Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 February	6 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian representatives at international beauty pageants[edit]

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

This list is a duplicate of India at Big Four international beauty pageantsand with Femina Miss India for the delegates from India who participated in theBig Four international beauty pageants while the other minor pageants listed are not significant and need not to be included. In fact, the mother article for Miss Supranational and Miss Grand International pageants were deleted several times through AfD. Richie Campbell (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list clearly fails WP:NLIST and WP:BEAUTY combining undercoverage and lack of web coverage appeal. Sheldybett (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BEAUTY. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BEAUTY as well as WP:DUPLICATION. Britishfinance (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 21:51, 12 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 Nomination withdrawn. Qualitist (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Happs'[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Google News search gives me nothing relevant (Strings: "The Happs" band, "The Happs" latvia; the latter string pulls up quite literally nothing). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In light of learning that the band recently had a name change, I am going to withdraw this AfD so I can look over the sourcing available. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC) I've looked through a fair number of news articles, almost all of which are name-drops. Only one usable source, not enough for notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After continued searching, I am withdrawing this AfD. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 23:48, 5 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Grzegorczyk[edit]

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

Semi-professional footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played international football or in a fully professional league. No evidence of significant coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails our football notability guidelines.--Darwinek (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails football notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his full career is confirmed here; doesn't look to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, nor WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails GNG Alex-h (talk) 14:26, 10 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. bd2412 T 19:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raghuvendra Singh Rathore[edit]

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

We assume auto-notability for Supreme Court judges or Chief Justices of High Courts.

Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO. ∯WBG^converse 08:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:JUDGE states (modified for brevity) that "Judges who have held sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office are presumed to be notable". Yes, it does say that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", but I would be very surprised if there was not sufficient secondary sources to establish notability, even if only in Hindu, and as such I don't believe we should delete this article until a Hindu-speaking editor who can confirm that there is nothing to back up a claim of notability beyond his high position. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed that finding sources would be hard, but I should have searched immediately. While most of the articles revealed mention him in passing, there are others that discuss him in more detail, such as this horrific incident.[1] Looking up Zee News, it doesn't appear to be a tabloid either, so it is possible it is true and thus reinforces the notability of the concerned individual, and hints towards additional references on non-English platforms. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NoCOBOL, what the heck is Hindu? There is a language called Hindi and I speak that. ∯WBG^converse 11:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustani language. But yes, Hindi would probably have been more correct. As for the references; in that case, perhaps you can search for them, and if you can't find any note that to us? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added a couple of references and text concerning the subject's National Green Tribunal role. Aside from the incident noted above, a Google India news search shows significant coverage of recent decisions led by the subject: [2]. Overall, enough for WP:JUDGE criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AllyD, SIGCOV? Any judge across any court (unless at the lowest tier) will get such routine mentions. Which source has covered his activities/ judicial performance in detail? ∯WBG^converse 11:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The minimum requirement for appointment as judicial member in the subject's current role is to have served as a high court judge (see 5(1) on p4 of the 2010 Act), which the subject satisfies through his 2007-15 Rajasthan High Court role. I see no reason why our WP:JUDGE presumed notability criterion for "judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" would not thereby be met? That the decisions of tribunals over which he has presided are being reported in the media provides supplementary verification of the subject's active role, but my keep opinion is centred on the WP:JUDGE criterion. AllyD (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AllyD, the usual SNG/GNG debate...... ∯WBG^converse 12:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sometimes "a presumption of notability" gets confused with automatic and the bar is set higher on BLP's. In the case of a state Supreme Court judge of India (there are 1076) with a population of over 1.3 billion people there is certainly a presumption. Rajasthan has over 68.5 million people and 50 high court judges. When backed by sources there is notability. In this case there are sources and some were added. Otr500 (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Otr500. /Julle (talk) 09:43, 12 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. bd2412 T 19:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Toyne[edit]

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

Unrefereced BLP for a non-notable television personality. Article seems to rely solely on a now-defunct official website. Google search turns up a few promotional bios (e.g. [3]) but nothing of value. PC78 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Mccapra (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find a single good United Kingdom RS (e.g. television networks, main papers). Article is pretty promotional. Britishfinance (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sigcov found, and doesn't appear to meet WP:NCREATIVE. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:58, 12 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. bd2412 T 19:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Martha[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography, speedy tag placed in 2006 declined on the basis that he won the "Guru Award", although the article for it was created by Martha himself (and deleted), so there is a possible connection. This article is also completely unsourced. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strongly promotional, no real notability. Suggest Salting given history. Britishfinance (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Guru Awards appear likely to be evidence of accomplishment but not notability[4][5]. Sigcov not found. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:12, 12 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Ferrarotti[edit]

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

I can’t find any sources to support the notability of the topic of this article. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are other similar articles around. To be fair, all of these articles should be kept or deleted, otherwise Wikipedia is unfair and inconsistent. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 14:53, 11 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IIPC TV[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage or any independent coverage for that matter, so fails WP:NMEDIA. Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Islamic Propagation Center, the organisation behind this channel. HyperGaruda (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Internet streaming channels are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie in Wikipedia just because their own self-published web presence technically verifies that they exist — the notability test for getting into Wikipedia requires a topic to receive coverage in reliable sources that are independent of it, such as newspapers and magazines and books. But there are no sources of that type being shown here at all, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to show sources of that type. If International Islamic Propagation Center were somehow to get kept, then this could be redirected there — but it doesn't appear on track to get kept either. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to lack sigcov. Also, Youtube channel has 5.6K subscribers, Twitter account has more follows (15K) than followers (13.8K), and the app has few ratings so these are all indications of limited audience (though, conversely, large numbers do not necessarily indicate popularity). If this AFD is to close before the IIPC one, it might be simplest to close this as a redirect, and then let it get a speedy WP:G8 if the IIPC ends up a delete. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:34, 12 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Islamic Propagation Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. I am unable to find any independent coverage apart froms listings in organisation directories. My regular Google search hit list stops after only 49 unique hits, which tells something about its lack of notability. Of the five article references, two are not independent ("about us" and an article by founder Mohammad Shaikh) and three (including a decades-old translation of the Qur'an) are just irrelevant. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The items that come up on a Google search are about three different institutions, one in Canada, one in South Africa and one in Pakistan. It’s not clear whether there’s any link between them or whether possibly the Canadian institution has just taken the same name. If anything the SA institution may be notable, but I don’t think the Canadian one is. Mccapra (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references given are either primary, or from religious organizations linked to the subject. There is no proper independent secondary RS on this institution as a notable entity for WP. Britishfinance (talk) 18:18, 12 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries and vineyards in Alabama[edit]

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

List cruft. Only one entry and the rest is just a WP:LINKFARM. Praxidicae (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add notable wineries/vineyards to Alabama#Agriculture - delete this—it might be worth noting that the term "wine" does not occur in Alabama one time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also Alabama wine, FWIW. postdlf (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Only one notable entry is not enough for a list article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads as a directory of non-notable entities. If the content were to be kept it must be merged to the stub Alabama wine but I don't think it has a place here. Take List of wineries in Ohio, List of wineries and vineyards in Maine, and other lists of the sort along with it. Reywas92^Talk 04:21, 12 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Court Chambers-Singapore Academy of Law Moot[edit]

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

Not a notable competition. References to it are almost exclusively primary, and many of the hits that aren't from the organizing schools/committees are resume entries. The best thing I found is this, but that doesn't even discuss the subject--since it's just a directory of moot competitions. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support User: Drmies that this is not a notable competition. Support this article to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applepineapple (talk • contribs) 16:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to two lawyers' professional bodies, one in HK and one more general (CDR). Not stated in the article prior to the nom, but the comp was also reported in the local law gazette, at least twice (see now included citations). Rangtengpa (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A third report in the law gazette: http://v1.lawgazette.com.sg/2016-04/1542.htm Chensiyuan (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for context, the Law Gazette is the monthly periodical of the Singapore bar (association for lawyers). Manderiko (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:13, 5 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis C. Waldrop[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Additionally, the tone of the article and the fact that the author of the page was literally "MayorDW" leads . me to believe that this is most likely an WP:AUTOBIO or a case of WP:PROMO at best. GPL93 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly unsourced BLP issues aside, the subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, with coverage being almost entirely confined to the closest city paper (Greenville News) and substantively no better than the routine coverage/quotes any small-town mayor anywhere gets. Mentioned briefly in a 2000 Boston Globe article about South Carolina's rapid economic growth, but the coverage of this subject was not significant. Post-mayorship he drops the occasional quote about taxes being bad, but that's it. Clearly existed and served, but not notable under Wikipedia guidelines. (And it case it is not obvious, this is not the Dennis Waldrop who died in 2006.) Bakazaka (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. City he was mayor of has only 20,000 people, no inherent notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, there is no automatic presumption of notability for smalltown mayors just because they exist — but this is referenced nowhere close to well enough to make him a special case of greater notability than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 14:33, 10 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank E. Willis[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. The tone of the article, which is largely unsourced, gives off the impression that the article is a WP:PROMO GPL93 (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for boosterism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Florence SC is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over the "more notable than the norm for his class of topic" bar that he would actually have to clear. And yes, it's written far too much like a promotional advertisement, but even politicians who do clear our notability standards still don't get to keep articles written in that kind of tone. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 15:00, 11 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. There is a strong consensus primary and secondary rationales for deletion were rebutted adequately. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grievances of the United States Declaration of Independence[edit]

