Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 January	6 January >

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. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dayna Martin[edit]

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

BLP without references, other than to her own writing. Rathfelder (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an appearance on Dr. Phil's show does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV despite being mentioned in a couple of news articles ~2010 Unschooling: No Tests, No Books, No Bedtime. (Note that not all people named Danya Martin are this Danya Martin.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough evidence of significant coverage --DannyS712 (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't have enough coverage and failure of WP:SIGCOV Reddragon7 (talk) 10:59, 10 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Catalano[edit]

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

Advertisement factor notwithstanding, this page doesn’t meet GNG or NACTOR at all. She was on a short-lived Nickelodeon show last decade and that’s about it. No sources found. Trillfendi (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ENT, I am also skeptical of her anime dubbing role. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, fails WP:NACTRESS --DannyS712 (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. Reddragon7 (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Screen Savers. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New Screen Savers[edit]

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

Stub on a podcast that is Non notable and is no longer in production. Testspure (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selectively merge to The Screen Savers. There's stuff about it in blogs and other uncertain sources, and press releases and their echoes, but I don't see substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. And even if there were such sources, given how small the existing article is, I think readers would be better served by tucking it into a section in the article for its predecessor, The Screen Savers. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Screen Savers#Revival as a good alternative to deletion (it is mentioned in few sentences). Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources (for example Deadline one is a WP:ROUTINE announcement of the premiere). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope William-Smith[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Hergilei (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of Manitoba.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Negligible IRS that I can find. Aoziwe (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated here is an automatic pass of our notability standards for figure skaters — even according to the directory source, she has not competed at any event on the level of the Olympics that guarantees an article just for the fact of being there, and there's no other credible notability claim or reliable source coverage here. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant independent coverage, fails WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet the GNG, WP:NSKATE, or WP:NSPORTS. Sandals1 (talk) 18:55, 8 January 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 based on a rough consensus, one apparently dissenting comment notwithstanding. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Termokiss[edit]

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

Declined multiply endorsed PROD. Non-notable local community project. Polyamorph (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to show it meets WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have ten references from independent sources. Local community projects can be notable. This one gets substantial coverage from the United Nations Kosovo Team, and from sources outside the country, which seems to be both independent and significant. Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are also unclear to justify if subject warrants an article. Foggas (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:49, 5 January 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 with consensus that subject meets notability guidelines.. SouthernNights (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Om Thanvi[edit]

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

Non notable. — $f r ❄$ 12:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched for sources for 15 minutes and all I have to show for all that is some trivial coverage for getting the Bihari Award, an award that does not seem to be notable. I have tried my best to locate sources detailing his appointment as senior editor at The Indian Express but have nothing to show for it except for a few personal profiles. All in all, I believe that this article should be redirected to The Indian Express if not deleted outright. — $f r ❄$ 17:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the one who created the article and see failure of WP:BEFORE. Subject meets WP:AUTHOR per significant coverage by The Sunday Guardian [1], Aaj Tak [2] and other sources.[3] Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shivkarandholiya12, one mention, some coverage for a non-notable award in a reliable and un-reliable source does not make a man potable. Additionally, I have restored a portion of my nomination statement which got accidentally deleted while nominating. Regards. —

f r ❄

17:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly more than a mention. Bihari Puraskar is a notable award for which he also received significant coverage from Dainik Jagran.[4] What about this article by Rajasthan Patrika? The subject at least meets 1st point of WP:NAUTHOR which says "person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Thanvi is cited often by "peers and successors". You need to search in Google Books and you will find scholarly publications.[5] Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree to disagree. Let's see what other people say.... —

f r ❄

10:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm going to do a source assess table for the six citations. The five bullet-pointed external links connote no notability whatsoever because they're all either self-published or unreliable blogs.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.hindisamay.com/writer/%E0%A4%93%E0%A4%AE-%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%80--OM-THANVI.cspx?id=1935	It doesn't look affiliated.	? Unfamiliar with the publication.	WP:YELLOWPAGES database entry.	✘ No
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=47429194&privcapId=22077949		? Bloomberg profiles sometimes require self-reporting.	I have a Bloomberg profile, pretty much anybody who has a stockholder portfolio does. Doesn't make them notable though.	✘ No
http://www.samachar4media.com/headlines/om-thanvi-joins-patrika-group-41621.html	No clear affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with the publication.	? It's just a press release that he's got a new job. It does focus on him but the significance is questionable.	? Unknown
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/bihari-puraskar-for-writer-journalist-om-thanvi-115041300645_1.html	No clear affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	? Announcement of receipt of an award. Notability of the award is questionable, the prize is about $1,500 dollars but it's not a WP:CREATIVE automatic keep.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The same is true of the fifth and sixth sources in all regards as it is for the fourth source; they all cover his receipt of this award.

Overall, not a very compelling case of creative notability, so I'm leaning delete. SITH (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But references about the subject also exists outside a Wikipedia article, in fact more than what has been mentioned in the article. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a senior journalist/editor no one is doubting that. But Wikipedia's notability requirement are higher than that. As of now this subject fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Shivkarandholiya12, you can click and read the notability requirements and judge for yourself if the subject passes any of these. In my opinion he doesn't. The subject was an employee of patrika.com so articles from patrika.com or Rajasthan Patrika would not qualify as independent. The book [6] mentions the name of the subject in passing for providing Hindi news reference, it does not actually cite a literary work by this author. The Analysis of the source done by User:StraussInTheHouse is also correct. hindisamay.com is not a reliable media source but a college magazine. You can produce sources, here even if it is Hindi, but saying WP:SOURCESEXIST in Hindi, without actually producing them here is not enough to keep the article. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: thank you for that info, I always go for a question mark if I'm unfamiliar with the publication. Sometimes you can tell due to the layout and content of certain newspapers that they're unreliable but Google Translate plus unfamiliarity with a publication makes me err on the side of caution. If the source comes up in future, I'll note it's a magazine. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:StraussInTheHouse You are welcome, please feel free to ping me in future for any help in discussing Hindi sources. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrika is absolutely a reliable source since the said article was not written by the subject. You make deliberately nonsensical argument when you argue that Shivkarandholiya12 has not provided any sources, contrary to the fact that he has provided enough. Qualitist (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't comment on the user, rather focus on the content/sources. Regards. —

f r ❄

04:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not focusing on content with your comment though. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is unwarranted and out of context. What I have said just above is a rephrasing of one of the core policies on Wikipedia. Wishing you a prosperous new year. —

