to the United States and crime), they talk about statistics, and policies, but they don't publish a list of actual crimes like who killed who when, and call it a "list of crimes by illegal immigrants" (nor by race, or religion, or gender, etc.). Unlike a list of terrorist attacks, or a list of political assassinations, a list of Oscar winners, etc., those are all published. But a list of crimes by illegal immigrants isn't a list of items that have been grouped together like this before by RSes, so our grouping it woudl be OR. As was pointed out in the category deletion, this is an "unrelated intersection" or whatever you call it. A) A crime was committed. B) The perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. But RSes don't put A and B together into a list; it's OR for us to do it. Just like we don't have a List of crimes by eye color, or List of crimes committed by people wearing sneakers, and for us to create one would be improper OR SYNTH. As for WP:NOTs, it hits a few: WP:NOTFORUM #1 (original research by combining list items that haven't been combined by other RSes in this way); WP:NOTADVOCACY #1 (propaganda), #2 (opinion, e.g. about illegal immigration), #3 (scandal mongering, about illegal immigration); WP:NOTDIR #1 (lists of loosely associated topics), #6 (non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations), WP:NOTNEWS #3 (who's who Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.). The topic, in the article Illegal immigration to the United States and crime, and what Trump says about it in the articles about him and his policy positions, are all notable/significant; but a stand-alone list of individual crimes collected where the only thing in common is the immigration status of the perpetrator, is OR and NOT... something we should !keep :-) Leviv ich 07:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other analogous examples: we have articles about domestic violence but we don't have a List of men who beat their wives. We have articles about child abuse but not a List of pedophiles. We do however have a List of serial killers, because that is a notable list (a list like that has been published by reliable secondary sources), where as the other two are not notable, so even though we could compile such a list, it would be OR. Leviv ich 07:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - but in this case - the US federal government (per links in my query above) is compiling a weekly list of such crimes, releasing it, and it seems this is reported on by the media and elsewhere. If you give me a good policy based reason to support deletion (even though there is coverage - lets assume there are published lists even if you disagree) - then you'll flip my !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz Don't buy Trump's BS! The government is not creating such a list, Trump just says they are. Here is the most-recent report I can find (from June 2018). You'll see it has like 14 names of illegal immigrants in federal custody (that's a subset of crimes).

Here's the kicker, footnote 7:

The information contained within these examples comes entirely from the cited media reports. Neither DOJ nor DHS make any assurances as to the accuracy of the information provided in these examples, nor have DOJ or DHS independently confirmed any of the information in this section. The examples are provided solely for the purpose of demonstrating the type of information that is often contained within media reports about criminal activity.