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

~~Fundamentally original research. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)~~ Subsequent edits to the article have revealed that the connection between the Declaration and the events is sourced, but that almost the entire text of the article seems to be copied directly from that single source. I continue to recommend deletion on that basis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this duplicates anything else in our coverage of the United States Declaration of Independence, but, as I said when I contested WP:PROD deletion, this is nothing like original research, with most of the content being sourced to reliable secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Phil Bridger: It's sourced to reliable secondary sources that aren't about the Declaration or its grievances. That's why it's original research! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking the first source, how is it not about the declaration or its grievances? The whole book is about the declaration and from page 48 onwards it lists grievances. It calls them "abuses" rather than "grievances", but this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so the exact word used doesn't matter. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...okay, most sources rather than every single source. Most are poor sources or are not about the Declaration/don't explicitly connect these events to the Declaration. For instance, Our Country (source 2), where I'm able to locate the right place in the document to support where it's cited, doesn't mention these things as connected to the Declaration as far as I can tell - I haven't checked all the citations to it but the first few came up a blank. Sources 3 (Liberty, Equality, Power) and 4 (Lexington) certainly do not. 6 (Lives of the Signers) seems fine but is only cited in one place, and 7 and 8 are both primary sources. The vast majority of the article is cited to source 2, which is just a general history. It's pretty clear to me that this is an essay, probably for school, whose author was given the task of identifying events in American history that might have prompted these listed grievances - but that's not the same as a Wikipedia article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ‘For instance, Our Country (source 2), where I'm able to locate the right place in the document to support where it's cited, doesn't mention these things as connected to the Declaration as far as I can tell.’ Yes it does. You must be looking in the wrong place. See pages 88-94. Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mccapra: the citation was replaced after this exchange, so I can see now that it is in the document. Now, however, there's a different problem: almost the entire article seems to be copied word-for-word from this source. It's not a copyright concern, but it suggests that this belongs on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment well if it’s a copyvio then we can’t keep it. Mccapra (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Mccapra: it wouldn't be a copyvio because the book is old enough that it's public domain, but it also doesn't make for a great Wikipedia article, hence Wikisource. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Roscelese: ok I see. Well for me the topic is notable and the article is neither original research nor copyvio. It is based too closely on a single source, but to me those still seem reasons for improvement rather than deletion. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not fundamentally original research. The incidents leading particular grievances to be listed, like the motivations for the specific amendments in the Bill of Rights, is standard stuff. Any decent high-school course on American history or government would address at least some of these. Concerns with specific items should be addressed by ordinary editing before trying to nuke the entire page. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @XOR'easter: If the incidents leading to these grievances are standard stuff, then it shouldn't be sourced to sources that don't draw the connection. Fixing the page would take more work than nuking it and starting over. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can't look at the sources, but there's two things here: 1) are the grievances themselves notable? Are they numbered like such by secondary reliable sources? 2) Are the summaries of the grievances notable? If this is the main source: [6] I can't find anything on the grievances at all, which concerns me greatly, since the source is used many times. I think the first may be true, but I don't see it here, and I am not sure about the second because of the sourcing - hence a lean delete. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My main issue is the use of the term ‘grievances’ when the DoI itself calls them ‘abuses’, ‘injuries’ and ‘usurpations’. The grievances are literally the whole point of the DoI as is clear from its first sentence. They are absolutely notable. The statement that the sources for this aren’t about the DoI itself misses the point. Each grievance refers to something the king did or did not do, which cannot be understood from the text of the DoI itself. The meaning of each grievance is clear and well understood by historians and the sources for this article simply show what they said. My second issue is that the article relies too heavily on a single source; there are certainly other sources and the article can be improved. Mccapra (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "The statement that the sources for this aren’t about the DoI itself misses the point. Each grievance refers to something the king did or did not do, which cannot be understood from the text of the DoI itself." - That is why we need reliable secondary sources that make the connection. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes and that is exactly what the main source for this article (Lossing) provides. He goes through the grievances one by one, and explains what they mean, with exzmples. So if you want to argue that Lossing isn’t a reliable source that’s one thing, but you can’t read Lossing and then say this article is original research. It isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Mccapra: Where does Lossing do this? Lossing may state that these events happened, but not that they are examples of the grievances in question. Can you give me a page number or something where he does this? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, pages 88-94. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - @Roscelese:I was curious how you got to "original research" the first time it was nominated. Just thought I would mention, a large body of this work is from historian Benson John Lossing. This should make it all qualify as "reliable". But the real issue to be addressed is that the sources are not specifically about the Declaration. That hardly seems reason enough to delete a page that clearly is needed. Perhaps you, myself, and several of the others who have expressed great interest in this can re-write some things, and grab different cites in others to resolve any issues. Is that a fair way forward? Progressingamerica (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Progressingamerica: Hi! Wikipedia's policy against original research doesn't just mean that we can't do our own interviews and unearth archival documents ourselves - it's a broad policy that prevents us from drawing conclusions that our sources do not draw, even if the sources themselves are reliable. Can you show that Lossing, or another historian, notes the events you've identified as typifying Jefferson's grievances? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Roscelese:Hello. In most instances historians do not go through item by item of the Declaration's grievances and explain them together. Other than Lossing, the only one I have found is this.[7] However, see my edits to grievances 6 and 9 for examples. Those citations are more common. One historian will be exploring a particular grievance more fully at one time and not exploring the other 26. But just because few have sought to write about them all together in one spot, isn't it a good alternative that for 27 grievances we can source 27 historians? I personally think that makes this article all the more important. I will continue to improve the article as I can. Thanks! Progressingamerica (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Progressingamerica: Okay, so, firstly, "historians don't talk about history this way BUT" is actually a really good sign that you're engaging in original research. Ultimately, it's possible that this might belong in the Declaration of Independence article if historians don't really discuss the grievances separately. (Or it might theoretically belong there but be spun out again as a WP:CONTENTFORK for size.) Your source at 9 looks high-quality, but 6 looks like a textbook, which we don't favor, although I appreciate your attempt to diversify. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncritical interpretative history. All of the matters here have been dealt with by a great nuymbers of historian and have bee interpreted in various ways. The "explanations" here are a unjustifiable OR simplification, using cherry picked unrepresentative references, based almost entirely upon the views of a single historian. This is an example of hoe=w not to discuss history in a NPOV encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete A very narrow range of sources, that are not universally considered to be the most authoritative on the topic, and in a topic area that is still the subject of material debate (e.g. the content is not stable/universally agreed/uncontroversial). That is not encyclopedic. Britishfinance (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Changing my view here. Didn't realise that there is no article in WP that lists the 27 grievances from the U.S. DOI – that in itself should be an article in WP (and could be a prime candidate for bringing up to FA status). On that basis, this article/topic should stay. However, there are still fundamental issues with this article around sourcing – E.g. the specific text of each of these Grievances should be sourced so that any high-school kid using this article can easily confirm that they have the right text of the Grievance. I also think that the "Summary" section after each Grievance is problematic as it is not really a summary of the Grievance, but "observations" around or tangential to the Grievance (with resulting POV issues), from a narrow group of sources (some which are very very old). Only that I think it is crazy that there is not a WP article with a list of the 27 Grievances, I would still be proposing WP:NUKEIT. My hope is that by keeping this article, that it will be re-written, fully sourced, and any comments/summary around the Grievances taken from the best contemporary academic historians and limted to specific discussion of the individual Grievance. Britishfinance (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic of the grievances is not the subject of material debate. Their meaning is not often set out in full (hence the value of this article to the modern reader). If anything it is their long-settled nature that explains the relative lack of discussion in contemporary scholarship. The contention about them is pretty much confined to this discussion. Mccapra (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, a very good page which covers one of the most important topics in world history - the specific yet diverse reasons why a group of dedicated people decided to separate from its governing entity and, by doing so, within less than two-hundred years their descendants went from horseback to the Moon. The creating editor has added new sources, and has promised to keep working on it along with any other knowledgeable editors who find the page important enough to work on. This one should be kept, made even better, and continue to cover an important and truly historical topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer The original objection was that this was OR. We've shown that not to be true. It was then objected that the article was over-reliant on a single source. That is also no longer true as more sources have been added, as Randy Kryn points out. There is also nothing contentious about the material or unreliable about the sources. Mccapra (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To SportingFlyer and others who question the topic's notability and have original research concerns, a Google search shows pages of pertinent sourced material, commentary, and discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 12 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Scuderi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as the player has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is based on wikipedia minor facts. User:Lucifero4

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:04, 6 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Stadium (proposed)[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL this proposed stadium does not merit its own article. It has only been proposed in preliminary fashion once, and that proposal was rejected by the city. Since the university has since moved on to talks about using someone else's stadium, the proposed stadium is now a mere conjecture and can be categorized as "product announcements and rumors" in rule #5 at WP:CRYSTAL. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A hypothetical concept should be further along in the process for notability, per CRYSTAL. Reywas92^Talk 22:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also noting that currently about a third of the article's content is not about the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:42, 11 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike_Cope_(preacher)[edit]

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

I have found no notable sources. I do not think this subject passes WP:BIO or even WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to source it, and failed. Just like Nom did.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No significant independent sources. Britishfinance (talk) 23:31, 9 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 17:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli occupation of the West Bank[edit]

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

Page is a WP:POVFORK of existing articles including Israeli-occupied territories, West Bank, Israeli settlement, Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967, Area C (West Bank), Palestinian territories, Judea and Samaria area, Israeli Military Governorate, Israeli Civil Administration, West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord and others. It was created 4 months ago in violation of WP:PROPAGANDA by ~~two~~ an editor who strongly supports Palestinian "resistance," User:Nableezy and an editor User:Nishidani (corrected text:) who strongly supports the Palestinian cause, one of whom WP:OWNS the page [8]. The perspective of the page creators is relevant because the article was immediately tagged for POV [9] by User:Graeme Bartlett. It has been the subject of constant, interminable, repetitive, unresolvable POV discussions on talk page ever since. A minor point is that the page when created was 162kb, which creator knew to be excessive [10]. The excessive length problem has been ongoing, a fact that bears out the reasons for our longstanding practice of covering aspects of this topic in separate pages. Diligent, experienced editors have established on talk that the POV problems with this page cannot be resolved, but from the moment it was written it has been clear that there was no need for this WP:POVFORK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and obviously so. You can't have a POVFORK from multiple pages, and beyond that, this article is currently at 120 kB of readable prose. It cant be merged in to its parent article (which is West Bank). The personal attacks in the nomination notwithstanding, this is an obviously notable topic, with sources very specifically treating this as its own topic. The idea that because it deals with a topic that the nominator finds uncomfortable means it is propaganda is kind of funny but not at all important. One of the more obvious keeps in the history of AFD. An obviously notable topic, one which currently has 295 reliable sources cited dealing explicitly with this topic. The most basic WP:BEFORE search, if that were even necessary given the number of sources already cited, would disabuse somebody of the notion this is not its own topic. Some users dont want the Israeli occupation covered. That is a position that is fine for an individual to hold. It is however not one that is relevant to the goal of building an encyclopedia. As far as the patently silly claim that the sources are "cherry-picked" or "POV", please, look at the source list. Among the 295 sources, 28 are published by some university press. 72 of them are from peer-reviewed journals. The rest mostly from top-class publishers like Routledge, Brill, and Taylor & Francis. This article is sourced to the very best available reliable sources. Some people just dont like what the sources say. nableezy - 17:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is important to note that reliable sources can also disrupt the balance of an article - there is no dispute over the reliability of the vast majority of sources, but there is a dispute over the balances of sources. It is probably important to also note that the only defense of this balance provided by the authors is that the "ethnic breakdown" favors "Jewish" scholars over Palestinian ones, and that this means the article cannot be biased. Personally, I consider this defense problematic for numerous reasons. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The primary author of this article has now produced another defense, and so I will mention it here for completeness; their defense, summed up as fairly as I can, is that due to Israeli Bias the balance of reliable sources is wrong and thus this article should not reflect that balance. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is important to note that the users who are claiming that there are NPOV issues, namely you and Icewhiz, have yet to bring any reliable sources that demonstrate any type of NPOV issue. They simply claim that based on feeling that the balance of sources is off. Im pretty sure your personal feeling is not what determines NPOV on this website. As far as only defence, that is verging on a purposely untrue statement. Please dont do that. nableezy - 16:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is more or less the definition of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy . This article is a rather obvious NOT fail. Notably - WP:NOTESSAY - the article is written in essay form as an anti-occupation treatise. Furthermore, as the nominator points out, it is a WP:POVFORK of several articles that pre-exist this article and cover the Israeli military administration in the West Bank (or in all of the occupied Palestinian territories) and which are in a reasonable WP:NPOV state. Creating a new article on a particular subset intersection (occupation & West Bank) of the conflict is not an excuse to place an article that diverges from NPOV in a severe fashion - a POVFORK. Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy Per WP:TNT .The sources were cherry-picked to presented one sided WP:POV essay.You can see at the talk page the discussion about serious problems that this article have [11] --18:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs)