f r ❄

12:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage provided in the reliable sources. I note that no one has refuted the significant coverage from Aaj Tak,[7] Dainik Jagran,[8] Rajasthan Patrika.[9] Qualitist (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in continuation of my delete !vote above here is my own analysis of the sources presented so far including the sources already analyzed by User:StraussInTheHouse with my comment on them. --DBig Xrayᗙ 04:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.hindisamay.com/writer/%E0%A4%93%E0%A4%AE-%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%80--OM-THANVI.cspx?id=1935	It doesn't look affiliated.	College magazine	WP:YELLOWPAGES database entry.	✘ No
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=47429194&privcapId=22077949		? Bloomberg profiles sometimes require self-reporting.	Anyone can have, does not pass significant coverage criteria	✘ No
http://www.samachar4media.com/headlines/om-thanvi-joins-patrika-group-41621.html	No clear affiliation.	not a notable publication.	? It's just a press release that he's got a new job. It does focus on him but the significance is questionable.	✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/bihari-puraskar-for-writer-journalist-om-thanvi-115041300645_1.html	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND	? not a major newspaper	WP:ROUTINE news announcement based on press statement by KK Birla foundation. about the subject getting Bihari award. Notability of the award is questionable, the prize is about $1,500 dollars but it's not a WP:CREATIVE automatic keep.	✘ No
Aaj Tak, https://aajtak.intoday.in/story/bihari-puraskar-for-writer-journalist-om-thanvi-1-807852.html	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND	major newspaper	WP:ROUTINE news announcement based on press statement by KK Birla foundation about the subject getting Bihari award.	✘ No
Dainik Jagran, https://www.jagran.com/rajasthan/jaipur-journalist-om-thanvi-selected-for-bihari-award-12266037.html	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND	major newspaper	WP:ROUTINE news announcement based on press statement by KK Birla foundation about the subject getting Bihari award.	✘ No
[Rajasthan Patrika]]. https://www.patrika.com/varanasi-news/government-policies-encourage-violence-said-om-thanvi-1-1927091/	employee from 1980 - 89 and 2018- now. not during the publication of this report in 2017. Interview type article fails WP:PRIMARY	major newspaper	WP:SOAPBOX and interview type article that mentions the statement of the subject during the coverage of an informal discussion of a city Press club.	✘ No
book Gujarat, the Making of a Tragedy by Siddharth Varadarajan			mentions the name of the subject in passing for providing Hindi news reference without elaborating on subject directly or in detail	✘ No
Aaj Tak, Book Review बुक रिव्यू: हमारे आदि तीर्थ 'मुअनजोदड़ो' की आत्मिक यात्रा	Book review of a book written by Thanvi, the article on a book does not provide notability to author see WP:NOTINHERITED		does not talk about the author but only on his book	✘ No
Indian Affairs Annual, Volume 9 2006			makes 2 mention of the subject's name in passing, without elaborating on subject directly or in detail	✘ No
Panoscope, Issues 1-41 Panos Institute, 1987			makes 1 mention of the subject's name in passing, without elaborating.	✘ No
India International Centre Quarterly, Volume 19 India International Centre., 1992			makes 1 mention of the subject's name in passing, without elaborating.	✘ No
Ecoforum: Journal of the Environment Liaison Centre International, Volume 22, Issue 1 - Volume 23, Issue 4			makes 1 mention of the subject's name in passing, without elaborating on topic directly or in detail	✘ No
Article in India Today Writer-journalist Om Thanvi felicitated with Bihari Puraskar	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND		a single Paragraph article on award that has a total of 4 sentences on the subject Thanvi, fails WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--DBig Xrayᗙ 04:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray: I think I should at least get a chance to provide the correct overview of the sources:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Aaj Tak, https://aajtak.intoday.in/story/bihari-puraskar-for-writer-journalist-om-thanvi-1-807852.html		Major news media	? WP:NOTROUTINE news announcement about the subject getting Bihari award.	? Unknown
Dainik Jagran, https://www.jagran.com/rajasthan/jaipur-journalist-om-thanvi-selected-for-bihari-award-12266037.html		major newspaper	WP:NOTROUTINE news announcement about the subject getting Bihari award. Gives extended biographical details about the biography of the person. Passes WP:GNG.	✔ Yes
Rajasthan Patrika. https://www.patrika.com/varanasi-news/government-policies-encourage-violence-said-om-thanvi-1-1927091/	Clearly independent from the subject.	major newspaper	Significantly provides the statements of the subject.	✔ Yes
A scholarly publication		Scholarly publisher	Meets WP:NAUTHOR.	✔ Yes
This is additional source from Aaj Tak, बुक रिव्यू_ हमारे आदि तीर्थ 'मुअनजोदड़ो' की आत्मिक यात्रा - Book review of Muanjodaro by Om Thanvi - AajTak	Clearly independent from the subject.	Major news media	An independent review of his book Muanjodaro shows he easily meets WP:NAUTHOR.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Bihari Puraskar is a highly notable award. If you have problems with the notability of that award then nominate that article for deletion and it will end up snow keep.

In the above table, I added an additional source from Aaj Tak,[10] which is an independent review of his book. This shows he easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.

The person "is widely cited by peers or successors" per WP:NAUTHOR. Here are more sources from Google Books that fulfil this criteria very easily:-

Indian Affairs Annual, Volume 9, Mahendra Gaur, Kalpaz Publications, 2005, p. 214.
Panoscope, Issues 1-41, Panos Institute, 1987.
India International Centre Quarterly, Volume 19, p.225
Ecoforum: Journal of the Environment Liaison Centre International, Volume 22, Issue 1 - Volume 23, Issue 4, p.14

There are many more examples of passing WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that a book review does not qualify as a source for the subject. Regards. —

f r ❄

12:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why #4 of WP:ARTIST says that review of the work by the subject also qualify as evidence of notability? Orientls (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orientls, welcome to Wikipedia. I would suggest that you read the policy that you linked just above. It talk about multiple independent periodical articles or reviews contributing to the notability of a person and never says anything of the sort one review of a book in any newspaper means that author is notable.. Regards. —

f r ❄

04:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In place of changing goalposts and welcoming more senior editors than you, you need to rather conceive that the book review is just another one of those many sources that easily confirmed the notability of this prominent writer. To discard a book review like nothing else exists, is misleading. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a senior editor on Wikipedia. I simply corrected what I thought was a extremely newbie like mistake made by the editor. Additionally, no goalposts have been changed, if you can prove that demonstrate that there is significant coverage of the journalist instead of making such comments, I will happily strike my nomination statement and effectively withdraw the AFD. Regards. —

f r +

17:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Subject is also significantly covered by India Today.[11] शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This single paragraph short article [12] about the bihari award in India Today has a total of 4 sentences on the subject Thanvi. I would say this is far from what is called significant coverage, by the wikipedia community per WP:SIGCOV --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment Shivkarandholiya12 and शिव साहिल have added 5 more sources, I have analyzed these sources and updated my opinion in the table in my comment above. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per DBigXray. No significant coverage has been identified. Catrìona (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep per analysis by Shivkarandholiya12. Meets both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. I see gazillions of instances where his work is cited by other reliable sources including the ones mentioned here. Orientls (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note news articles based on Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND and cannot be used to establish notability. the news about Bihari award is based on the Press statement issued by KK Birla foundation, this also explains why all these sources were having exact same content. navbharattimes and hindustantimes have credited similar articles to the foundations press statement, accordingly I have updated the source analysis table. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Where is the link of "Press statement issued by KK Birla foundation"? The two articles from Navbharat Times and Hindustan Times share no similarity because Hindustan times mention "2 Lakh" for a name, but Navbharat Times makes no mention of even "2". You should refrain from falsification. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing NPA out of the window isn't a very good idea. Don't tell me that you claim that A statement issued by the selection committee....said.... and के के बिरला फाउंडेशन द्वारा आज यहां जारी विग्यप्ति में बताया गया (In a release issued today by KK Birla Foundation, it was said that [English translation]) is not a press statement. Regards. —

f r +

17:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read again. Since that award comes from KK Birla Foundation, it is obvious that their statement would be released. To say that entire article is a "press statement" and "this also explains why all these sources were having exact same content" when content is not even same is indeed falsification of sources. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray:, I don't have an idea about what's going on between you, Qualitist, Shiv et al and who's to blame but this mess's getting disruptive. Your inter-personal disputes are now starting to swamp random discussions participated by either, with contrarian stands and if this spreads to more territories, I will ask for sanctions. ∯WBG^converse 10:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WBG, Ping me here on this page "only if" you want to discuss about Om Thanvi or sources related to Om Thanvi. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR per [13][14][15][16] and many other independent reliable sources that have provided the satisfactory coverage to the subject. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to link to one source twice. Additionally, a article which seems to be based on a press release, a review of a book and some routine coverage does not make a person pass WP:NAUTHOR. Regards. —

f r +

10:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cited them otherwise you would ask that which sources makes sure that he pass the mentioned criterias. These 3 sources which you are obviously misrepresenting are not even the only online sources that have provided the satisfactory amount of coverage. See the above comment and mentions of his work in cited Google Books and familiarize yourself with WP:BEFORE and WP:NAUTHOR. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D4iNa4, most of the sources provided are WP:ROUTINE coverage of the journalist for getting some prize (the notability of which is in dispute). Additionally, I don't believe that being mentioned briefly in 6 journals is being widely cited. Lastly, if in your opinion one review of a book in a newspaper in which Om Thanvi was a former employee counts as a independent source which is enough to prove a person notable then I believe its you who is out of touch with the current policies. Lastly, your assumption of bad faith on my part is noted. Regards. —