They aren't compiling the report from actual data, they're just listing some examples from the media! To me this shows why the US government is not a reliable source. They explicitly say they cannot assure the accuracy of the information! Also, remember that the US has 2 million prisoners (!), and here we have a list of 14 names–totally out of proportion, totally UNDUE. This is nothing more than anti-immigrant propaganda in my view. Leviv ich 15:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well - the media - generally is a RS - a press-roundup based on media is still a RS - and if the roundup paper is re-reported by media RS it is blessed yet again as a RS. What I'm missing here - is policy grounds for deletion. My view is that this is discussed as a set in RSes (definitely since it became part of the Trump agenda - possibly before as well). I don't like that it is discussed - and the media is prompted to cover this by the adminstration's spin - but there are RSes reporting on various lists with this intersection (crime + illegal immigrant). So given sources - what's our policy based rationale for deletion? If you give me a good policy based excuse here - I will bite - because I'd prefer this sort of list to be deleted.Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OR and NLIST. NLIST says some reliable source somewhere has to publish a list, as a list, before we can publish the list. Look at the WP:V or even the pillars for policy: Wikipedia should not be the first source to ever publish a list of illegal immigrant crimes–but this is exactly what we're doing. Nobody else in the world has ever published this list–not the US government, not any media, there are no books (AFAIK). So for us to do so is OR, isn't it? Or do you disagree? "Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows" is what I'm arguing. Leviv ich 15:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the concept of a list, or an article about the government's list, would certainly be fair game. But the list itself – combining crimes together based on the immigration status of the offender – this is what's novel and basically not notable, because no other RSes have combined crimes together based on immigration status and published it before. Leviv ich 15:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a RS doing its own research - The Boston Globe (which is one of the real US newspapers - e.g. like LA Times)- Criminal immigrants reoffend at higher rates than ICE has suggested, Boston Globe, 4 June 2016 - is prior to Trump being elected. "The names of these criminals have never before been made public and are coming to light now only because the Globe sued the federal government for the list of criminals immigration authorities returned to neighborhoods across the country. A judge ordered the names released in 2013, and the Globe then undertook the work that the federal government didn’t, scouring court records to find out how many released criminals reoffended.". Give me a policy based excuse (in the face of sources discussing this) - and I will flip. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cited RS is not about illegal immigrants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er... yes, it is. It is a story that is about "illegal immigrants" who committed crimes and were incarcerated and scheduled for deportation, but who, when released, were not deported and went on to commit other crimes, "the review reveals the damage inflicted on victims by criminals who were ordered to be deported when their sentences were complete, and were not."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the story at no point identifies these individuals as illegal immigrants (or any synonym). The story certainly does not identify them as illegal immigrants before they received the deportation order. Furthermore, receiving a deportation order does not make someone an illegal immigrant AFAIK. Deportation orders can be revoked and individuals with deportation orders can obtain legal status (e.g. DACA recipients). I mean, countless American citizens have received deportation orders.[43] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article is linked. Anyone who is interested can click, read and see that the Boston Globe compiled and analyzed a list of illegal immigrants who were convicted but not deported after their release fromAmerican jails.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's flat out not true. These are not illegal immigrants. And it's not a list. Leviv ich 23:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not a list of names. They talk about a list, but they don't publish the list. OR is the policy that would prohibit us from publishing such a list when no RSes have published such a list. Leviv ich 16:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It links to the list : "The Globe has also published, in conjunction with this story, a searchable database of the thousands of names that were disclosed to the news organization, so that crime victims, law enforcement officials, and managers of sex offender registries — who are often unaware of these releases — can find out if the criminals may still be in the United States."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. First, it's not a list, it's a link to a searchable crime database. There are lots of searchable crime databases, and they are all primary sources. None are a list of illegal immigrant criminals, and neither is the Globe's. Leviv ich 23:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Departments of Justice and Homeland Security Release Quarterly Alien Incarceration Report Highlighting the Negative Effects of Illegal Immigration and the Need for Border Security and, although it is an advocacy group Examples of Serious Crimes By Illegal Aliens (listed by year).E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Federation for American Immigration Reform is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre I would, in the spirit of WP:NONAZIS, ask that you strike-through reference to them as a source for discussion here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the perfectly valid lists already cited, please note Politifact (2016) helpfully enumerated three cases with all relevant details, including: illegal alien status of the perpetrator, name of the victim, date of the victim's death, and name of the perpetrator.^[1] Subsequently, The New York Times (2018) also enumerated a couple of the cases, also providing illegal alien status of the perpetrator, name of the victim, date of the victim's death, and name of the perpetrator.^[2] Townhall (2017) published a more extensive list.^[3] NLIST objections are therefore inapplicable to this article. XavierItzm (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... do you guys read these sources before you post them here? The DOJ/DHS report EM linked to is discussed above, I quoted from footnote 7, which explains it isn't a DOJ/DHS list at all, but a compilation of news reports, for which the DOJ/DHS cannot guarantee accuracy. I.e., not a reliable source per the source itself. Footnote 7.

The Politifact and Townhall "lists" are actually not lists that they put together, but rather those outlets reporting on the list of people that Trump named in a speech, and Trump got that from said DOJ/DHS report. So, a primary source parroting what the government is saying, and the government conceded what its saying cannot be guaranteed to be accurate.