Discussion of possible personal attacks in the deletion proposal. Hatting as off-topic

'two editors who strongly support Palestinian "resistance," User:Nableezy and User:Nishidani

Comment

Why is the word 'resistance' placed in inverted commas, and what do you mean by that insinuation? Can you point to me anywhere where I wrote I support what Hamas, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Palestinian suicide bombers, Fatah, Tanzim, and the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine do etc? If you cannot do so, I take it that this is a deliberate attempt to smear me, and possibly reportable. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

corrected.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not satisfactory. What does ' an editor User:Nishidani (corrected text:) who strongly supports the Palestinian cause,' mean? What cause, wshose cause, because there are several,none of which I support, i.e. that of Hamas, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Fatah, Tanzim, the Palestinian National Authority and the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, or even the BDS movement, which are all at logger-heads? I strongly support human rights in numerous articles, beginning with Tibet, the Philippines, and aboriginal people. If you want a neutral description it should be 'Nishidani, who strongly supports human rights for Palestinians in the occupied territories'. I)f you dislike the ref to 'human rights' then simply erase your insinuation that I back any Palestinian 'cause' of whatever nature. Otherwise it remains a personal attack by a generic insinuation I second any cause any Palestinian engages in. Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lol, same question for me. nableezy - 21:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For USER:Nableezy it is probably in reference to a box on their user page, which states "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable.". All the same, it has no bearing on these discussions and should probably be hidden in a box. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep It is really very easy: the Israeli occupation of the West Bank has broken multiple international laws, and brought incredible hardship on the Palestinian population. This has been meticulously documented (by academics, UN, and human rights sources) over these last 50 years; making old anti−Apartheid activist in South−Africa saying that the West Bank is much worse than it ever was in South Africa. Some people want to push these nasty facts under the carpet, ineffect to censor Wikipedia. They should not be allowed to do so. (If you don't want to portrayed as nasty: then stop acting nasty. The truth will out.) Huldra (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As for WP:OWN....there must be hundreds of village articles where I have contributed the greater part of the material in them ...my WP:OWNership of these articles is worth exactly 0, as we all know. That is in fact exactly what WP:OWN says. And when was the fact that someone has worked a great deal on an article, (or, in my case: a set of articles) something to be held against one? Huldra (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep as this is a ridiculous and plain pointy nomination. For once a scholar with WP experience is writing an excellent and, considering the "allowable" size, quite comprehensive article from scratch on a topic he's an expert on and as usual blind ideology minded hate for everything that makes this subject better known to the laymen is trying to trash it , hoping the WP mob will do their "best" for their dirty job to work as intended. Disgraceful chutzpah but to no surprise at all. WP is nothing more than social media after all.--TMCk (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is without question a notable topic that has been the subject of untold hundreds of thousands (at a minimum) of sources, be they works of scholarship, news stories, textbooks, general interest reference works, primary accounts, primary government statements, and more aside. Indeed, it is one of the most globally significant topics of recent history and contemporary significance in existence and when looking into this inquiry I was a little blown away to learn that the article has only existed since 2018. As to the POVFORK question, I don't think it holds up as an analysis when applied to any of the target articles mentioned by the OP; the topic of the article title is a discrete one and one which there is ample sourcing to discuss own its own unique terms with the title definetly being the obvious WP:COMMONNAME used in sources by and large, if we look at the entire universe of WP:RS on the topic.

As to any issues with neutrality, there are to obvious points to consider: 1) The most well known principle of our deletion policies is that we do not delete simply because an article has internal content issues, where such issues are amenable to correction. 2) Let's be perfectly honest here: there has never been in the history of this project an WP:AIPIA article which began life in a state which all of the most likely to be invested editors agree was neutral, and there won't be one in our lifetime. Like all articles in this area, this one will require careful work, compromise and mediation to get it to a state of acceptable equilibrium with our policies and the various users who have very strong feelings on the underlying subject matter. It is not unlike hundreds of other articles in that respect, and there's just no way there weren't going to be people frustrated with its starting point, no matter how much it leaned towards typical Israeli or Palestinian views (or towards the views of certain of our editors, whether or not they subscribe to such perspectives themselves). I get that this article's very existence signifies a lot of work for the community and probably a fair deal of conflict, but those factors are not in and of themselves sufficient to vitiate the obvious notability analysis or the importance of the topic such that we would not allow the article. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

query / comment - Note this is a NOT/POVFORK nomination, it's not a question of sources. Where do we stop at splitting up the Military-administration / Occupation of the Palestinian territories (a topic already well covered by several Wikipedia articles)? Do we create an Israeli occupation of the northern West Bank (Samaria), Israeli occupation of the central West Bank (Binyamin), Israeli occupation of the southern West Bank (Judea), Israeli occupation of the eastern West Bank (Jordan Valley)? Note this isn't an arbitrary division - this matches Israeli civil (Mateh Binyamin Regional Council) and military (Binyamin regional brigade on Hebrew Wikipedia) administrative/unit lines. After that split, do we do (cities/villages) Israeli occupation of Jenin and Israli occupation of Qabatiya? And then (neighborhoods) Israeli occupation of Balata and Israeli occupation of Rafidia? and after that Israeli occupation of the al-Masri family home in Rafidia? Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully Icewhiz, that is both a strawman argument and a non-sequitor. Nobody is, on this page at least, proposing any such additional aricles. Nor is any speculative determination about such theoretical articles (which are by no means likely) necessary or relevant to determining if the article in question here is appropriate under our policies. And you may wish to dismiss sources from this equation, but that is clearly not realistic given the policies and editorial determinations that underpin any such analysis in an AfD. "Israeli occupation of the eastern West Bank (Jordan Valley)" is not an article subject that is the express focus of hundreds of thousands of reliable sources, while "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" is; therefor your theoretical articles do not have the same immense WP:Notability argument going for them that this article does. Questions about any further articles are red herrings, unlikely as they are to occur--and anyway these arguments are properly the subject for separate AfDs if said articles ever did come to exist. Let's keep discussion focused on the here and now and the content that is in the purview of this AfD, rather than going off into the weeds of speculation about articles that don't exist. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: I suggest you re-do your WP:BEFORE - as the occupation of the lower-Western Jordan Valley (which is unique both in Israeli security concerns and in terms of demographics - you actually chose the worst possible example from the list above) is in fact the subject of thousands of reliable sources - more so than the West Bank separately from the Occupied Palestinian territories (which the West Bank is the major part of). Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's say you're right (I personally doubt very much that it's the case that there are more reliable sources in the world which discuss the Jordan Valley than those which discuss the West Bank in general, but the question is non-dispositive here so I don't see the point in debating it)--that still does not change the principles I alluded to one whit. Nothing is to be gained about discussing the WP:N analysis of an article which does not exist and which nobody is proposing in this AfD. It's still a strawman argument and still irrelevant to determining if this article's topic is notable (which, clearly it is, if anything under the sun in the contemporary world is) and if it otherwise conforms to the policies relevant to a deletion discussion. If you wished to propose the Jordan Valley article, I'd say have at it, but it's clear you don't. But it is not appropriate or constructive for you to attribute such a stance to the proponents of this article when they have advocated no such thing. Again, let's please keep things focused on the presently existing content and how policies apply to it. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant argument is this article being a WP:POVFORK of Occupied Palestinian territories which is about the Israeli occupation in the oPt overall - the West Bank comprising some 93.937% of the oPt. The topic overlap between both articles is significant (more so than the Jordan Valley for instance). POVFORKs are generally deleted or merged back into the parent. Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um Occupied Palestinian territories is a redirect to Palestinian territories. And that article is not, as you repeatedly claim, about the Israeli occupation in the oPt overall. Please dont misrepresent the situation, it is quite unbecoming. nableezy - 17:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pt and oPt (variant names) is defined by the Israeli occupation from 1967 onwards and covers that period - it is about the Israeli occupation.Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at that article? It has a section that deals with, poorly, the occupation. But pretending that article covers the occupation, much less that it is about the occupation, is just silly. All the more so given that anybody can oh I dont know, click the link and see for themselves. nableezy - 18:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. As it stands, the article has several NPOV issues that means it would fail an AfC review, primarily due to the imbalance on sources between the various "sides" - the Israeli "side" is not a fringe view, and so should be adequately recorded. An example of how this plays out is where the article discusses biased language; it goes into depth on the use of biased language by those favoring Israel, but does not mention biased language by those favoring Palestine, even though it includes a (pro-Palestinian) source from which an excellent example can be obtained, where it complains about the use of "suicide-bomber" as opposed to "martyr". As such, it should be moved to draft-space until those issues are corrected - I believe the article has merit, and so should not be deleted unless while in draft-space it qualifies under their deletion criteria. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a reasonable compromise. I can see no supportable cause to delete this article under policy, but I can't claim that the way it reads in many places in its long read does not attest to neutrality issues. Perhaps the article's proponents can be convinced to move it to draft space if the "other side" will give assurances that they will not try to take advantage of the situation to expunge it from Wikipedia altogether; if both sides can agree to work in good faith to bring the article to a better state...well, I can't say I'm hopefully that this approach will be endorsed by both the proponents and the opponents to its existence, but I think its worth considering. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I can see it being deleted is if it is abandoned and reaches the sixth month mark. Perhaps we could add {{promising draft}} to reduce the chance of even that happening - the article in question is an indisputably promising draft, so that should not be objectionable. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem would be in convincing the article's proponents to accept the temporary demotion out of mainspace; they will be concerned (perhaps reasonably) that the opponents of the article will attempt to block it's being moved back into article space once it is out. And unfortunately, I don't think it's permissible (or even necessarily advisable) to have a time limit for an article in draftspace such that it is moved back into mainspace automatically at the end of that period in time. I suppose both sides could agree to submit the issue to a neutral editor or group of editors at AfC and let them make a determination about whether it is ready for mainspace again, free from any active boostering from either side. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that's a good point. I like your solution as well; to flesh it out, maybe when the authors believe the article is ready for submission they submit a RfC specifically for the AfC community, and if the consensus of that community is that the article is ready, specifically in regards to NPOV issues, it can be returned to main-space? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The delete vote were for Userfy that is the same draftify as I understand --Shrike (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More or less; close enough that a closer could consider the three -ify !votes together, anyway. But I do think for the present article draftspace would be the better place. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, in sum, Human rights in China, Human rights in Russia Human rights in Tibet and dozens of other articles should be deleted, or put away to be redrafted? For they do what this article does. This is different (save for the Tibetan case) because the human rights abuses do not occuer within a country, but beyond its legally recognized borders, hence 'occupation', moreover.