f r +

11:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't believe that being mentioned", this is not about what you believe but what policy says. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came here from a link on ANI. Clear pass of WP:AUTHOR, should be kept. [17] [18] SportingFlyer talk 04:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even apart from the book, the editorship is notable. Bloomberg does not show notability , but it is enough to verify the position. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the person is a notable journalist and sources are reliable. Satisfies WP:BIO, WP:JOURNALIST..--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Path slopu, you should ideally be demonstrating via sources, how the article passes the guidelines you have mentioned. Regards. << FR 18:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A quick research indicates the man was invited by the PM's office to be on the National Integration Council in 2005 as per this, he received the Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi award from the President of India as per (pic1), he received the Bihari Puraskar for 2014 from the Rajasthan Governor as per (pic2), he has been an invitee in literary festivals like Jaipur Literature Festival (ref1, ref2, ref3), Delhi literature fest (Hindu article refers him as notable), Ajmer literature festival (ref4, ref5), Patna literature festival (ref6); he represented writers in a delegation to the President as activist as per Hindustan times. He has been cited in numerous news paper artices related to matters (more on this soon). His book is also reviewed by many notable newspapers (more on this soon). For the two awards where I have shared references, a sitting President and Governor gave away these awards. If these awards werent significant would thse excellencies make time or lend their names? Let us please review these before we decide on his notability. Thanks Arunram (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arunram, thanks a lot for providing your comments along with relevent links. There is no doubt that Thanvi is a senior journalist. Here are my comments on your links.

His membership to 147 membered National Integration Council is not due to his prominence but him being a media person by virtue of his official post as Editor, Jansatta, an Indian newspaper. As were many other media persons, politicians and businessmen.
"Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Award" is given annually by Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Mass Communication [19] that year President was a chief guest at the event "Hindi Sevi Samman Yojana", in another year (see my link) Chief Minister of MP was chief guest.
Bihari Puraskar is awarded by a private body named "K K Birla foundation" and not by Rajasthan government. This award does not get coverage other than those based on the press statement from KK Birla foundation.

Thousands of organisations give millions of awards, and the award has to be highly notable if getting the award is the reason for approving the WP:NBIO. And the award does not get notable if the chief guest was a notable person see WP:NOTINHERITED

Jaipur Literature Festival draws approx 300 speakers [src: [20]. It is common for "editors of newspapers to get invited to these literary festivals.
He was a part of the 3 membered delegation that submitted a memorandum to the President as an activist[21] but it is not mention through which body or how they were selected to represent writers/painters etc. Just giving a memorandum to notable person does not by itself infer notability.--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little busy today, will respond to your comments tomorrow. If you look at all the data points holistically, it is evident the man is multi facted and of repute, invited in many forums and also quoted often. Frankly I suspect that he being an expert in Hindi and there would be greater coverage in vernacular media which is not my area of expertise. There is adequate systemic bias in coverage of such subjects in english media. Let us consider this too. I request all senior editors to please examine these aspects before we conclude on this Afd. There is ample coverage across independent topics and media sources to support his notability. More tomorrow. regards Arunram (talk) 18:04, 8 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kachejian[edit]

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

Autobiography of an "award-winning" person but short on independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of independent notability has been provided by adding links to newspaper articles confirming any claims of merit. The claim of award winning person was justified by Brian Kachejian's first place award at the Stony Brook University URECA History conference. Proof of that award has been added to the page. Stony Brook University is a leading institution in the field of academia. However, the article is not just about an academic award it is about an artist who has contributed to the arts for over 40 years.These contributions have been referenced in independent multiple newspaper articles that have been cited in the article.Various website references that pointed to the artists albums and performances have also been cited.Wikipedia guidelines state clearly that notability is not based on a person's popularity but on secondary sources confirming the written material in the article.The claim of of "short on independent evidence of notability," seems to be based more on a subjective opinion of an editor rather than a evidential look at the pages citations that clearly provide ample evidence of notability Than You. Brian KachejianBrianKachejian (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO, which apparently continues at Beneath an Autumn Moon. Puffery, multiple links to self-published site selling piano lessons, passing mentions of student awards, iTunes/Spotify/YouTube/DeepDiscount links as sources, one academic citation that supports the general claim that people moved to suburbs, all from a page creator with a username that matches the subject of the article but has no COI declared. Ticks every box for self-promotion against the interests and policy of the encyclopedia. Bakazaka (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had read the article first, then this long AfD comment and then returned to trawl through the refs looking for notability. Plenty of mentions, plenty of advertisments, several minor achievements but nothing close to notability. A search revealed nothing better. I am sure he is a perfectly competent musician, but that just isn't enough on Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page Brian Kachejian utilizes newspaper articles as sources.The multiple newspaper articles feature multiple full page stories on Brian Kachejian.These are full page stories not just mentions, that are not autobiographical but written from journalists as newspaper stories about the topic Brian Kachejian.These newspaper articles also contain interviews with other people in the music business about the work of the artist. Evidence of independent notability has been provided by adding links to newspaper articles confirming any claims of merit. The claim of award winning person was justified by Brian Kachejian's first place award at the Stony Brook University URECA History conference. Proof of that award has been added to the page. Stony Brook University is a leading institution in the field of academia. However, the article is not just about an academic award it is about an artist who has contributed to the arts for over 40 years..Various website references that pointed to the artists albums and performances have also been cited as proof of album existence.Wikipedia guidelines state clearly that notability is not based on a person's popularity but on secondary sources confirming the written material in the article.The claim of of "short on independent evidence of notability," seems to be based more on a subjective opinion of an editor rather than a evidential look at the pages citations that clearly provide ample evidence of notability Thank You. Brian KachejianBrianKachejian (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholesale puffery. And how the hell do you win "the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University"? --Calton | Talk 06:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was supposed to be a forum where editors look at the sources provided in the article and decide if the article meets wikipedia guidelines or not.Instead the forum is being utilized to throw insults at me. Asking "And how the hell do you win "the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University"? is a demeaning insult written about me by user Calton. Are you implying that because I am a musician I do not have the capability of excelling in the fields of academia? Are you questioning that because of my age I could not have won an award in 2006? If so, than you did not read through the article which explains all of that. In the end, it does not matter because the insult is completely unwarranted and unprofessional.Calling my work puffery is also insulting. This was an article about a musician, a recording artist and an educator. A human being who has worked hard to contribute to society in a positive and professional manner through his skills as a composer,performer and an educator. Every sentence in the article is true and backed up with over 26 citations of secondary sources and primary sources.If you feel the article or person is not worthy of wikipedia or has not met the guidelines,I completely accept that. However, at least be professional about it. Brian Kachejian BrianKachejian (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...is a demeaning insult written about me by user Calton

Here, let me quote the text:

Winner of the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University, New York for the work entitled "Liberation of the Soul."

So, to repeat the question, how the hell do you win "the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University"?

Are you questioning that because of my age I could not have won an award in 2006?

I said no such thing nor could that be possibly read into what I wrote. But as long as you brought it up, it's an undergraduate student award given at a single university's undergraduate conference, received when you were 45. Using this to claim you are "award-winning" or that this demonstrates any form of notability is TEXTBOOK puffery.

Just about every sentence in the article is similarly inflated, and it's not worth the effort to detail even a fraction of it all.

If you feel the article or person is not worthy of wikipedia or has not met the guidelines,I completely accept that.