The New York Times link is not a list at all. Leviv ich 20:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:RS list is a list is a list, even if you don't like it. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XavierItzm, under what definition of "list" are these 30+ paragraphs a "list"? Leviv ich 23:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article lists a small subset of the cases that Politifact and Townhall list. For each case, the NYT lists: illegal alien status of the perpetrator, name of the victim, date of the victim's death, and name of the perpetrator. BTW, this here comment lists three sources. Aren't lists wonderful? Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL oh so by "list" you mean any sequence. A sentence is a list of words. Therefore, all our articles should be evaluated under LISTN. I think you're stretching the definition a bit there, and wasting my time here. FYI, I consider this a list:

Item 1
Item 2
Item 3 Leviv ich 02:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/21/who-were-victims-illegal-immigrants-trump-named-rn/
^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/us/politics/trump-angel-families-bond-backlash.html
^ https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/01/25/here-are-the-people-killed-by-illegal-immigrants-that-trump-featured-today-n2276863

Comment, another afd to add to "List of really really long afds that relate to short articles" as this is nudging 6 thousand words while the article is around 800 :)). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i would be more comfortable with this list if it included references that discussed/covered these crimes as a group (of course, not necessarily all of them), in line with WP:LISTN. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coolabahapple, I added a brief introductory section discussing these crimes as a group.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text that you added is not good enough. The text should be as explicit as it can be: "There is scholarly consensus that illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives." No nonsense about correlations and "appears to". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanx for the additions E.M.Gregory (i am almost able to sit down and enjoy a nice cup of earl grey:)), one thing i don't understand is that the "deleters" have not suggested, as an alternative, merging this information to a section of Illegal immigration to the United States and crime rather than an all out delete, as, to me, it appears to be the sort of thing that wikireaders who look into this subject would be interested in. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coolabahapple Indeed, this is the sort of list that users expect us to have. Like our lists Terrorism in Argentina, Terrorism in Australia, it shows how few such crimes there have been. That may surprise some Trump fans, who, depending on where they get their news, may expect a list the length of List of lynching victims in the United States.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the current RfC concerning inclusion in the main article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no much difference between a list embedded to a page (a subject of the RfC here) and a standalone list (this discussion). It's the same list. Whatever a decision might be, I think it should be the same for this list and the embedded list. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the nativists of Wikipedia fail to understand is that there's nothing special, and therefore nothing notable about the national origin or citizenship status of people who commit a crime. Time and again, research has demonstrated that immigration status either has no correlation to criminality or weakly correlates to reduced criminality. And that makes the framing of an article that attempts to separate this out as a distinct and notable category of crime inherently a violation of WP:NPOV. Reliable sources say this isn't a thing that needs scrutiny. There's nothing there. It's a fantasy in the head of deranged racists. So creating a list of these statistically inconsequential crimes is propagating a racist fantasy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nableezy, My very best wishes and K.e.coffman nail it, and none of the keep arguments hold water, as should be easy enough to see for anyone. This page is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Synthesis and POV/neutrality issues. Illegal immigration to the United States and crime can cover the concept, but an attempted list of incidents, as a separate article on as part of that one, is inappropriate and the list was created as a POV content fork. Notable incidents where the immigration status is relevant can be discussed there but this stand-alone list is merely synthesis of unrelated crimes. Reywas92^Talk 08:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of List of crimes committed in the United States (by legal aliens? by citizens of the US? not to mention by citizens of the Netherlands, Green Card holders, men, truck drivers, English professors, etc), this is a clear POV construction--it supposes that there is something important about certain crimes having been committed by furriners. The fun fact of course is that if we had List of crimes committed in the United States by non-illegal non-aliens, that list would be a million times longer--and that alone points at the undue-ness of this. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a synthesised list for a cross category (List of X belonging to Y). At the moment, there is no definite guideline on notability of such lists. The closest I found was There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, available in WP:NOTESAL. Interestingly, Category:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants was deleted, which makes me lean towards deletion. Unless multiple reliable sources have documented such a list and it has been shown to be notable, I think it is pure WP:SYNTH to create one. For example, List of crimes in USA by NRA members could plausibly exist, but there is no need to have one unless it has actually been published in reliable sources. This list violates WP:OR and it is particularly POV, given that a list documenting crimes by people other than illegal immigrants, does not exist. I am also concerned about BLP/NPOV issues and I think Wikipedia should avoid keeping anything which denigrates an individual without legal proof (a few articles for a short while in some sensationalist media do not count).--DreamLinker (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