Several editors strongly upset by the article keep harping on WP:NPOV, as though it meant that for the 20 odd voices of known human rights/international law violations, the 'Israeli' justifications must be given equal weight, meaning that rather than facts and mechanisms, half of the article must cover justifications by various representatives of the occupying power. They haven't addressed the point raised here. An article like this must mention the use of torture, for example, since it is deeply documented (over 3,000,000 hits in google). The two Israeli High Court discussions were mentioned; one could add many Israeli spokesmen denying it exists (documented) or saying it is necessary; one could link to a sub-page documenting torture used by the various Palestinian authorities (though this is about Israel's occupation, not the PNA or Hamas's abuses, which however are intensely documented in numerous articles). Ultimately the topical realities are not going to disappear or be 'neutral' in the odd sense proposed here, i.e. balancing an 'Israeli' perspective against a 'Palestinian' perspective. The article is not about political justifications, or partisan spokesmen's views: it is about the facts and mechanisms of an occupation. No one objecting has denied that what is thematically outlined here is unreal, a gross misrepresentation. No objector is denying all this happens there. They are objecting either to the unfairness of this material being marshaled on one page or to it being documented, certainly in the detail demanded by the most voluminously documented conflict area in modern history.Nishidani (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and USER:Icewhiz need to remember WP:WAX. As for the rest, nobody is seeking WP:FALSEBALANCE. What is being sought is WP:BALANCE, and that is achievable even on topics where the balance will never be 50:50. An example of this I have raised above; the section on bias in the language of the occupation is relevant in both directions, and including just Palestine's perspective on this is an example of where WP:BALANCE is not meet, and seeking to meet it is not an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the query. Why is this absurd uproar not visible with comparable articles on other countries? The problem of balance in the section you mention is that Israel has a dozen official, semi-official and public bodies with extensive resources and a high public profile, scrutinizing, contesting and distributing the results of their analysis of what they see as pro-Palestinian bias, whereas there are close to zero Palestinian official or unofficial bodies doing the opposite, and little of that material gets into the mainstream.Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We reflect the mainstream, it is not our job to WP:RGW and reflect non-mainstream sources. You wouldn't want Bezalel Smotrich's annexation plan (including a surrender-or-transfer ultimatum) all over the article (e.g. Haaretz coverage), would you? Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article reflects the scholarly mainstream. Everything in it is standard fare on any contemporary university-level course on the topic in Israel's top institutions of learning, from whose tenured academics much of the documentation comes, as opposed to what you find in newspapers.

Could editors not transform this into a repeat of the huge motherlode of argufying on the talk page? Making just one more policy link WP:RGW is not an answer. It justs adds to the speciously impressive flurry of vague flag-waving of WP:POVFORK, WP:PROPAGANDA, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NPOV, WP:TNT, WP:OWN, WP:WAX. WP:BALANCE, etc.etc. while refusing to address a simple query,'what makes this article uniquely problematical when parallel articles on the same issue, Human rights in China, Human rights in Russia Human rights in Tibet have met with no such deletionist urgency? That done, let outside editors whose views are unpredictable voice their views here. Otherwise they will be put off by an unfocused WP:TLDR pastiche developing. Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could some neutral administer examine his. I regard the gratuitous insinuation made in my regard in the AfD proposal to be offensive, and have asked it be withdrawn, and it is being hatted as 'off-topic', when indeed the abusive insinuation still stands there? Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These repeated claims about "balance" and "NPOV issues" have not once been backed up by sources. On the talk page NoCOBOL has claimed that not including an Israeli system for registering land title makes including that they closed off the former Jordanian system "undue weight", while apparently not realizing that Israel did not create a system when closing off the old one. Each claim of "undue weight" or "imbalance" has had one thing in common. No sources have been provided to substantiate any part of the claim. This article is NPOV, it reflects the balance of reliable sources. The topic is not one that has a lot of praise for Israel. That does not mean that it is not "neutral". People have been making wholly specious arguments about POV and they keep forgetting the important part. You need reliable sources demonstrating that a view is significant to be included. And none of yall have brought any such sources. Instead we hear complaints that a peer-reviewed journal published by a university press is a "cheerleader for Palestinian resistance". nableezy - 16:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Looking through the list of articles that are supposed to cover this information, I'm really surprised that this article hasn't existed previously: Wikipedia certainly needs an article that directly covers this subject. The lede is relatively well written and quite impartial in its treatment of differing pro/anti Israeli/Palestinian views — in fact I think the lede would be improved by the elimination of some of this back and forth. - Darouet (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lede begins: The Israeli occupation of the West Bank began on 7 June 1967 when Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and continues to the present day. No link to or mention of the Six Day War, no hint of the fact that the occupation began as a result of invasion by the armies of several neighboring states with the was goal of exterminating Israel. This lack of balance pervades the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because that isnt what happened? But sure, Ill add six-day war. nableezy - 18:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue can easily be resolved by adding "...began on 7 June 1967 during the Six Day War, when Israel..." -Darouet (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

occupation began as a result of invasion by the armies of several neighboring states with the was goal of exterminating Israel

This is one of the I/P area's main problems, lack of knowledge among editors of even the basic facts of the area's history. E. M. Gregory's reference to an invasion by the armies of several neighbouring states' cannot but refer to events 19 years earlier in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War which runs:

On 15 May 1948, the ongoing civil war transformed into an inter-state conflict between Israel and the Arab states, following the Israeli Declaration of Independence the previous day. A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered Palestine'

The Six-Day War 19 years later, after which the occupation started, began with an Israeli strike over 19 airfield from El Arish to Cairo (400 kms away) and further west. Jordan's West Bank forces, under unified Egyptian command made thereafter some minor retaliatory counterstrikes, then withdrew, and Israel occupied the West Bank. My impression is that many protesting editors are upset because they are surprised at reading things they knew nothing about, and prefer the information to be deleted, rather than to learn something, a bad move in cognitive science. Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting, dismissive comments about fellow editors do not help. You could AGF, failing that, I restate: The Six Day War began when Nasser pushed the UN out of Sharm el-Sheikh as the preliminary move necessary to blockading the Straits of Tiran which, as Israel had formally warned Egypt, would be regarded as a causus belli. Israel was as good as its word. Knowing that Egypt has a powerful air force, Israel responded to the blockade of the Straits by taking out the Egyptian air force with a preemptive strike. After which the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq invaded with the announced intention of obliterating the Jewish State. POINT IS: the article is written to make Israel look like an unprovoked aggressor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq never "invaded" Israel in the Six-Day War. Egypt never entered any part of Israeli territory in the entirety of the war. Same for Syria. Same for Iraq. Jordan, from what I recall, fired across armistice lines, but never actually went past any. You are mistaken on matters of basic fact, and are apparently upset that your misimpressions are not relayed as though they were fact. nableezy - 21:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: all this historical background — abridged, on both sides — is important for some part of the article body, but not for the lead. Otherwise there would be an interminable list of justifying antecedents that would make the lead impossible to resolve. The inclusion of "during the Six day war" in the first sentence certainly allows readers to read about that event if they like. -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of overstuffed ledes. I am, however, acutely aware of the importance of NPOV phrasing in ledes. This is why I first proposed an extraordinary committee of some kind to hammer out an NPOV page. Before I brought this to AfD, convinced that the only solution is to delete this POV article since the topic is covered in more depth and in a less POV fashion on existing pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are ‘ascutely aware of the importance of NPOV phrasing in ledes',(?!!) why here to cite one of dozens of articles on Palestinian terrorist incidents you write, did you fail to mention the context of the incident, 31 Palestinians shot, starting with firing on a funeral cortege, in the period just prior to Meisner's killing while on patrol? Pull the other.Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would add one further comment: at least two solid sentences should be drafted, probably appearing in the third paragraph, describing 1) The Israeli government's most basic position on the need to control the territory for their security concerns, and 2) U.S. overt or tacit support, since this is a major aspect of the international dynamic. -Darouet (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is the benefit of moving it from mainspace to either draft or userspace (and is there a meaningful difference between the two)? Why is it better to be edited outside of mainspace rather than in mainspace? ^Leviv_ich 22:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a major difference, but I support draft space because as it stands the primary author has expressed a clear intent in this discussion to not create a balanced article, due to their belief that the balance of reliable sources is "wrong" due to pro-Israel bias in such. Sending it to draft space until this is resolved will hopefully encourage the contributor to correct this, rather than insisting on this violation of policy. The other reason is because this is a controversial topic; to allow it to stand for months or longer as an imbalanced work in the main space will provide encouragement to others wishing to push their views. See diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FIsraeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank&type=revision&diff=882027130&oldid=882025737 -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood Nishidani's comment. In your diff, despite the strange indent, I think Nishidani is responding to your "the section on bias in the language of the occupation is relevant in both directions, and including just Palestine's perspective [is not balance]". Nishidani says that it is not possible to balance Israeli/Palestinian views in that section because there are no available Palestinian views on that topic. I had a quick look at what I think is the article section and I don't see any I or P views—the sources seem to be from independent parties. That is all immaterial because content is judged on its text, not on what opponents think might be in the mind of the text's author. What text is so egregious that the article should be removed from main space? Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few points.

First, even if Palestinian issues with biased language were not covered in reliable sources that would not be a reason to exclude the Israeli issues with biased language if they were covered in reliable sources; that would be an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE.
Second, the existence of the section aptly demonstrates that the Palestinian issues are well documented, even if the authors of those sections are not Palestinian themselves - indeed, I do not understand the relevance of their ethnicity. Perhaps you could explain it, as this is the second time it has been brought up as part of an argument that the article is WP:BALANCED.
Third, it is not immaterial because this entire discussion is about whether the article meets NPOV guidelines; under the draftify policy guidelines, a page can be moved to draft space if three criteria are met.

The topic has some potential merit
The article does not meet the required standard
There is no evidence of active improvement.

The first of this is clearly met, and the second has been demonstrated through an analysis of the issues with the text, including this section - unless you are asserting that a section on biased language in an article on the occupation of the West Bank should only include biased language against Palestine?

The third part is where the opinions and intentions of the individual(s) working on it come in; the fact is that the creator has presented a reason against including the Israeli position that not only is not based on policy but is actively against them; this demonstrates that at the moment the article isn't being improved to meet these standards, and thus it would be a reasonable decision to move it to draft space to compel the editor, if they wish to return the article to mainspace, to remove their personal opinion about the balance of sources and merely reflect it. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2. Doesn't meet whose required standards? Point 3 is an utter distortion of my views on the talk page. It was protested that there was no attention to Israel's security needs, and I replied the text mentioned these 32 times. No one replied. Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood a comment and are now trying to justify your conclusion by grasping at straws. The article section uses reliable sources that are independent from the protagonists—that is good! Who, apart from you, mentioned ethnicity? What text is so egregious? Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani mentioned ethnicity on the talk page as a defense of balance, stating "I did a breakdown by ethnicity of the original article, and from memory there were twice the number of Israel/Jewish scholars cited than of Arab scholars, while the third 'western' scholarly contribution lay in between. That was calculated. If there is an ethnicity bias, it is not towards Palestinians, and most of the authors cited from that journal are not Arabs." There is also the implication from your line, where you talking about Palestinians, and not pro-Palestinian viewpoints.