Yes, that's why you've been badgering the editors discussing this on this page. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Brian Kachejian Wikipedia page has been updated to further meet Wikipedia guidelines. Any issues that have been brought up in this forum have been professionally addressed on the page. Thank You Brian Kachejian BrianKachejian (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you must have a very poor opinion of the critical faculties of most Wikipedia editors if you really believe that is going to work. May I reiterate that what is required is indpendent and reliable sources. I.e not sales outlets or sites that my PC security won't let me go near because the site is harmful. This hole is just being dug deeper. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to be joking: store.cdbaby? Deep Discount? And "Mood Avenue" is YOUR 4-week-old web site. And what the hell is "professionally addressed"? --Calton | Talk 04:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like the subject has done some great work, but the sources in the article do not meet the standard for reliable sources and so the subject fails the general notability guide. — sparklism ^hey! 12:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia guidelines state that the creator of a webpage can look to improve the webpage proposed for deleted in order to defend its merits. When I notified this forum that changes were made to the Wikipedia page, one of the editors “Calton,” who has insulted me repeatedly went to the Brian Kachejian Wikipedia page and deleted an entire section of improvements meant to defend the page and prove notability. This has hurt my defense of the page and it seems criminal that a Wikipedia editor who is casting a vote as a judge would change a page that is being defended by its creator. I do not want to read any more insults thrown at me so this is my last view of this page. Brian Kachejian BrianKachejian (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...deleted an entire section of improvements meant to defend the page and prove notability

Your "improvements" were nothing of the sort and demonstrated nothing about notability. Store.cdbaby? Deep Discount? And "Mood Avenue" is YOUR 4-week-old web site. And to quote above, "May I reiterate that what is required is independent and reliable sources. I.e not sales outlets or sites that my PC security won't let me go near because the site is harmful". --Calton | Talk 13:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is essentially no substantial coverage of this subject by independent, reliable sources to indicate notability, offered or to be found. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:06, 12 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sandford McGlothin[edit]

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

BLP with no real claim to notability apart from references to his own publications. Rathfelder (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability per ANYBIO or GNG requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This article totally relies on self-published sources and thus fails the independent requirement. SITH (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as per WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advocate of extreme calorie restriction diets does get mentioned , quoted in a handful of old news articles, but fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no evidence of significant coverage in multiple sources. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Heather Whitbread and Michelle Savage[edit]

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

Tragic but ultimately insignificant crime with no inherent notability or lasting consequences that falls afoul of the principle of Wikipedia not being a newspaper. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME. Awful as crimes of this nature are, this one has no lasting significance. This is Paul (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Horrific crime: estranged husband murders wife child. However, the horror of what this man did noes not make his crime notable. Fails WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCRIME and NOTNEWS. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 00:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Capitals00 (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has coverage, but shouldn't be included per WP:NOTNEWS --DannyS712 (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against redirection as a viable search term, but the fictional food currently isn't mentioned in the Babylon 5 potential target article. czar 18:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spoo[edit]

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

None-notable food from a TV show. Article should be redirected to the main Babylon 5 article. Jtrainor (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not convinced from the previous discussions that this article is notable. It may have been fulfilling notability criteria back when it was first created, but not in the modern day. "Keep" arguments that it was mentioned in several books but said books appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources rather than secondary ones. A clear example of something that belongs on Wikia rather than Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Babylon 5 or one of the other articles relating to the television program. I can find no secondary sources so this fails WP:GNG. The article's sources are WP:PRIMARY. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Babylon 5 given the above discussion. I do not believe there are enough secondary sources to support this article's notability, though it could still be a viable search term so a redirect may be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Lee Pomeroy[edit]

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

Article about a fatal stabbing that occurred on a train in South East England on 4 January 2019. The incident has received some news coverage and is currently the subject of a criminal investigation. As horrific and tragic as this event is, Wikipedia is not the news. Sadly, deaths from stabbings are an all too frequent occurrence in the UK, and apart from the news coverage received by this one (largely I guess because of its circumstances), there is nothing at present to suggest this crime will have lasting notability. This is Paul (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A user identifying themselves as a relative of the deceased has requested this article be deleted. This is Paul (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify, I opened this discussion because a speedy deletion tag added by another user was removed. I feel though this is a case of WP:SPEEDY. This is Paul (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the speedy delete criteria do you claim that this article meets? Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try A7 – No indication of importance. This is Paul (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A7 applies to an article about a "real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event". This was not an organized event, see the note at A7. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind the person element of it, since if kept this article would no doubt eventually contain biographical information about the victim and the perpetrator, as other crime articles do. Let's instead try this one, and in particular point 5 that says: "Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a credible indication of why the subject might be important or significant." There is no indication this incident has notability, and nothing in the article to suggest it will. If we don't have a speedy deletion criteria that covers these particular kinds of issues then sadly we are willfully lacking. This is Paul (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a crime, not a person. It has a small amount of biographical info about the victim, as many crime articles do, but that doesn't make it an article about a person. It's about an event, but not an organised one, hence it isn't eligible for A7. Jim Michael (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you read the rest of my post, because the event still isn't notable, and notability is a criteria for speedy deletion. Anyway I'm guessing a speedy deletion won't happen, which was largely why I opened this debate. As I've said elsewhere in this discussion articles like this help nobody. They're created far too soon after the event, and they lack any substance because we simply don't know enough about the incident at this stage. It may be several months before we do. This is Paul (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion. You are not alone in being confused about that, so you ought to read the criteria at WP:CSD. Notability is of course a point which can be discussed at AFD, but the criteria for CSD are not the same as the criteria for AFD. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that does look a bit confusing, but as I don't often bring stuff to AFD I'm sure I can be excused. I'm tempted to say there's no credible claim of significance but maybe that's also a point of confusion for many. At present the article documents the incident and subsequent investigation, and doesn't suggest it will be covered beyond the usual news cycle. Anyway, I brought it to AFD, which is what I thought would need to be done, and we're having the discussion. This is Paul (talk) 13:47, Today (UTC+0)