False assertion about the sourcing; WP:OTHERSTUFF (imagined pages that don't exist,) WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am correct about the sourcing and the rest of your comment is a straw man. You are linking to essays which do not override actual policies (and neither are they relevant to my argument anyway). As quoted by someone above, "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is the lamest possible argument you can use in an AfD. Come on: you know better than that. It violates AGF, it flies in the face of the arguments and discussion, and it's just plain silly".--DreamLinker (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can’t think of any reason for this article other than pushing a POV denigrating a body of people that many have been led to believe are primarily of a particular race. WP:POVFORK O3000 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:POVFORK from original article; and clear WP:SYNTH issues, since this combines two categories with a clear intent to push a particular conclusion. Wikipedia lists aren't the place to hash out arguments about immigration. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Meets WP:LISTN. I don't see any convincing argument to justify deletion other than the usual run-of-the-mill WP:ATA arguments which counts for nothing. Kerberous (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~vERY wEAK Keep~~Delete' Based (yes I know) on other stuff, if we can have pages like Immigration and crime in Germany why not the same for the US (A rename yes).Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, beyond WP:OSE, the article you refer to is not a list. We have such an article as well. See my opinion below. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the below I change to delete, already covered.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article Illegal immigration to the United States and crime already covers the topic. This list seems to push an incorrect agenda that is fairly discussed in the article. With incorrect I mean at the more legitimate statistics or generalization level. Wikipedia should not shy away from a little controversy. If the list was only politically incorrect – and not also factually misleading – I'd keep it per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and WP:NOTCENSORED as *errenousely* brought as a reason for keep above and below. gidonb (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For some editors (not all) I'm concerned that their political views and personal dislikes might be influencing their views on this and for some editors (not all) it does seem to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. One particular article I personally dislike is Sexuality of Jesus, where it is speculated that Jesus was gay merely because he was celibate. I dislike that speculation, but I would certainly never suggest that the article is deleted based on a personal dislike. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and guidelines state: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍. This article List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens is a notable subject and it meets WP:GNG. Any personal dislikes that some editors may have about the topic itself is irrelevant in terms of deletion unless the article fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for articles. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In the 14th Century, a belief was spread that Jews were responsible for the Black Death, leading to widespread annihilation of Jewish communities. Suppose that we had a leader now that falsely claimed that Jews were responsible for the recent measles outbreaks in the US. Would we create an article titled Jews with measles? The only notability I see is that a current leader is falsely blaming the US crime problems on illegal immigrants. Is there any RS creating a list of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens? Yes, we should document what the leader has said. But, I don't understand the notability of creating a list for a drummed up, political purpose.‎ O3000 (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, and sanction as this is the latest one in a series of inexcusable POV-pushing attempts by User:E.M.Gregory. EMG tried to insert the same material to Illegal immigration to the United States, got rejected, opened up a WP:POVFORK Illegal immigration to the United States and crime, got their POV list removed, opened up a RfC for the same material yet again, saw consensus went against them and here we are, a second POV fork in 14 days. Since EMG has demonstrated that they're incapable of listening other editors, I propose we go to ANI for this kind of disruption.Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is different. While I do find myself on opposite sides of an argument with EMG, as here, I learned to appreciate him as a passionate Wikipedian, who can listen to other editors. gidonb (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My limited encounter with them has left me the impression that they're willing to boldly violate NPOV principles and ignore any other editors' input afterwards. Their records hasn't been convincing for me to overturn it. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for the article listing crimes committed in the United States by people with a legal right to live there, which constitute the great majority of crimes committed in that country. Why can't I find it? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That (as well as the simpler and very overlapping List of crimes in the United States) would probably be too large to be a iseful list (there is a deletion criteria for that for lists - e.g, think List of US persons - even if limited to only wikinotable is simply too big).Icewhiz (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you, and the creator of this article, be as happy with it if it contained content from the bottom of this page and this page? Not that I'm advocating that, because this should be deleted as obvious bigotry, but if it was it to be kept then such content would appear to be appropriate. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, I assume you mean this to try to be funny, but it really isn't. Natureium (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why on Earth would you assume that? It was a perfectly serious question and observation. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article and this discussion, my opinion is to delete as a POVfork and SYNTH-y collection of crimes, also noting the point made by My Very Best Wishes that this collection (or a substantially similar one) was already deleted when previously tried as a category. -sche (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have filed an ANI thread for article creator E.M.Gregory. !voters for this AfD are invited to join the discussion there. ~~Pinging sanction !voters. @Malik Shabazz: @NickCT: @ImmortalWizard: @Simonm223:.~~ Inappropriate pinging striked. My apologies. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Illegal aliens" (hate that term) have committed crimes? So have naturalized citizens. This is not a notable intersection of topics, and as these aren't notable people, this isn't a notable topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was leaning towards keep at the beginning but upon further examination I don't see anything that makes illegal aliens remarkable. Under the assumption there are little to no illegal aliens listed who are notable irrespective of their crimes, then this wouldn't be comparable to other somewhat similar crime list articles of US officials or professional sports people who are almost certainly notable irrespective of their crimes. It makes no sense to have articles listing illegal immigrants who committed crimes, or Muslims who did X, or green-shirt-wearers who committed Y, considering the particular characteristics being highlighted in their respective articles do not alone confer notability. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pile-on !vote but this essentially exists to fuel unfounded, politicized fear and hatred instigated by the President of the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, salt the title, and block the creator for disruptive POV editing.Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while "undocumented immigrants + crime" is notable (because of the political concerns), the data suggests that undocumented immigrants commit less crime than other demographic groups in the US. This list then, is a cherry-picked set which is against the normal trend. Trying to come up with an appropriately NPOV title for this list would be almost impossible. Guettarda (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guettarda. Undocumented immigrants and crime is a notable subject, but the list of said crimes isn't. The media typically talks about undocumented immigrants and crime in a general, vague sense and not specifically the individual members of the group. Pinguinn 🐧 06:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~Wouldn't whatever the goals of this page are be better accomplished with a category?~~ The problem is one of scope, I think. Imagine an alien named Goona Goons, summoned to court and convicted of, say, shoplifting a can of tuna from the neighborhood shop, or failing to wear a yellow vest while performing roadworks, or even copy-lifting prose from the Daily Beast right into en.wp. None of these minor crimes would be notable enough for a stand-alone article and so would be WP:UNDUE here. Yet, to have the sort of meaningful list the reader is entitled to expect from the title, the page would need to include crimes that it cannot because they were not "notable". Imagine another alien, this time called AgonsAgons & co., registered on some balmy island or wind-blown rock, which decided to defy the US government proscription on trade with Venezuela (think of the BoE holding Venezuelan gold, for example) Sudan, or Iran; or which was convicted of discriminatory labor practices or tax fraud. This would be notable enough to add to the page, and yet seems entirely out of sync with inaccurate (US) readers' expectations that an alien is necessarily a living person. (This was mentioned above.) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is now pitchfork-canvassing from WP:ANI. I have struck my !vote and comments because I'm not going to participate in this mess. I don't care too much about this list, and a category should suffice as per WP:CLT. wumbolo ^^^ 10:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering where the rush of Delete votes came from. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTH mess. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It is simply a list, we have plenty of other similar lists see Category:Lists of criminals (not sure how to link to that). The criteria for inclusion on this list can be debated elsewhere. The delete arguments are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, presumably to promote a political narrative that illegal immigrants do not commit crimes.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:SYNTH? More importantly, have you considered joining the reality club? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 15:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list, it is an undisputed fact that illegal immigrants commit crimes and there are plenty of reliable sources to back that up. It is not SYNTH.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good job destroying the strawman of "illegal immigrants do not commit crimes". Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As well as this being an unencyclopedic cross-categorisation, the list is hopelessly biased. When I looked at it earlier today all of the entries dated from after 1990, and, more egregiously, all of the claimed perpetrators of these crimes, except for one token Chinese, were Latin American. Illegal aliens have existed in the US, and some of them have been committing crimes, since the first immigration restrictions were introduced in the 19th century, and have been from many different ethnic groups. This article is just as bad as an article called List of crimes committed in the United States by legal residents that only listed crimes committed by Irish Americans. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite a short list, 12 crimes. That is part of the point, actually. Individuals expecting to find a long list of crimes to support Trump's assertions will be disappointed. The perps come from many countries (Phil Bridger missed perp in Murder of Casey Chadwick,) but the point is that this is NOT a list categorized by ethnic group, it is a list of notable crimes committed by persons in a country illegally, and they come in all colors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not miss Murder of Casey Chadwick, and it led me to say "Latin American", which includes Haiti, rather than "Hispanic". If you're going to edit in this area then you need at least to understand such distinctions. Why, out of all the illegal aliens who have committed crimes in the United States since the concept of "illegal aliens" existed, did you choose to list eleven crimes supposedly committed by Latin Americans and one other, all (except maybe one) from the last 20 years? If you can't see that that is obvious bigotry then you shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Latin America" is a geographic therm. You made an ethnographic assertion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, you may well be correct that there have been many "illegal aliens who have committed crimes in the United States." I hope that you will add some of these crimes to the list. Were some of the perps in the French Connection here illegally?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say that many illegal aliens have committed crimes, but that some have, and there is strong evidence for the basic common sense that illegal aliens are less likely to commit crimes than legal residents. Certainly, if I was an illegal alien, I would try to keep my head down and not do anything that might draw the attention of the authorities towards me. If I thought that this was a viable article I would add some balance to it, but, as I said at the beginning of the comment that started this thread, this is an unencyclopedic cross-categorisation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I deleted an oppose !vote because it was a part of a triple edit with several personal attacks. The editor can try !voting again.[44] O3000 (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On a purely technical level, the list's notability criteria is non-existent. Is it purely just for violent crime? On a moral level, the list is nothing more than hate speech. It would be along the same lines as having a "List of crimes committed in Germany by Jews." In other words, it is functioning as a soapbox (and recruitment tool) for xenophobes in the United States. Therefore, delete per WP:SOAP.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 05:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — MarshalN20 explained it pretty well. Say no to a category, too. Zero^talk 12:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random, subjectively chosen collection of crimes, fulfilling no encyclopaedic purpose. Clear PoV fork. No objective criteria do, (or could) exist for inclusion in this list. As others have said, about as transparently offensive as it gets. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No connection is shown. Kablammo (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Irrelevant intersection of two unrelated factors. What's next? List of crimes committed in the Republic of North Macedonia by people wearing silly hats? In all seriousness, this article leads one to simple WP:UNDUE and speculative concerns. I don't see that as a net plus to the project. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - At best this is a PoV fork which is presented more like a conspiracy theory, at worst this is a breaching experiment by xenophobes who won't cram it or change the subject. The fact that no crimes before the '90's are listed is certainly enough to suspect shenanigans, especially given 1800s and turn-of-the-century America's quite blatant xenophobia (especially towards the Irish, Africans, Italians, and Chinese, whether they were native-born or not). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Suntory. Sandstein 07:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calcium and Iron Beverage[edit]