As for the sources, I'm not saying it is not good, I'm saying that for balance we should also include reliable and independent sources that document the bias in language that Israel faces - though on a personal level, I suspect that some of those sources are not so independent, as I doubt that an independent source would seriously consider the use of "suicide bomber" as opposed to "martyr" an issue in regards to bias.

As for the issues, we have covered those; though if I may ask you a question, would you support including reliable sources documenting the issues with language bias that Israel faces, and not just the issues that Palestine faces? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I infer there is no egregious text in the article as none has been quoted. I just reread the language section and once again you have reached conclusions that are not supported by the text. Of course "suicide bomber" vs. "martyr" is a bias issue but mentioning that does not condone suicide or bombing or unthinking dedication to religious dogma. The text (added by Nishidani) includes Pallywood—seems pretty balanced. Is there any text in the section that is wrong? Any text that should be added could be discussed on article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nomination is:

Procedurally flawed: it is positioned as a WP:DEL5 fork nomination, yet it uses an unrelated content dispute as the rationale. The nominator has not claimed that the existence of the article is POV (rather his claim relates to its content), which is the minimum required for the nomination to be valid.
Motivated by impatience: the nominator admitted that he proposed this after running out of patience to resolve the content dispute. This project needs more editors who are willing to invest the time needed to achieve consensus in difficult areas.
Misleading: In pointing to the article Israeli occupied territories, which covers four territories under occupation, the nomination did not reference that there are existing sub-articles for the legal/political status of three of those four individual territories (those statuses being: Blockade of the Gaza Strip, Annexation of East Jerusalem, Annexation of the Golan Heights). The topic of this article completes the set.

The article’s development needs to continue, but this is not the way to go about it. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:POVFORK nomination (DEL5), by its very nature, relates to the content of the article. So does WP:NOTESSAY. Occupied Palestinian Territories covers the West Bank+EJ+Gaza Strip - the West Bank comprising some 93%+ of the territory.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article and sanction the alleged editor who brought this ridiculous, politically motivated hack job of a deletion nomination. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article that directly embraces this topic is indeed a must.GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am grateful to Onceinawhile for setting out so clearly why this nomination is without merit. --NSH001 (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reliable sources in the article (and weekly news feeds) treat "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" as a topic so WP:N is satisfied with WP:SUSTAINED coverage. WP:NOTESSAY refers to "essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)" but the many reliable sources in the article are the opinions of experts. Any unsourced personal feelings should be removed without trying to use an AfD for cleanup. Those advocating TNT/userfy/draftify have not given a policy-based reason. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's definitely not a delete, as the topic is undoubtedly notable and deserving of its own article, so the only choice for me was draft or keep. While I've voiced concerns about length and POV on the article talk page, these content concerns aren't usually a reason to delete or draftify. Echoing Johnuniq's point, I don't see any text that is so egregious that it should be immediately removed from mainspace (and if I did, I could delete that text without having to move the whole article to draftspace). So looking at the requirements for draftifying, while I agree the article has (obvious) merit and doesn't (completely) meet all policies for length and POV, the third requirement, "no evidence of active improvement", is not met. Look at this diff comparing the article on Jan. 25 just after Icewhiz's now-famous 145k précis was reverted (378k) with the article on Feb. 5 when it was nominated for deletion (291k). That's almost 100k of content that was removed or moved to other articles, and I know those edits were in direct response to editors' concerns (mine included) raised on the talk page. I cannot in good conscience say "no evidence of active improvement". Quite the opposite, and I hope it continues, because if it does, we will have a FAC here. ^Leviv_ich 19:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe topic is certainly notable and worth having an article for. I was the first to tag for unbalance in my patrol, but that is not the same thing as requiring deletion. Instead the article needs work, probably pruning to improve balance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is blindingly obvious. It is not a fork of any other article. It is a topic of great importance with a huge number of reliable sources. AfD is not the place to go for cleanup so all delete votes on the basis of not liking the content should be ignored. Tendentious argument should also be ignored (and the guilty know who they are).Zero^talk 07:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not a POV fork; suitable for a stand-alone topic. Plenty of sources are available. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This in not a POV fork. It a major topic for a stand-alone article, with manty available sources. Dimadick (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the analysis of Onceinawhile. The argument to delete is essentially about what content should be allowed on Wikipedia, with editors arguing, by appearances, that certain issues, no matter how thoroughly documented in the academic literature, should not appear here. There is no visible policy ground behind the call for deletion. Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy Again and again, the same problem of adhering to WP:NPOV combined with WP:OWN approach, as mentioned above. The current status of this article doesn't match the minimum of Wikipedia standards.Tritomex (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What text in the article is a problem? Are 294 references not enough? Which of the references doesn't match minimum standards? Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - clear case of WP:FORK of West Bank (specifically area C), Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian territories, Israeli Military Governorate and Israeli Civil Administration. It is a common knowledge that the West Bank is a complex case, with Palestine being there on 40% of the West Bank territory under the Oslo Accords with Israel. This article is aiming to ignore Palestine's existence, which is frankly weird. My guess is that the authors of this article will spring out more and more useless articles, which will eventually end up in the delete bin. Better to create something useful, like Crime in the State of Palestine, List of prisons in the State of Palestine, Racism in the State of Palestine, etc. GreyShark (dibra) 20:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please keep discussion focused upon content and policies, and away from wild speculation about what you think other editors may do in the future, that is impermissible on this project, outside of a handful of processes which take place in administrative spaces, and in any event, completely unhelpful to resolving the issues to be resolved here. Anyway, I see plenty of issues with the tone of the article, but an attempt to deny Palestinian existence is not one of them. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is this a joke??? It astounds (but doesn't surprise) me to see such a well-referenced and undoubtedly notable article nominated for deletion. Neutrality concerns are not cause for deletion and should be worked out on the talk page. Elspamo4 (talk) 03:42, 12 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 17:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J.C. Warren[edit]

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

After trimming all the non -sources and doing a WP:BEFORE I can find no evidence that this is a notable author, nor can I source the information that I have since removed. I can't find a single review of his books in reliable sources, or even unreliable sources, such as amazon. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – self-published author, self-published Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Bradv🍁 15:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-promotion of a self-published author. Looks like A7/G11 material to me. Cabayi (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @JCWarrenauthor: - you are only embarrassing yourself by doing this, assuming that it is you. I would nevertheless consider notability, if I was finding book reviews and profiles in WP:RS. What I did find is that although the books exist, Amazon.com reports what appear to be zero sales and no reviews [12]. WP:SNOW.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per the above editors. Searches turned up virtually zero towards WP:GNG, and he doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self published works. Fails WP:GNG. May need salting. Britishfinance (talk) 23:28, 9 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TEAK Fellowship[edit]

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

Excessively long and promotional, with just one reference. The only coverage I can find is local press and PR/press releases. Likely fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:20, 5 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 no consensus to delete, after extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

2016 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament[edit]

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

These amateur university conference soccer tournaments do not receive enough independent secondary coverage to be presumptively notable under WP:GNG, and the MAAC league tournament is one of those tournaments. All of the sources here are WP:PRIMARY and per my before searches there is not enough secondary coverage to properly source the article. I'm fine with creating a redirect if consensus takes us that direction, and I will reconsider the nomination if someone can present consistent non-routine media coverage of the tournaments.

Since this tournament does not get consistent secondary media coverage, I am also nominating:

2015 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament

2012 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament

2011 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament

SportingFlyer T·C 22:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, partially for the WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, and partially because a quick Google search returns reliable secondary sources. We had a similar discussion earlier and no consensus was reached (although I felt there was a consensus to keep, but the closing admin sided with the minority). Quidster4040 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't think this nomination was made it good faith. Lacking sources does not merit an article failing GNG. Not only that, I question the nominee's effort to find secondary, non-routine coverage of the tournament. In the time it took him to scramble an attempt to purge college soccer off of Wikipedia (why the nominator is so offended by college soccer, let alone it's notability is beyond me), I found these non-routine, secondary sources related to the MAAC tournaments:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. I could certainly go on, but in the interest of saving the nominator the embarrassment, I'll stop here. Cobyan02069 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking sources does not mean an article fails WP:GNG. Of the sources you've identified, you only identify four sources: theridernews.com, quchronicle.com, topdrawersoccer.com, and collegesoccernews.com. The first two are university newspapers and are not secondary/independent. Top Drawer Soccer simply regurgitates the WP:PRIMARY news releases presented by the teams (see [13] and compare to 16: they're the same) and none of the collegesoccernews.com even mention any of these tournaments at all. I've done work to make sure this one wasn't a swing and a miss, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#U.S._University_league_cups, and I am definitely bringing it in good faith/am glad to be embarrassed. SportingFlyer T·C 02:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. per above. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing significant coverage of the competitions themselves - just routine news about local college teams participating. Giant Snowman 09:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources. The argument that the sources aren't about the tournaments but about participation in the tournaments is ridiculous - what else do you expect them to cover if not what's going on in it? Smartyllama (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the source-bomb, all of the sources are either from the teams, reprint sources directly for the teams, or aren't about the teams, and are routine match reports (team played in tournament versus coverage of the tournament.) We would not keep an amateur English competition where the only sources we had were WP:PRIMARY. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So some sources are invalid because they are about the teams and some sources are invalid because they aren't about the teams? What exactly would be a source that establishes notability in your mind? Smartyllama (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Most sources are invalid because they are written by the teams participating, or (in the article) written by the league which puts on the tournament and are WP:PRIMARY. Topdrawersoccer.com is invalid because it simply regurgitates WP:PRIMARY sources. Some other sources - the collegesoccernews.com sources - don't mention the tournament at all or only in passing. A valid source to me would be one written by a secondary source that covers the topic significantly - for instance, as I've noted on the Wikiproject Football board, a one or two sentence recap that a team won the tournament is not significant coverage (there was an article written by a newspaper that covered two tournaments in three sentences.) Considering we're discussing amateur tournaments, this isn't a great source, but if we were discussing the FA Vase, would in my mind help establish notability: [14] I can't find anything close for most of these articles. SportingFlyer T·C 19:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've had disagreements with others in past debates about the notability of sources, not due to content of the source but due to the source itself. But the sources provided by Cobyan, to me, seem to satisfy GNG. The newspapers mentioned by Cobyan, upon further investigation, are independent of the university, and not news services by the universities. If they were the official university news service, I would be inclined to agree with Sporting about it not being notable. Usually I want to give benefit of the doubt with people nominating articles for deletion, but this seems like a repetitive process to delete college soccer related articles, despite abundant evidence of GNG. Top Drawer Soccer and College Soccer News may be niche for some people, but they are generally seen within the American soccer community as reputable sources, who often do original reporting, and analysis. Twwalter (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Twwalter: The question isn't whether Top Drawer Soccer or College Soccer News are reputable are not, but whether they actually cover the topic of the articles significantly. If they did, I'd be happy to say they pass WP:GNG and would source the article instead of nominating it for deletion! The issue is, for these tournaments, Top Drawer Soccer directly reprints articles written by the participating clubs, which is not secondary, and none of the College Soccer News links cover the MAAC tournaments at all apart from mentioning the winner of the tournament, which is not significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 18:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: That's fair, thanks for clarifying. In that case, upon reading your rebuttal with Smartyllama and providing your link to BristolLive, I'll still maintain my opinion that this article and others should be kept. I think we're ultimately going to disagree, but I do agree with you in the extent upon reading further into the source bomb, not everyone of the 16 or so sources Cobyan provided may meet GNG. I will say though that not every source Cobyan does provide is invalid. To me at least, based on your reading of GNG and Cobyan's source drop, I would say sources 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 15 meet GNG for this tournament. The others seem more fluff to me, or not entirely relevant to this specific rendition of the MAAC Tournament. Twwalter (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful response and going through the sources. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are student university newspapers. I think we'll still disagree, but I do not think they are independent enough coverage. #10 and #12 clearly do not meet WP:GNG, since they are direct reprints of WP:PRIMARY articles: 10 was first printed at [15] and #12 was first printed here [16]. #15 contains one sentence about the tournament in a preview of the first round of the NCAA Tournament, which I don't think is significant coverage. I'm trying hard not to be WP:POINTY because I thought this would be a more straightforward nomination, but I think this is at best an edge case and am trying to make clear generally this was made in good faith. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Of course. That is fair, and I'll still maintain my position that student university newspapers, being that are independent and not university-funded or supported, which these seem to be, are notable secondary sources. I can't speak on behalf of every student newspaper, but several I have known of have been known to pay their journalists and the only necessary connection to the university is in their namesake, and the core emphasis of coverage, much like how a newspaper like the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette focuses on Arkansas and Little Rock-specific news, although I doubt anyone would question their legitimacy of original reporting. I'll reaffirm that I think the independence of the sources and paid staff allows me to feel comfortable calling those sources reliable secondary sources, and thus allows this article to meet GNG for reliable secondary source coverage, allowing me to further feel comfortable that this article, and other college soccer tournament articles for that matter should be kept. But of course our opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't expect there to be a consensus, or ever be a consensus, of those sources (I'm sure some will agree with you and with me, since it seems to be a grey space of interpretations, but I would like to see other editors chime in and see their thoughts. Twwalter (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's some strong feelings here and a large number of sources presented. There are also some strong rebuttals of a number of sources as PRIMARY. I think there is no harm in extending this discussion to see whether there is any additional input that would move us to a wider consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to 2016 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's soccer season. Reviewing the sources provided above, I do not believe this establishes notability. www.collegesoccernews.com and www.topdrawersoccer.com are specialized sources that are close to the topic, as well as routine coverage of routine events. The season as a whole may be a notable topic but the tournament for a non-major conference is not. If others believe this is notable content, there is still no reason it cannot be covered in the article with the rest of the season rather than separately: per WP:SPORTSEVENT, "consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page." None of the keepers have explained why this needs to be standalone. Then again, seeing how undeveloped that article is, and the results here and here, I'm not sure if that season article is notable either. Reywas92^Talk 22:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Quidster4040, Cobyan02069, and Matthew J. Long. Articles seem to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:57, 9 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 17:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kilwa Empire[edit]

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

The article is pure phantasy. There is not one source quoted. Throw it out. Cf Iranica on East Africa: "large-scale Persian settlement in East Africa is unlikely... Archeological evidence from East Africa shows economic connections with the ports of southern Persia from the 3rd to the 15th centuries C.E.", and nothing more. Kipala (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax or crass case of source distortion, or redirect to Kilwa Sultanate. Created by a known abuser (now banned), originally created without any decent sources at all, no reason to trust the sources added later either. Book search for "Kilwa" and "Bazrangid" turns up nothing that isn't mirroring Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are fine. They ust say nothing about a Kilwa empire as decribed. That is why author does not quote or specify any reference. Kipala (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Kipala: Ummm.... this book by Adonis & Abbey Publishers Ltd seems to contain more or less the text in our article. The publisher and author would probably be assumed to be a WP:RS.... However the textual similarity to our Wikipedia page (including the version created in 2006, the book being published in 2014) seems to be beyond coincidental - despite the book not citing Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Regarding the nomination comment - the article is asserting this empire was mostly in the Persian gulf (despite being named for Kilmwa in East Africa). The book source does present a bit of a pickle. Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is, as you yourself found, quite clearly plagiarized from our article, and as such of course not a reliable source. That's a no-brainer, there's no problem to consider at all here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - One could make that argument (not sure I'd call it a no-brainer - it could "just" be copied text but the contents matching the author's knowledge), however - this 2002 Palgrave book pre-dates our 2006 article and covers a "Kilwa Empire". As does Akasheh, Anahid, and Mehrdad Izady. "The History and Conservation of Zanzibar Stone Town." The International Journal of Kurdish Studies 10.1/2 (1996): 161. - saying - " Kilwa Empire seems to have come into being when the first Sasanian emperor, Ardasher". Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, yeah, that seems to be the entity we have an article about at Kilwa Sultanate. That article is also far from acceptable quality, but at least better than this one here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can see the case for TNT - but the two articles are not duplicates. The Sultanate article covers post 980. This article covers the period prior to that - 224 (or 3rd century) to 980 (when the Sultanate was formed). Some Persian presence - even a "Kilwa Empire" (would seem to be not a land empire - but a martime empire) - is supported by some sources (e.g. above). Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure how we got to this point (whether it was intentional or accidental misinformation). But this just isn't accurate. Frankly, our Kilwa Sultanate article is a mess, with core claims based on a 19th century Portuguese chronology that's been firmly rejected by modern scholars. But the idea that there was a thousand years of Persian imperial presence at Kilwa before that is just, as the nominator said, fantasy. As this paper discusses, there was no empire at Kilwa before about the 13th century. There certainly was no empire at Kilwa in 224 CE. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - then maybe redirect to the sultanate. There is a good deal of research on the inhabitants of Kilwa Island in antiquity (for instance: Wynne-Jones, Stephanie. "Creating urban communities at Kilwa Kisiwani, Tanzania, AD 800-1300." Antiquity 81, no. 312 (2007): 368-380.) None of it mentions an empire. There is also a good deal of research on the so called Kilwa Chronicle - from which we get the story of Kilwa's ownership by Almuli before the sultanate. I don't see any mention of something like that in that research, either. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable myth (due to the brief mentions in some text cited above). While there are later (circa 10th century) Shirazi people's Persian origin stories, this earlier one is not mentioned in the archaeological research or early textual sources such as the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea or Ibn Battuta. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is definitively nothing to redirect as there NEVER was a Kilwa empire. Sorry to say, as I really love Iran من ایران را بسیار دوست دارم but this is just another joyful expression of Persian / Iranian historical optimism. You find Iranians who insist their forefathers invented everything from the scrambled egg via human rights to the first expedition in outer space 2000 years ago. And of course Kilwa ruins. This is a beautiful expression of a national poetic spirit but not exactly encyclopedical content. Kipala (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kipala. Probably not a "hoax", but completely unfounded. Srnec (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kipala. Britishfinance (talk) 20:44, 11 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 17:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Morton[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet WP:RS, WP:GNG and for now not enough significant coverage to establish notability. PlotHelpful (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NBIO for lack of independent sources (that I could find). As a TV personality maybe, but I could not find anything (also see rejected WP:NOTNEWS, do we have something better for TV personality, News presenters etc?).(Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 15:10, 11 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 17:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T-Shirt (Katie Kittermaster song)[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a notable song. Fram (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't BBC news, BBC music, charts in France enough to avoid deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwolfz (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Charts in France is a site which lists all released songs, no matter if they have charted or not. There is no evidence of this song ever charting in an official chart. Similarly, BBC music lists many artists and songs without evidence that this song actually meets WP:NMUSIC. Fram (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails all criteria of NSONG, source searches don't look promising for a GNG case either. SITH (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I am unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though I could also see a redirect to the main artist's article as a viable possibility. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually existing does not pass WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. I can't get excited about a redirect either, not convinced there will be an article page for long, and, anybody looking for this song will already know to look for Katie Kittermaster. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete is probably the best option here. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 6 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 deleted -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Folk arts (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is not a disambiguation page, but a fork of Folk arts. The article at the base name is useful and should be kept, but the "disambiguation" page adds nothing. Certes (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wait a while,~~ Ok, delete The editor who started this page has been doing a sweeping set of changes to several articles in the folk art/s area, which are under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Old_"Folk_art"_replaced. I think there are likely to be further changes, which might affact this proposal (or not). I wouldn't describe the current Folk arts as "useful" myself. Qualitist, why was this added to only 2 of the relevant sort lists? Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Author) I am in agreement to delete this page. I created it, to separate the different topics included in Folk arts. But I found out that this was the incorrect format. Smithriedel (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is definitely not a dab page. Anything useful can be transferred to Folk art. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has also set up Folk arts, with the same material. The whole point is to keep music, literature etc out of Folk art, which is for visual art. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The author Smithriedel seems to also agree per above (I had to tidy up their signature as it was not signed correctly). Britishfinance (talk) 20:26, 11 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 02:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Salim[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. This biography lists one role, which is not a lead role. Google search reveals that she exists and that she advertises or is advertised and publicizes or is publicized. No indication of any independent in-depth coverage. Does not satisfy acting notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article in fact lists four roles, and did at the time of nomination, including a prominent role (according to the source) in French Viplavam. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject has no significant coverage, and it should also be noted that the individual themselves appears to be working at developing the page. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable actress. Probably has the potential to be a notable actress in the future, but the dearth of refs now works against her.Jupitus Smart 07:41, 9 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 17:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Library Tales Publishing[edit]

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

This article was deleted in 2012 following this deletion discussion.
In 2019, having done WP:BEFORE, it would appear to fail pretty much the criteria for inclusion issues raised in the 2012 discussion.
I note that some of the authors purported to be published by Library Tales Publishing include some improbable assertions:

Steve Alpert, "head of overseas operations for fifteen years" for Studio Ghibli
Eric Sage, a "Canadian-American singer, tennis player, actor and a member of The Bay City Rollers"
Catherine Holmes, the current Chief Justice of Queensland