As was pointed out above, the "no credible claim of significance" criterion (A7) applies only to an article about a "real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event", and A7 says specifically that it is "... a lower standard than notability". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes...not quite sure what I was doing there. As it's Sunday I'm probably not fully awake yet. Seriously though, I'm quite surprised we don't have criteria to cover something like this, as articles like this frequently appear, and we keep having these debates. This is Paul (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is too soon to post content on Wikipedia when it is not known of the level of notability of what happened or even the outcome of this tragic event. The majority of the article is a copy and paste of the relevant news pages, which makes this page unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenb97x (talk • contribs) 18:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which news articles are you claiming that this article copies & pastes from? Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are far too many of these reactionary articles now appearing on this site that are - as someone else has noted - just rolling copy pastes from news articles. The death of Lee Pomeroy is a tragedy (and a day, I believe, before his 52nd birthday too) but the question that should be asked about all crime stories is - will this be notable in 12 months time? The sad answer will be no because between here and 5 January 2020 there will be a lot more tragic deaths. This article is just another variation of Missing white woman syndrome. A middle aged White Guy is killed so the middle class British media goes into a frenzy - contrast to two dozen black kids fatally stabbed in London. Barely gets a meurrrrgh! At best this is a two-line entry on the article about Clandon. It's not worth an article just because it's a slow news day.81.159.167.71 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Speedy delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. This is Paul, I don't know if it's the IP edit to which you're referring but for their sake of privacy, as early news reports are often inaccurate, I've marked the page as unreviewed so it won't show up in search engines. Whichever user it is who you are referring to, I extend my condolences for their loss. SITH (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: changed !vote to speedy delete per IAR. It's going to get deleted anyway per WP:NOTNEWS and there's no point putting users who are grieving through an extended discussion. SITH (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I wasn't sure how best to respond to this. I guess WP:OTRS might be appropriate. Also a speedy delete by another user was reverted which is why I came here rather than restore it. Articles like this really don't help anyone. As you say we shouldn't put someone who's grieving through a prolonged discussion. But also what happened is the subject of a police investigation and there is a risk of people adding speculative information to this article. This is Paul (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My take is now irrelevant since everyone wants to post at the same time. Anyway, we all know this is a speedy delete right now.Trillfendi (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per WP:NOTNEWS and per StraussInTheHouse. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a mere news story & whether or not Lauren is really a relative makes no difference. We don't delete an article because someone who says that they are connected to the article wants it deleted. Lauren's concerns are unfounded - the article isn't disrespectful, not does it interfere with the police investigation. Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VICTIM covers it and WP:A7 allows speedy deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Thought odd to see this had a page when reading current events. It is news (possibly important) but until there's more media coverage and a detail of significant impact, it doesn't warrant an article. Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: I'd say we wait for about a week and see what the general result of the situation is before making any decisions on its notability. There's certainly less notable events that deserve having articles. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s only been 10 hours for God’s sake.... Trillfendi (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CRIME and NOTNEWS, but does not qualify for SPEEDY. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Tragic though it is, there doesn't appear to be anything extraordinary about this crime that makes it sufficiently notable for an article. Ollie231213 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for a week and re-evaluate then Buttons0603 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Comment regarding I'm a bit suspicious of user @Laurenb97x who claims to be a relative but has not shown any evidence to back up this claim, I am concerned that this user's emotive inputs may sway some users' opinions and should be taken with a pinch of salt as we have no way of knowing if they really are who they say they are Buttons0603 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't you think that any relative of the victim would have more important things on her mind than spending hours working out what evidence to provide and where to satisfy you that she is who she says she is? Your comment is very insensitive. Uninvolved editors are perfectly capable of dispassionately evaluating whether this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete per WP:NOTNEWS. ansh 666 02:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons that I've stated above. Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to prove my relation to Lee as there is a lot of journalism surrounding my family currently. Please delete this page not just because of the breach of wikipedia rules mentioned above, but because this is causing harm to the family who are grieving. It is hard enough seeing it on the news as a constant reminder, we do not need additional sources by unknown authors updating regularly on the event and his life as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenb97x (talk • contribs) 09:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although I responded to Lauren's post on the article's talk page I had already come to the conclusion the article didn't meet our notability guidelines and that it should go to AFD. The article was created the day after the incident, and almost certainly at a time when much is still unknown about the case, and therefore it is impossible to establish notability. Consider that while a criminal investigation and any subsequent legal proceedings are still ongoing, the facts of the crime itself cannot be established. There are restrictions on what can be reported, and witnesses have no business relating what they know. Even at trial, the rules of evidence may mean that the full picture does not emerge in open court. In any case such as this one there will be a lot of interest and speculation, but at present there is nothing to suggest the ongoing investigation into this is anything but routine. This is Paul (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pretty much a textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS, so there is no need to question Laurenb97x's status to determine that this should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't merely a news story. It's a notable killing, on board a passenger train, by a stranger. Jim Michael (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstances in themselves don't make this incident notable. If it were to lead to something like a change in practise on the railways, such as an increased security presence, or something like this case where the phasing out of a particular type of carriage was expedited because of the killing of a passenger, then it would become more notable than it is. This is Paul (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not significant worldwide as I argued here. Wakari07 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost nominated this myself. WP:BLP1E. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now...if long-term notability is proven, it can always be recreated. Anecdotally (and for what it's worth): I'm on the east coast of the US, and consider myself reasonably well-informed, and I haven't heard anything about this in the US media. So it's not being picked up worldwide, not as a story of any lasting significance. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most notable murders in the UK receive little or no mainstream media coverage outside the UK. There's no interest about them in other countries, unless there's an international connection and/or it's a terrorist attack and/or a mass murder. Jim Michael (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like it could be on the local news station, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems a simple and useful description. If you delete this just because someone has asked where would that end? Furthermore, the alleged assailants have been named in the MSM and charged by the Police (in the last hour), so thus legally ok here.Rodolph (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the "delete" opinions are nothing about this being deleted "just because someone has asked", so that is a straw man argument. They are also nothing to do with being "legally ok" or not. The reason for deletion is WP:NOTNEWS, and you have not refuted that. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The article seems as valid as any other article on Wikipedia. Do you intend to delete everything? Rodolph (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meets the standards for notability: reliable sources. A lot of people have not read the notability guidelines, which are about sourcing, not content. Yellowdesk (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These RS are British-only. The guideline you cite, WP:Notability, talks of sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and [...] not outside the scope of Wikipedia. Also, there are hundreds of thousands of intentional homicides worldwide each year. That is WP:Scope. This specific stabbing adds nothing to our knowledge of stabbings. Wakari07 (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the "delete" opinions expressed here are not based on notability, but on WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more narrow in your scope, reliable sources told me about a shooting victim found at a police station on the 11pm news last night. There is a reason why we have WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:1E - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletion of articles like this every time there is a significant criminal or terrorist attacks is a problem that should stop Bachcell (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the WP:NOTNEWS policy says that it's the creation of such articles that should stop. You are entitled to disagree with policy, but that is the consensus-agreed policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Yet another article on a crime created way too soon before any lasting impact could possibly be established. Missing the point of Wikipedia is not a newspaper—a core policy—is not the fault of the editors who nominate these articles for deletion; rather, it is the fault of editors who consistently create mirrors of news reports and misconstrue notability guidelines to justify it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: you say Wikipedia is not into news... then ban updates of biographies when something happens or they die. Ban anything about anyone alive or something still going on! Rodolph (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not someone just giving the opinion that Wikipedia is not news, but established policy long agreed by consensus. Your claimed consequence of this policy is pretty obviously not a real consequence. I was encouraged by someone a short time ago to resume editing Wikipedia under my user id after a break of several years, on the basis that Wikipedia had grown up a bit since I last used my id, but it seems that that is not the case. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolph the death of, let us say, Stan Lee happens once in a lifetime and is obviously significant to the biography. Crimes, including murder/shootings etc., are routinely reported on by the media on a daily basis. If you cannot see the difference, a flaw in your understanding of notability guidelines may be to blame. Unless there is a significant lasting impact—which has not been demonstrated here—besides being sad and tragic, we have a NOTNEWS situation. If editors had the patience to wait until the incident established notability, instead of expecting us to ignore policies in hopes that it does some day, these AFDs could be drastically reduced.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is in good shape, and the murder was mentioned in the news even here in Canada. Alex of Canada (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair they reported it in Ireland too on RTÉ News, and I'm assuming CBC reported it in Canada. If that is the case I guess both would have picked up the story from the BBC. This is Paul (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT another week, ~~KEEP~~ per WP:RAPID. This story is still unfolding, this: Surrey train stabbing: Witness appeal for couple sightings 12 minutes ago from the BBC. The stabbing to death of a man on a train in the U.K., by a complete stranger is a highly unusual event. The rush to delete is inappropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID says the opposite of WP:NOTNEWS. With the former being a guideline, but the latter a policy, it's WP:NOTNEWS that should take precedence. This story is unfolding in the same way that dozens of other other news stories from the past week are unfolding: in a way that doesn't give any reason why an encyclopedia, that takes a long-term view of events, should be covering this story. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, NOTNEWS is regularly trumped by crimes that get WP:SIGCOV. Editors curious about how this works can take a look at the archive of Crime-related deletion discussions [22]. The question is NOT whether or not something is "news," the question is where to draw that line between ROUTINE news events (two teenagers get into a fight, and one pulls a knife,) and recent events that pass WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every day there are dozens of crimes that get significant coverage in multiple national news sources, and later when new news arises such as arrests, appeals for witnesses and trials. WP:NOTNEWS exists to keep this as an encyclopedia, rather than a commentary on running news. And WP:SIGCOV itself says that sources should be secondary sources, not primary sources such as news reports. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The news reports are indeed secondary sources, not primary. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between primary and secondary sources is not something that was invented by Wikipedia. If you consult any introductory text on the study of history you will see that news reports are pretty much the archetypal primary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some journalism is WP:SIGCOV (well-researched deep dives are; breaking who-what-when-where stories are not, although they are WP:RS.) but Note that we regularly start articles about crimes that have just occurred, and this applies not only to events on the scale of the 2016 Nice truck attack and the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, but to notable crimes with few or no deaths. There is nothing wrong with starting such articles, although I personally try very hard to wait until notability is patent. Sometimes, however, notability is clear in the "breaking news" bulletin: 2018 Liège attack, 2017 New York City attempted bombing, 2017 Halamish stabbing attack. Moreover, we frequently KEEP articles about crimes that have just occurred and are immediately brought to AfD, a few recent examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Joseph, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Friday Alabama mall shooting, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Amsterdam stabbing attack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Desirée Mariottini. Many other crime articles created in the immediate wake of the event are kept without even coming to AfD: Shooting of Jemel Roberson, Tallahassee shooting, Aberdeen, Maryland shooting, Murders of Louisa Vesterager Jespersen and Maren Ueland, 2018 Melbourne stabbing attack, 2019 Tokyo car attack, 2017 Edmonton attack. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that in other cases many people wrongly consider Wikipedia to be a news service rather than an encyclopedia has no bearing on whether this article should be kept, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discussing, not bludgeoning. If you can't reply to my statement then just consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:RAPID - as we have WP:SUSTAINED national (and international) coverage persisting from the date of the event to present (e.g. BBC on 9 Jan The Times on 8 Jan). public killings do not fall within WP:NOTNEWS, as they are not routine events. The crime ticks all of the boxes for WP:GNG/WP:NCRIME - with the possible exception of continuing future coverage (which without a crystal ball, we can not ascertain at this date). Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A clear case for Keep. Meets WP:GNG. From the time of the incident to now it's been under WP:SUSTAINED. Certainly meets WP:RAPID. XavierItzm (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per WP:RAPID as above. Improve if possible. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:NOTNEWS. Almost a week on and media attention has shifted to another horrific knife murder. There is no indication of lasting notability here. It will be deleted sooner or later so it may as well be now.Charles (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nebulous and undefined "media attention" argument does not hold water. Even as you typed your comment on 10 January 2019, Pomeroy's murder continued to receive international coverage dated 10 January 2019. I've updated the article with the latest coverage. Clearly WP:SUSTAINED is working against you. XavierItzm (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sustained means over a much longer time than a week. So it remains to be seen whether it works against me.Charles (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCRIME; no apparent societal impact or long-lasting significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. As excellently and eloquently explained in The Sun on Wednesday [23], the length of the news cycle doesn't matter. If a black victim gains 7 days of coverage and nothing after that, we delete. If a white victim gains 14 days of coverage and nothing after that, we still delete. That's per policy, see the fourth sentence in WP:NOTNEWS#NEWSREPORTS. wumbolo ^^^ 12:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But, without a CRYSTAL ball, it is impossible to know whether News coverage is ONGOING. Which is why it can be wise to WAIT another week.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiser still to delete it now, and then if the case becomes notable in the future, resurect the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note that page creator @Autarch: appears never to have been notified of this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I don't start these discussions very often and I thought a bot would notify them. This is Paul (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, noting recent upgrades to the article showing ongoing, WP:RS national and international coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of the sources added to the article is a news report, rather than a secondary source. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So basically primary news reports parroting each other? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the last news report on this seems to be 9 January, and of course the media have moved on to another stabbing death. This is Paul (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10 Jan., [24], but more to the pint is the national INDEPTH that ran for several says, and the fact that coverage will resume with the court date in February, if not sooner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for missing that local news story in the local Surrey media. Truth is there's always news coverage of a suspect's court appearances in such cases as this one, but that doesn't make the case itself notable. This is Paul (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there will be more news reports when this goes to court, but they will still be news reports, not secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – I think it's close for both BLP1E and GNG. Both just barely apply here. If people can state otherwise I will surely change my vote. Yes, there is coverage from BBC and The Times but I'm unsure if that is sufficient for GNG and there is still BLP1E. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Redditaddict69:, BLP1E does not apply as the article is not on the BLP/BDPs involved but on the event.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: then should this article just be renamed 2019 Surrey train stabbing? Surely that was a notable event. The single killing really wasn't. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 19:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was one victim - in which case we often have a "murder/killing of" article. I am neutral on renaming here (depends also on the sources - if they highlight the train station - then yes). In any event - this is not a biography but rather an event article.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING and WP:10YT. See also WP:RECENTISM, of which this a text book example. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 13 January 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 consensus that the topic "Islam in South Asia" meets WP:N, and that the Islam in India article does not adequately cover this topic. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islam In South Asia[edit]