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

Lacking reliable secondary sources since creation, by an SPA, in April 2010. I cannot find any in-depth coverage in secondary RS. Fails WP:GNG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suntory. Japanese wikipedia has at least one informative source [45], though you can also find passing mentions in English-language books/articles about health products under the romanized name Tekkotsu Inryo(u) (e.g. [46] [47] [48]). The product seems to have been known mostly for a hugely popular 1989 television commercial, and the product's later revival essentially played on nostalgia about that earlier advertisement/song (see also [49]). However, the current article mentions none of this, and the product is probably better discussed in context in Suntory anyway, where it is currently listed under the content-deficient "Food for specified health uses" section. Nothing here to merge, really, and even though the likelihood of someone searching for "Calcium and Iron Beverage" with the intent of finding this specific product is probably low, redirects are cheap. Bakazaka (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lanes (song)[edit]

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

per WP:NSONGS, lack of media coverage and notability Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eh, under other circumstances I would redirect but since it has nowhere to viably go, then delete this non-notable song. Trillfendi (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has nowhere feasible to go, and it shouldn't be keep as it is insignificant (WP:NSINGLE). SwagGangster ^• 03:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Single that's not nearly notable enough to have it's own article. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 07:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Originally I was going to say "Keep", but after doing a bit of Googling, this page does not meet notability guidelines. I think it is possible for it to meet guidelines. It does have a formal release date on iTunes but even if we add that, it would still be hanging on by a few threads. A "merge" would be great for this but as stated earlier, it has nowhere to go. LOL Horizonlove (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional easy-swim styles[edit]