(This contains text copied from those three linked Wikipedia articles: see those articles' edit history for attribution.)
Potentially a WP:G4 candidate, but given the time elapsed between then and now, another deletion discussion would appear to be appropriate.
Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find a single RS on them as notable. Of the 4 references in the article, one is their own website, another is on youtube, and the two remaining references are reviews of books they published, but not the company itself. I don't think things have changed since the last AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 20:18, 11 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 17:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Edward Glennon[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. If there were an article about the case, then this could redirect there. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a straightforward WP:BIO1E case. The only coverage of the subject that seems to exist is in the context of the Pollnow v. Glennon court case, and even then only dealing with the circumstances of that case. The bio details given in this WP article are basically unsourced, except for the birth/death dates from the Social Security Death index search. As the nom says, if an article about the Pollnow v. Glennon is created, the subject's name could be redirected there. Nsk92 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this is a classic WP:BIO1E example. Certainly don't see significant independent coverage outside of that case. Papaursa (talk) 19:59, 10 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 merge to Ernest Gordon. And/or to Through the Valley of the Kwai as preferred. Sandstein 17:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Miller (martyr)[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:VICTIM. Only source is Gordon's book. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question do we have a separate standard for martyrs? Generally speaking, Wikipedia isn't a comprehensive list of all things. Rklawton (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question The are separate rate of evil? User:Lucifero4
Merge to Through the Valley of the Kwai or Ernest Gordon (where this already has some coverage). The question here is SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources (whether Miller was real or not) - as opposed to the account in the Through the Valley of the Kwai auto-bio). I searched for "Dusty Miller"+Burma in google book, and I'm I've the opinion that while we have passing references to Miller elsewhere - e.g. [17][18][19] - they seem to be brief mentions (and in the context of Gordon). Per WP:ATD-M, I suggest a merge to the book or Gordon.Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to Ernest Gordon, where mentioned; otherwise fails GNG. Kierzek (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Icewhiz Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If this article is to be kept we need significant more information on the subject, which as the rest of his name. Dusty is a common nickname for people called miller, just as chalky is for people called White. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:06, 10 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 withdrawn. Trainor's website has updated to promote the new EP but at the bottom it still says "THE NEW ALBUM 'TREAT MYSELF' COMING SOON" so I'll withdraw this. Hopefully no one has an issue with this considering the AfD has not been supported by anyone. [20] (non-admin closure) N Ø 14:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Treat Myself[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:TOOSOON - No confirmed tracklist, no confirmed release date, not even a confirmed release year for that matter. The "confirmed tracks" and "singles" section are speculation too since the lack of a tracklist leaves those unverifiable as well. Trainor is releasing an EP in three days with several of the songs originally intended for Treat Myself appearing on it. [21]. All in all, not only does this album have no claim to notability currently, but all of the information listed on this page is speculation, it should simply be a redirect to the Trainor article as of yet as a likely search term though. N Ø 06:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album still has enough coverage to exist on its own. The album being delayed and not having a release date or track listing does not invalidate the previous news articles about it that are present on the article already, so there absolutely still is a claim to notability. If there weren't, it would be a candidate for speedy deletion. It also passes WP:NALBUMS because of its sufficient independent news coverage. There is no confirmation that all the songs that, at the time they were released were confirmed as being on the album, have been scrapped, or that Trainor has thrown all the intended tracks for it out. It's just been delayed, which happens to albums quite a lot. We're not speculating on its release date or year, so I believe it also steers clear of WP:TOOSOON stating that Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable content nor is it a crystal ball. It's fine to stay put as a "this was the status of the album and what was on it last we knew". Before I am accused of making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, let us just bear in mind that there are currently albums with mainspace articles that are basically in stasis with the last details we knew about them still intact because they've been delayed or the artist claims they have "retired", that were also nominated for deletion and kept. I mention these because this album's status is very much the same and can be considered on its own merits to be kept. If other details come to light, then we can change the articles. If they are explicitly cancelled, we can react accordingly. The EP's release does not invalidate the existence of the album either, because it's not intended as a replacement. If it were, then we would just move this to there. Ss112 08:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to add that albums are not necessarily considered notable by the sources present on the article, but that exist on the topic. It's very common to see "it's clearly notable, more sources could be added", and I think that applies here. This might not make sense to some editors, but that is the way it is in deletion discussions. Editors who disagree with this usually ask "if reliable sources exist on the topic, then why don't you add them to the article?" And it usually comes down to: pointing out topics are notable because there are reliable sources that exist on it is not then a responsibility to add them to the article. Ss112 11:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NALBUMS. Per references.BabbaQ (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The references are about the singles, not the album. The only sources talking directly about the album are radio stations WJXA and Mix 94.7.--N Ø 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There has been no confirmation of the album's cancellation, and other articles about albums currently stuck in a similar state of limbo have been kept, so there is a precedent. In addition, coverage for the album is sufficient and notable enough to keep it for the time being. Finally, just because an EP with some songs intended for the album is being released, it does not immediately erase the existence and notability of the album. Gemsweater1 (talk) 01:10, 6 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 17:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskriti (culfest)[edit]

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

Wholly unsourced article. This is a cultural event of Jadavpur University. However, there is no reference to this event either in our Jadavpur University article nor on the University website. It exists as shown by this primary source but I cannot find (though I accept that I only searched in English) any in depth secondary coverage. Many references to 'Sanskriti' in news results refer to other, entirely different, entities. Fails WP:GNG.Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nominator that this college event is not a notable event on its own due to the lack of the significant coverage provided by the independent reliable sources. --DBig Xrayᗙ 05:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fest. Does exist as can be confirmed from some youtube videos as well, though that doesn't imply any notability. Jupitus Smart 07:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Obviously exists but no coverage. Pretty none gets.∯WBG^converse 07:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find a single good RS, nevermind several. Perhaps why the article is unreferenced. Britishfinance (talk) 20:10, 11 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy dick[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, he has not received the necessary attention required by WP:BIO for an article. He wrote memoirs, which got published but seem to have received no attention otherwise. Fram (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNG. The only source I can find that mentions him is publicity material for the Azrieli Series of Holocaust Survivor Memoirs. Yoninah (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the book Getting Out Alive - might pass WP:NBOOK. The bio itself probably does not pass GNG/NAUTHOR - might be merit for a repurpose to the book (which seems to have been translated to French as well) if we have reviews supporting this. Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit more searching. I don't think the book passed NBOOK - I found one review in RS - a 3 book review - here. However, the series of Holocaust Survivor Memoirs may be notable - Azrieli Holocaust Survivor Memoirs - borderline. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- surviving murder during the holocaust may be unusual, but that does not make the subject notable. (I am not fond of having to say that). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is just not notable and the book is also unlikely to pass NBOOK. Perhaps there is another WP article/list where some of this content could be kept or noted. However, it does not merit a standalone WP article. Britishfinance (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Writers are not automatically deemed notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because the existence of their books technically verifies on Google Books or Amazon.com: the notability test for a writer requires things like winning or getting nominated for major literary awards, and/or receiving enough reliable source coverage about him (biographical journalism, book reviews, etc.) to get him over WP:GNG. There's simply nothing here that's even trying to demonstrate what's required, and nothing that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show any real sources either. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 11 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 02:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Mumford[edit]