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

Clearly WP:CFORK from numerous articles. Such CFORKs are completely unnecessary to have here. None of the sources treat this subject as the primary or important subject contrary to WP:SIGCOV. Also see past consensus at Talk:Islam in South Asia#Redirect revert and Talk:Islam in South Asia#Requests for comment (an RfC) where consensus was clear that this article should not be created. Lorstaking (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear WP:CFORK. I raised the issues at the talk page and was greeted with silence as the response. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Supporting Fowler&fowler's well-argued proposal. I would like to see all the countries of South Asia covered as per WP:WEIGHT as well as expatriate communities. India should have central prominence as dictated by history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely passes WP:GNG. Scholarship treats Islam in South Asia as a stand alone subject. I see that the article author has also made use of excellent academic sources which treat the Islam in South Asia subject independently:
- Metcalf, Barbara D. (8 September 2009), Islam in South Asia in Practice, Princeton University Press, ISBN 1-4008-3138-5
- Kugle, Scott A. (2004), "Islam in South Asia", in Richard C. Martin (ed.), Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World: M-Z, index, Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 634–641, ISBN 978-0-02-865605-2
- Robinson, Francis (4 November 2010), "South Asia to 1919", The New Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 5, The Islamic World in the Age of Western Dominance, Cambridge University Press, pp. 212–239, ISBN 978-1-316-17578-1 Code16 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not about notability, but rather about duplication of content. Can you explain what this page will cover which is not covered in the Islam in India page (and Islam in Pakistan and Islam in Bangladesh as well)? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that Islam in Southeast Asia has a number of significant differences from Islam elsewhere in the world. Because the academic sources cited in the article are about that specific topic, I would think that notability as a specific topic is sufficient. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete massively duplicates Islam in India. Clear WP:CFORK created contrary to the established consensus. Expand the main articles in place of developing duplicate articles. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or heavily condense~~ Notability is not the question here (of course the topic is notable), but everything covered here is already treated at comparabble or greater detail in the more specialized articles linked above. This kind of duplication is not only unnecessary but actively detrimental, since changes to overlapping pages will desynchronize over time (that is one of the main reasons we try to avoid content duplication). A case could be made for a larger-scale hub page here that provides concise summaries of the regional pages but otherwise just links on. That would mean condensing it down substantially. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Elmidae, have you seen the arguments below about the inadequacy of Islam in India as the article where most of this information is covered? Vanamonde (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. By now this seems to have moved into more specialist arguments than I'm conversant with, some quite convincing, and I can't really consider this an informed !vote anymore. Striking for now; I suspect there are now better contributions in this discussion on which to base a conclusion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Those using the "its a duplication" argument are not making much sense. Content in many articles will overlap, for example Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and Bangladesh Liberation War (same subject but different facets, as is the case here).

We already have a precedent of articles covering Islam by region i.e. Islam in Europe, Islam in Central Asia and Islam in Southeast Asia despite also having articles on Islam in these regions' individual countries i.e. Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovinia, Islam in Tajikistan and Islam in Thailand etc. So content overlaps will be inevitable.

The political history of the Islam in India article is mainly empty[25]], so the claim of duplication is baseless.

Compare the difference between the sections on Mughal rule in both articles,[26][27], on its disintegration and the post-Mughal political history,[28][29] and the Delhi Sultanate[30][31]. Clearly, the new article is much better than the old one.

The rest of the Islam in India article is full of WP:OR and mainly low quality sources. However, this South Asia article is much better written and its bibliography shows the use and representation of high quality WP:RS.

It is also not suitable to write about Islamic facts & history of Pakistan and Bangladesh into the Islam in India article. For example it would be difficult to cover Richard Eaton's authoritative cross-South Asia scholarship on conversions in Punjab and Bengal (where most of the subcontinent's Muslims have always lived) in the Islam in India article because most Punjabi and Bengali Muslims today are no longer Indian, they are Pakistani and Bangladeshi. This article's section on Conversions solves this problem.

In short this South Asia article enables editors to write about the regional Islam (in all 3 nations together, both pre-1947 and post-1947). This is how several encyclopaedic articles in normal paper and online encyclopaedias already cover Islam in South Asia. i.e. [32] FreeKashmiri (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is never a good argument in deletion discussions.
If the Islam in India article is poor in some respects, please by all means improve it. That is a not a reason to go and create a new article.
What is being called "South Asia" (barring Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) was called "India" till 1947. And, all its history will be necessarily covered in Islam in India article. This weakens your argument that this new article is needed to cover all 3 nations together. They are covered together till 1947. If you need such an article for post-1947, please provide sources cover the topic in such a manner. Also, please explain how South Asia is made of "3 nations". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:OSE reads "comparisons...may form part of a cogent argument" and also "In consideration of precedent ...identifying articles of the same nature that have been established...may provide extremely important insight...whether...article should be on Wikipedia." So yeah, WP:OSE can't be dismissed as an argument here.
I am glad you have accepted that the Islam in India article is in a shabby state. Since that is the case the question of "duplication" does not arise because there is no duplicated content to begin with. So please do not use the duplication argument any more.
Sorry, I should have said 7 nations, not the 3 main ones, which are still the scholars' focus. Scholarship has produced numerous works on Islam in South Asia (indeed academia around the world now even favours "South Asia" over "India" anyway[33]). To represent academia, we must allow for a regional coverage.