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

Slightly too complicated for CSD; I won't object if someone speedy-deletes this G3 before a week. Appears to be original research/invention by Lepota (talk · contribs). The only Google search result for "Inverted Bat Stroke" is an e-book written by "Lepota Luba Cosmo". Material is copied from there, but so long as the same person has authored both, it's not a G12 copyvio. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regarding the Traditional_easy-swim_styles#Historical_and_easy_swim_techniques, we already have Swimming_stroke#Swimming_styles which would be the proper place to add any properly sourced material. The Traditional_easy-swim_styles#Easy-swim_techniques section appears to be original research involving machine translation ("Technique was convenient having implied easy swim drills relaying on float and glide phase that was custom and is repeatedly proved in literature of old as well as new age.", "Those English, French or German writers of Celtic areal are of somewhat same procédé.") which would require substantial clean-up even were its claims to be referenced. AllyD (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ERA Timepieces[edit]

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

Not a notable company. The WSJ, Bloomberg, and Economist refs don't mention this company, they're just about "new brands" in general. Article is also promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ, Bloomberg, and Economist mention "micropbrands" which this company is in fact and also the landscape which this company is currently operating in.Izazii (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, "The ERA Prometheus is a line of tourbillon watches made by ERA Timepieces and one of the world’s first affordable tourbillon watch models." (Verified by 3rd Party site Crunchbase and quoted directly). "As of Feb 2019, it is also the most crowdfunded tourbillon watch in history and the most funded watch campaign out of the fashion capital - New York City." (Verfied by 3rd Party site Crunchbase and Vogue - quoted directly)

Keep: This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because it easily exceeds General Notability & Credible claim of significance guidelines (Crunchbase, Economist, Bloomberg, 3rd Party Fashion blogs). The notability is supported by a plethora of verifiable third-party sources. Furthermore, the entity has received extensive media coverage at all levels. Izazii (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You accepted above that the Bloomberg and Economist sources don't actually mention the subject of this article, but now you are saying that they do. Both statements can't be true, so which is the lie? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Crunchbase is considered a generally unreliable source, for the reason that "The majority of Crunchbase is user-generated content". Colin M (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:power~enwiki

Watches have notable wearers and sponsors. Rolex, Omega, Breitling, lists their notable owners and wearers on Wikipedia. Therefore, it should also be included for this artcile as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izazii (talk • contribs) 00:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. With regards to Izazii's comment, the notable owners and wearers are notable, but it doesn't mean that everything they own and wear is notable too. SITH (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional tone, no evidence of notability. Colin M (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could not be a more blatant example of WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT. Trillfendi (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:SOAP. Flagrant Instance. SwagGangster ^• 03:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and no evidence of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, also clearly a WP:PROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Canoe Club[edit]

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

This has been mostly unsourced since its creation, by a SPA, in January 2012 and is written in a promotional manner. There are some passing mentions but I cannot find any in-depth coverage in RS. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A full advertisement in Wikipedia article form, no sources found. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 08:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a brochure, pure and simple. There is some coverage of events that happened around the club, but barely a mention of the club itself, outside of its own pages. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khushboo Kapoor[edit]

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

Fails GNG, too many NOR and likely to be COI THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I searched & checked the sources for this person and all the sources are looked like paid self-held. and this person has not done anything notable to have her Encyclopedia. MrZINE 10:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 03:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McFaul[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP (has stood unreferenced for TWELVE years!!). Created by subject's business partner; no other editors have contributed significantly to the content. Fails notability for creative or general. Rayman60 (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and therefore doesn't meet anything else. Very minimal coverage found. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 08:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferencedness is an automatic strong delete to me. And for 12 years? My God. A Wikipedian dustmite. Trillfendi (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, totally unsourced. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22German+youth+language%22

[2] ttps://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/21/who-were-victims-illegal-immigrants-trump-named-rn/

[3] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/us/politics/trump-angel-families-bond-backlash.html

[4] ttps://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/01/25/here-are-the-people-killed-by-illegal-immigrants-that-trump-featured-today-n2276863

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]