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

I can see nothing to indicate that this person is notable by our standards. Most of the article is unsourced (and gravely unencyclopaedic too – "one of the most innovative airbrush artists in the world"?). The existing sources are: a mention in a description of a picture; a forum post; and a blog post. I can find nothing relevant in Gbooks or Gnews. Web search suggests that there was a noted British fisherman by this name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my own search also indicates that the facts may be airbrushed here... as in there is no notability, as there are basically no sources available.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no adequate sources to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't qualify for WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any independent sources that would support notability (not even one). Britishfinance (talk) 18:11, 11 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. Borderline between "keep" and "no consensus", in my opinion just about "keep", but either way we keep the article. What is clear is that there is not going to be a consensus to delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit Party[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are two refs, one from The Guardian with a quote from Nigel Farage saying, "There is huge demand for a party that’s got real clarity on this issue." and "If the government goes back on its word... I will re-enter the fray." He is not this party's leader. The other ref is written by Catherine Blaiklock, the woman who set up the party saying she wishes Farage to be leader of the Brexit Party. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. I don't even know if the party in question has been registered with the Elections office. Bkissin (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Nigel Farage#Resignation of UKIP membership. WP:CRYSTAL: This article can be recreated if and when it is actually founded and receives significant coverage. In addition, many sources refer to the proposed party as a "pro-Brexit party", name undetermined. Farage was quoted as saying, “So let’s see. I mean there is an application that has gone in for a new party called the Brexit Party, which strikes me as quite a good name, but we are in the hands of the Electoral Commission.” b uidhe 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I was reviewing this article my finger was reaching for the AfD button, but I held off as there was some decent media coverage (Telegraph, Guardian, Irish Independent), lower-grade media coverage (Sun, Daily Mail, Express). There was no coverage on the BBC, Financial Times, Times or ~~UK Independent~~. Having gone through this article again, and edited it to clarify things, it is clear that without Farage, by Blaiklock's own admission, the party will not progress. Farage, to date, has done nothing outside of publically supporting it. If Farage does not join, the party will likely fail and this article would ideally be merged/redirected to a Catherine Blaiklock WP article, however she does not have one; it may deserve one sentance in the Farage WP article (but only one). I think we should let this AfD run for a few weeks as things are happening fast now, and we will know the answer shortly. Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I note that The UK Independent has now recognized their existence in an editorial; have updated reference in the article. Britishfinance (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a worrying pro-Left bias emerging on Wikipedia which unless challenged will continue to undermine the neutrality and credibility of the site. This bias was blatantly exhibited when the page on Paul Joseph Watson was actually blocked from being created for several years. I am worried that a conspiracy is emerging among Left-leaning wiki editors/admins who will seek to block or (administratively frustrate) this page as well, if not right now, sometime soon. In the interests of the reputation of this site as being fair and neutral we should resist that and actively demonstrate neutrality whether or not we have issues with Mr. Farage etc. I have had to remove two examples of vandalism where the woman setting this party up had her name mis-spelled to include the word "cock" - more than a coincidence. I think a new Brexit Party is notable because of the widespread media coverage it has received. To delete this page now only to then re-create it in a few days (and then have that whole tedious debate about starting a page that has just been deleted and the whole process) after it is almost inevitably approved by the electoral commission would be unnecessary and exhibit the worrying bias against the political right which undermines this unique website's credibility on political neutrality. Our reputation as being neutral is desperately important and Left-leaning editors must resist the urge to undermine the neutrality of the site. As the user (Britishfinance) has rightly said, this new party and Nigel Farage's stated involvement has received serious media coverage in a number of mainstream newspapers. I therefore think it should be kept and re-named (and content updated) if need be when the electoral commission officially confirms the party and its name. If the party disappears or it is not approved by the commission then delete. Surely we can wait a month or two? Aetheling1125 (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is I who spelt her name incorrectly but it is a coincidence. My edits on this article were made to support the case for at least holding this article in place for the moment. They are not vandalism, and at least in relation to this article, there is no conspiracy; just a desire to chronicle the facts (notwithstanding poor spelling). all the best. Britishfinance (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aetheling1125 It is also worth noting that the campaign group Britain for Europe was deleted despite having 2 significant mentions in the Financial Times "Britain’s Europhiles splinter into dozens of grassroots movements" and "‘Remain’ core insists Brexit fight is not yet lost", WP:AfD/Britain for Europe and there was this tussle as well WP:AfD/European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom). If you want examples of vandalism then the edit history of People's Vote will give it to you. As for your comment that To delete this page now only to then re-create it in a few days (and then have that whole tedious debate about starting a page that has just been deleted and the whole process) after it is almost inevitably approved by the electoral commission would be unnecessary and exhibit the worrying bias against the political right which undermines this unique website's credibility on political neutrality. It doesn't necessarily follow that approval by the electoral commission = notability and Farage expressing support for the idea is WP:INHERIT, if Farage does become leader then it might be different but right now it is WP:TOOSOON. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that registration with the Electoral Commission is certainly not enough for notability on Wikipedia. Any two people with £150 to spare can register a party. Approval just means that you have filled in the form correctly and that your name and emblem are not obscene and not too similar to another registered party's. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do agree it has received coverage recently. It is not entirely clear though if that is the party receiving coverage, or rather the people around it and the party is mentioned in the context. I would argue that without the prominent ever-present individual, the party would not get covered. IMO this is a case of inheritance of notability, which is not sufficient. I agree, this is a case of TOOSOON until at least the party is founded. Wikipedia is not a recordkeeper of all things that come up once in a while. The current coverage also seems very much related to "recentism". I'd like to use the WP:10YT. If the party does not get approved, no one will remember even half a year down the line, depending on how things shape up. Maybe at least move to Draft until then... _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Comment changing to neutral as the party has been approved and there is more coverage now. I remain sceptical as a lot of the coverage seems primarily about Farage in connection with the party as opposed to being about the party itself. My points about recentism and 10YT remain. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say we should keep this page until May 2019. if it doesn't get any more publicity then get rid of it. but for now it should be kept it is getting lots of news, plus its a counter weight to the new eu Renew Party. KingTintin (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Wikipedia need to provide a counter weight to the new eu Renew Party? Wikipedia provides info on what is not what ought to be. Isn't UKIP the counter weight to Renew in any case? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The near-equivalent of the Renew Party was also created as a wikipedia page long before its registration with the Electoral Commission was approved. It also doesn't receive nearly one minute of coverage per week. Wikipedia is here to provide information - they are both in existence, they are both entities, they are both serious parties (nobody raises one million without being serious) and they are covered by mainstream sources. Wikipedia has done its job of providing information - conveying that they exist. Deleting this article without deleting the other, is nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionizeSeven (talk • contribs) 23:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Nigel Farage has joined the party and becomes a "Brexit Party" MEP (rather than independent) in the EU Parliament then the article would come more relevant. I would leave it a week or two before deleting the article to see if this happens or not. C. 22468 Talk to me 01:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've got a reputation for wanting to delete non notable political parties. At the moment, this party is not on the Register of Political Parties, hasn't contested an election, hasn't done anything notable other than publish press releases. doktorb _words^deeds 05:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am singularly unimpressed with the level of discussion centered on WP:PAG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. Clearly good refs. As it stands now Wikipedia obviously has established some kind of consensus over UK partys that should apply to this one as well. Clearly a real and soon to be a factor in UK politics.BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primarily per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NCORP. While the party may go on to be notable, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAlBALL and all we can assess is the current situation, which is no different to the creation of various companies that are considered non-notable despite significant coverage because that coverage only covered the formation of the company or the release of a product. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Brexit Party has received significant news attention since the nomination for deletion and has been registered with the electoral commission now. Lancashire2789 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It had just received official recognition from the Electoral Commission and has a large number of RS supporting this. I do agree with the person at the top, that if this were deleted, it would only confirm a left wing bias on Wikipedia. The Royal C (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, anyone can register with the Electoral Commission if they have have £150 to spare and are capable of filling in a form correctly and choosing an acceptable name and emblem. To point that out isn't any sort of bias. And even if there was bias why would it be left wing? I'm old enough to remember the 1983 general election where Michael Foot's Labour Party was pilloried in the press as being dangerously left wing because it stood on a platform of leaving the EU (or EC, or whatever it was called then). Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant press coverage sufficient to meet the general notability and verifiability guidelines. -- The Anome (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Things are moving fast. Last week may have been 'too soon', but the party is notable now. --Wavehunter (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly. A week ago, the notability of this topic was marginal at best. The news coverage of the last couple of days, and the fact that the party has actually been registered, has changed the matter completely. -- The Anome (talk) 20:24, 8 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 17:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Klose[edit]

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

There is no evidence this person is notable and it has no reliable sources. Grahame (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even speedily so, as a vanity article/work of fiction by a teenager having a bit of fun on Wikipedia. Bakazaka (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bakazaka. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Klose it per Bakazaka. It's not even klose. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt the ice: per G3. Let's not give this idiot any more ice time. Ravenswing 11:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Ravenswing. Flapjacktastic (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy delete Let's just end this now as per WP:SNOW. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT Per nom, this is not notable at all. Kb03 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Obvious self-bio (WP:NOTWEBHOST) and miserably fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Totally unencyclopedic article content. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-bio. I'd also like to point out the creator, User:Morbs14, literally admits this is him on his user page and claims to be a Duke. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Not totally a work of fiction, though obviously the content is exagerated and a self-bio, but it clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Even going deeper, it fails WP:NHOCKEY. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Obvious CSD. Britishfinance (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - not notable --DannyS712 (talk) 03:15, 12 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 17:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Saravanan[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability requirements for a creative professional WP:DIRECTOR. Also the article creator has broken the rules by removing a speedy delete tag themselves and also moved from draft to article space without utilising the proper process. Ajf773 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. The article creator obviously realizes this, since the article is basically "He has one directing credit and is the brother of" + copy-pasted contents from his brother's article about his brother's achievements + "and he has one directing credit". Coverage is passing mentions and non-RS. Bakazaka (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly removed the text copy-pasted from his brother's article, as it could be misleading to a casual reader thinking that "he" and "his" refers to the article subject, rather than his brother. Bakazaka (talk) 01:54, 5 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) 01:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete this also seems like an attempt to push through one of several questionably notable subjects. Praxidicae (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No individual notability. Article is trying to construct notability by proxy. Britishfinance (talk) 18:06, 11 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 merge to Jim Peterik. Sandstein 17:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pride of Lions[edit]

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

Simply put: non-notable band. Trillfendi (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There has been a recent effort by a few fans to create new and overly crufty articles on everything associated with Survivor. This one is a minor side project and is already mentioned briefly at the article for notable member Jim Peterik. That is sufficient because the band did not receive enough reliable media notice to justify an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:05, 3 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) 01:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please don't delete this entry. I didn't find the information anywhere and do not consider this to be a "non-notable band" at all. This band is more of the modern melodic rock genre than the 80's pop genre. Just because you have never heard of this band doesn't qualify this entry for deletion.Mtandls (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment “WP:ILIKEIT” is not valid keep criterion. There are millions of articles on this website none of us know about, that doesn’t mean they are exempt from notability rules. And yes, I have heard of this band. The fact is, they have no reliable sources, no significant coverage, and this article is all of one sentence. Trillfendi (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are numerous niche genre sources that contain reviews and standard fare new release coverage, but they are small time publications/website, or fan blogs, and they are all related to Jim Peteriks involvement, so perhaps a redirect to him. But there just isn't enough significant, reliable coverage recognition. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jim Peterik. Most of the relevant press seems to focus on Peterik, not the band, so a merge may be inevitable. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the best case scenario here. Trillfendi (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jim Peterik; a functional WP:ATD-M. Source searches are not providing sufficient coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to keep content, since imo the article shouldn't remain on its own --DannyS712 (talk) 03:15, 12 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 17:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shark2six[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him only brings up promotional links. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable promotional content that fails NMUSICBIO. Surprising how some of these articles manage to stay on Wikipedia for so long. I can understand if there's atom of notability, but this is purely nn. Glad to have you back Versace! HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability, no single decent RS that would support it. Britishfinance (talk) 18:02, 11 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 17:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zloadr[edit]

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

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

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

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

Yet another crypto article that doesn’t meet GNG. Little in the way of reliable sources and certainly nothing independent and in depth to satisfy notability criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reliable non-primary, non-PR, and non-cryptocurrency news source currently cited is this article in the Evening Standard. They noted that it was "the brothers’ first newspaper interview" and "Update [28 December 2018]: Representatives of 50 Cent have contacted the Evening Standard to say that 50 Cent is not a friend of Sam and Steve Williams. We are happy to update matters." Џ 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently cryptocurrencys are a dime a dozen, must show more coverage than currently shown to be notable. VViking_TalkEdits 15:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

Keep The article has been re-written. Non-cryptocurrency news, non-primary and Reliable sources have been researched and incorporated into the article to pass GNG, like this article in the Evening Standard, which notes that "the brothers’ first newspaper interview" and "Update [28 December 2018]: Representatives of 50 Cent have contacted the Evening Standard to say that 50 Cent is not a friend of Sam and Steve Williams. We are happy to update matters" as noted by Џ and other sources like The Guardian, Daily Express, ProgrammableWeb among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Odhiambo (talk • contribs) 00:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — Christopher Odhiambo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Above is from article creator, SPA banned for spamming - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is relevant and references are clearly visible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.52.36.59 (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — 51.52.36.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment this IP has only Contributed to this AfD and the related AfD for Sam Enrico Williams so this vote could very well be a WP:SOCK vote. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep. Meets GNG now per sources shown by Christopher Odhiambo.~~ Ericwestbrook (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — Ericwestbrook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Ericwestbrook highly recommend you read WP:SOCK. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the pertinent inclusion guidelines. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a single significant RS to support notability (never mind several). Based on SOCK activity above, will need SALTING.Britishfinance (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur on need for salting - David Gerard (talk) 10:58, 12 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 16:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheFinalBall[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in third-party sources. SLBedit (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two of its three references are two its own website. The third gives a global Alexa rank over 300,000 (surely not the world's largest football site, per claim?). Can't find a single reference to "thefinalball" or "thefinalball.com" on any United Kingdom media outlet sites (including tv, newspaper, radio, other major football sites). Britishfinance (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't find anything online either, but there's a bunch of printed football related coverage that may not be visible. As this site is currently used as a reference by 4000 of en-wiki's pages, input from Football wikiproject members would be useful (will flag this there), and the AFD should be held open for at least another week. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see any evidence of notability. Number 5 7 11:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't really see any third-party coverage of this, or its main variations ZeroZero or Ogol. Side note: The site shouldn't be used as a reference as it's data includes user-generated content (I'll raise this separately). However, the fact that a site is being used as a source on Wikipedia doesn't make it notable, per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CricketArchive. Nzd (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:00, 12 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.