In short, everyone here agrees on the notability of the subject. Still, I would be interested to know how you plan to bypass all the academic material which covers Islam and its political history regionally? The only other argument against this article has been about duplication, but that issue has been shown to be non-existent with the content-free status of other articles. The end result is that we are left with no valid objection to this article's existence (nationalist objections based on "South Asia is India" are invalid reasons). FreeKashmiri (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CFORK It is ideal not to create articles that are already noted in other separate articles. No attempt has made to gain consensus as well. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 00:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not a concern here but if we actually need the article per WP:NOPAGE. A WP:CFORK such as this has should not be given any different treatment. Orientls (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm in the unusual position of disagreeing with Kautilya3: the entirety of south Asia has not been called "India" for very long, relative to the history examined in this article: Afghanistan, in particular, is crucial to the understanding of the history of Islam in the subcontinent, as that is where multiple Muslim invasions have come through, and that is a region that was part of multiple Islamic empires based in the subcontinent. As it stands, the page might well be a CFORK, but conceptually, it isn't. South Asia has nearly a quarter of the world's people, one third of the world's Muslims, and a history of Islam that is nearly 1300 years old; far older than any of the nation-states that constitute the region today. The broad sweep of this history is far better suited to a regional article than to Islam in India; indeed, because much of the history of Islam in south Asia has to do with territory that is divided between countries today, duplication will actually be reduced, and neutrality will be better served, if this material is covered in a framing article such as this one, and Islam in India is instead reframed to examine the history of Islam in independent India (as Islam in Pakistan does). Notability isn't really in question here. In sum; the article might be in bad shape now, but it actually allows for better framing of content than we currently have. Vanamonde (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, your input is made up of multiple fallacies:

First of all, in CFORK-based AfD's, the content of the existing article is relevant. That content is clearly dealing with the Indian subcontinent, not the broader South Asia. There is a section on the Muslim conquest of Sindh, but no section on the Muslim conquest of Afghanisan. The After independence section covers India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, no other countries.
You make the point that Afghanistan is "crucial" to understanding the history of Islam in the subcontinent. Yet, the much-touted Metcalf (2009) volume that has been cited here, has 34 contributed articles, but not a single one of them on Afghanistan. On the contrary, the book says "For all these reasons, the Indian Subcontinent should be thought of, not as a periphery of Islam and Muslim life, but as a center. (p. xvii) The so-called Afghans themselves are called "Persianized Turks" in the volume (p. 6). So, the influences on Indian Islam appear to be Persian and Turkic, rather than Afghan. The Robinson (2010) article, despite being titled "South Asia to 1919", really covers the Indian subcontinent. There is a separate article on "Afghanistan to 1919".
You state that the history of Islam is nearly 1300 years old, far older than the modern nation-states. But throughout these 1300 years, the subcontinent was known in the entire Islamic literature as Hindustan and Al-Hind, the Persian and Arabic equivalents of "India". The term "India" itself is at least a 1000 years older than Islam, almost from the time of Alexander the Great. Why anybody should have a problem with an article called Islam in India is beyond me.
You claim that Islam in South Asia allows for better framing of the content. I don't see why. The Muslim political centres and the Muslim religious centres in South Asia have always been in modern day India, and continue to be so. The so-called denominations listed in the article, Deobandi, Barelvi, and Ahl-i-Hadith, were all founded in modern day India. So were the other modernist movements such as Ahmadiyya. This shunning of the "India" label seems to be an instance of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, you know better than to suggest I'm doing this to eliminate labels, regardless of what the intent of others here may be. The question here is whether "Islam in India" is broad enough to cover everything that could fall under "Islam in South Asia"; and I still maintain that it isn't. The Metcalf volume you cite contains a number of references to Islam in the larger region, that would be covered by the latter title but not the former; religion in the Mughal empire is the best example. There's references to locations in Afghanistan as those of significance to the history of Islam in the subcontinent (including Samarqand, and Kabul). Most importantly, there's references to the Ghaznavid empire, whose atrocities are of course given prominence whenever the history of Islam in South Asia is discussed, but whose empire was based in Afghanistan, which by your own admission was never a part of the region known as India. So what if they are Turkic in origin? So were the Mughals (with some Mongol blood thrown in for good measure). I have a "problem" with "Islam in India" only in so far as the sources have a problem with it, and the sources are clearly referring to a larger region than has every been referred to as "India". Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a textbook case of content forking. Since "South Asia" has been referred to as "India" in both historical and pre-modern times, it just doesn't seem possible to write something different here than what already exists at the Islam in India article; and this is why the issue of duplication of content immediately comes to the fore. In any case content forking is not a solution. Bharatiya 29 17:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have to suggest that south Asia has been known as "India" in historical times? Or even in the period that this article discusses? Vanamonde (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the terms 'India' and 'South Asia' in the context of pre-1947 period are very often used as interchangeable terms by reliable sources (for starters, [34][35][36]) Studies concerning the region before 1947 refer Pakistan, Bangladesh, and sometimes Afghanistan as "India" when they are discussing about ancient to pre-modern times. This is why most of the Islam in South Asia can never be different than Islam in India. Bharatiya 29 19:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, "India" (or translations thereof) have been used for the region of the subcontinent beyond the Indus river, from which the name is derived. The sources used here are explicitly examining a larger region. Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change goalposts now that your original point stands refuted: You asked for evidence, which I provided to you in the form of reliable academic sources. The origin of a word does not necessarily define its meaning. Terms like "India" and "South Asia" have been often used as interchangeable terms whenever the pre-1947 period is specified, like the sources indicate, and that is the main reason why the article will largely remain same as Islam in India. Bharatiya 29 14:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , good example of WP:CFORK. Such plagiarism should be dealt with in an exemplary manner always. Highly biased , defeating WP:NPOV. India is not Asia, and seems the timeline conveniently switches to highlight politically motivated dateline. Devopam (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"India is not Asia" Indeed it isn't. It isn't South Asia either. Which is a good argument to keep, not delete. Also, it isn't plagiarism to copy text within Wikipedia, when proper attribution is given. What evidence do you have that copyright was violated here? Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could not understand your interest in taking the pain to go after almost each comment above ? I don't subscribe to your ideas above for obvious reasons stated already. Devopam (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Islam in South Asia. This is a valid topic, but broader than Islam in India (the title of which is ambiguous as to whether it means pre-partition India, albeit even that is narrower than South Asia, or the current state of India). I realise this potentially duplicates the existing Islam in India article, but one solution is to make that article focused on post-1947, with only a brief overview of the pre-1947 history, and move detailed coverage of the pre-1947 history to this article. SJK (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear WP:CFORK. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Keep There are many reasons to disallow continued use of "India" to mean South Asia. (a) South Asia includes countries such as the Maldives, which have a majority (98%) Muslim population, or Sri Lanka, which have a minority Muslim population, which are not a part of the Indian subcontinent, but in which Islam had similar antecedents as the Indian subcontinent (b) Islam in South Asia includes discussion of the historical migrations from southern Asia of indentured labor that created Muslim minority populations in Mauritius, Trinidad, or Fiji, (c) Where does one put the Sufi orders, see Template:South Asian Muslim Saints, which played such a salient role in the establishment of Islam in South Asia? Where, for example, does one put Baha-ud-din Zakariya of Multan (12th century) or Lal Shahbaz Qalandar of Sind (13th century) whose spiritual dominion extended from present-day Afghanistan to present-day Bangladesh (see for example, Eaton's Islam and the Bengal Frontier? (d) In which pre-existing article does on include discussion of Islam in a disputed region such as Kashmir, which from the 13th century onward, has been a part of shifting political realms, which under the Mughals, or Durrani Afghan, extended to beyond Kabul and Qandahar? (e) the claim that "India" (in Greek or Latin) has stood for the "Indian subcontinent" much longer than there has been Islam in the region (7th century CE), does not hold, as the Hellenistic Greek or Byzantine notions of "India" referred to an indistinct land east of the Indus. It was a large part of southern Asia to be sure, but nowhere was there awareness of an Assam (with a sizeable present-day Muslim population) or of the then densely forested regions of Central India. In how many early Western-, or even Persian, notions of India was Balochistan included? There is good reason that the former Indology departments of major western universities have been renamed "South Asian studies" departments. It is best to trim the pre-existing articles to mainly post-1947 histories, and to put most of the pre-1947 histories in this article. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Maldives and Sri Lanka are part of the Indian subcontinent. Vast majority of literature point to it. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

The OED (Third Edition September 2009 see here, subscription required, has this definition of the subcontinent: "Indian subcontinent n. the part of Asia south of the Himalayas which forms a peninsula extending into the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, now divided between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh." It also has a footnote in tiny 6 pt font: "Also used with wider application to include Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The term is roughly equivalent to South Asia, esp. in the wider use, although Indian subcontinent is sometimes considered to be more of a geophysical description, and South Asia more geopolitical." Clearly, we are not dealing with a geophysical description here. The main definition, in any case, does not include Sri Lanka, only India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitics in this region, the main bulk of it, started after 1947. This article is regarding a religion in a certain geography. Most follow an Indo-Islamic version, which is distinct from Middle Eastern version. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Allama Iqbal's Tarana-e-Milli (written 1910) or the Khilafat Movement (1920s) are notable pre-1947 counter-examples. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Serious? You used the guy who wrote Sare Jahan se Accha? And loved poetry about his Brahmin ancestry? His later life, should not be the main base of your argument. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Iqbal wrote Tarana-e-Hindi before he left for higher studies in Europe in 1904. Tarana-e-Hindi, in vastly reduced form, in keeping with the relatively limited knowledge of Urdu in post-1947 India, has been renamed Sare Jahan se Achcha. Very few Indians know its second verse (Ghurbat meiN hoN agar ham ...) or for matter understand that Ghurbat, in this context, means "overseas," and not "poverty." Even fewer Indians know the last couplet (Iqbal koi mahram ... dard-e-nihaN hamara). It was a children's song in any case, written with other children's songs, such as "Parinde ki fariyad," which too outside of Urdu medium schools, no one knows in India. Iqbal wrote Tarana-e-Milli in 1910 when he returned from Europe, and continued to advocate Pan-Islamicist views until his death. In the defensive ideology of modern India, only his youthful effort, all written before the age of 24, is mentioned. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In accordance with WP:CFORK and WP:NOPAGE. A stand alone article is not justified since the content has been already added in the multiple articles such as Islam in India, Islam in Pakistan and few others. History of Islam in British Asia makes sense to me for the future. AshLin (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any solid argument by those arguing that there is a WP:CFORK. Actually there is no content on Islam in India which has been duplicated here. Danish Mehraj 13:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danish.mehraj26 (talk • contribs)
Note to closer: If this is going to result in a "no consensus" decision, then the article should be redirected back to the Islam in Asia article, since it was intentionally created against the consensus established multiple times on Talk:Islam in South Asia. Here we have a consensus of years not to create a WP:CFORK; hence the redirect should be preserved congruent with the dictates of the status quo. Bharatiya 29 16:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean move the article to Islam in South Asia. Of course, that is rather obvious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what Bharatiya29 means, and that's why they're quite wrong. A "no consensus" closure at AFD means an absence of consensus to remove the article. "No consensus" defaults to "keep": there would be no policy-based reason to redirect this. The page should be moved, as Kautilya3 says, in keeping with MOS; that's all. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above keep arguments carry conviction. samee converse 18:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the requirement that Islam in India would then focus almost entirely on post-1945 material. Closer should fix the capitalization of the title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I dislike the essay-style of it which obviously needs to be fixed, how is the largest religion in the world, in the largest subcontinent not notable? You all do realize that India is a country, not a synecdoche.Trillfendi (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the title Islam in South Asia, fixing the capitalization. While this article needs significant improvement, South Asia is a region where there are hundreds of millions of Muslims, and where Islam has had a significant presence for hundreds of years before the modern nation-states in the area were created. The topic is significant and notable enough to justify an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move to lowercase) I'm not quite sure what this is a cfork from. It's an excellently written 'History of Islam in India' and 'History of Islam in Pakistan' but mostly before either of those were countries, and this does not overlap significantly with either of those articles. This does however need to be wikified, with links to it better integrated from related pages. Reywas92^Talk 21:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Much needed article for the shared history and culture among groups that are separated in different states today. Esiymbro (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While historical sources will obviously use now-archaic ways of referring to South Asia and the Indian subcontinent, India is most commonly used today to refer to the country of India. This is an appropriate title for the content, although it should be expanded to include all countries/regions that are included in South Asia, and moved to a title with the correct capitalization. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has satisfy WP:GNG. Islam in South Asia is notable because of there are differences from other parts of world.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears to pass WP:GNG. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy/WP:SNOW keep. Copyvio issue resolved, no question as to notability. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Wilson (politician)[edit]

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

@Heatherwhea and GSS: Queried speedy delete as copyvio of http://matthewforgeorgia.com/ . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message copied from my user talk page

I created the page for Matthew, using content he wanted included on wiki. Should I recreate the page and rewrite the content or can you undelete it and I can rewrite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatherwhea (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC) #[reply]

Continued discussion

Keep members of houses of representatives and assembly members are notable by default. The situation with copying the website seems to be rectified now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekalbzombie (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At 07:38, 5 January 2019‎ User:GSS speedy-delete-tagged this page as copyright violation of http://matthewforgeorgia.com/ . This article may be what I call "selfcopyvio", i.e. the web page and the Wikipedia article were by the same author. But there is also the matter of notability (see WP:NN). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep members of houses of representatives are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubify. He's notable per WP:POLITICIAN as he has held a subnational/statewide position. However, both citations are to the same source and much of the article contains unreferenced information, in contravention of WP:BLP. SITH (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are presumed notable under WP:NPOL. The first source does not seem to mention the subject, and no secondary sources in the article confirm his electoral victory, but a quick search confirms that he won. The COI issue with the article needs to be addressed, as "the content he wanted included" is absolutely not acceptable under WP:NOTPROMO. Agree with StraussInTheHouse that stubifying is the right approach for now. Bakazaka (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka, I'm all for keeping the content as long as it's verified pretty quickly, it's just that BLP requires any information which is likely to be challenged, and let's face it, he's a politician so everything is likely to be challenged, be removed or sourced. Definitely agree with you on the COI issue, I don't know if this meets UPE but a close connection tag should be placed on the article until we're sure it's neutral. SITH (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL as holder of a state legislative seat. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have stubified and removed the copyright content. I reviewed this page and should have addressed the copyvio issue then (my bad). The article seems acceptable under WP:NPOL. FitIndia ^Talk 19:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. Definitely passes the notability criteria. The person is a well-known as a politician.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP. Member of legislature.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Syrian Sunday School Association of the East[edit]

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

The article fails WP:N and WP:RS. Gfosankar (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject fails notability criteria WP:NORG. All the sources are self published and controlled by the church. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:ORG--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 16:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Path slopu Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY You will need to explain with sources why you believe it passes WP:NORG--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent sources are identified. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 19:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything to suggest notability Spiderone 23:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray:Can we keep the article if we remove the citations which is not independent?--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 05:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the citations which is against the WP:ORGIND. There are another journals and books have details about this topic. I think, it had better that add the citations from it. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 05:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray, Buidhe, and Spiderone:Please see the new citations given by me from an independent publication which have information about this topic.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PATH SLOPU added four references to the same source, two pages in some sort of print source. I can't evaluate reliability and even if CORPDEPTH is met, we still need multiple independent sources for WP:NCORP. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe:I added some more sources have details about the topic which is published by others in their books.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which you cited are published by same church. Again it fails WP:RS. Gfosankar (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Path slopu I agree with @Buidhe:'s observation. Both the sources you added are from church. For example

first was "Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church MOSC Sabhavijnanakosham; meaning "~~The Fathers who led the Sabha(meeting)~~ Encyclopedia of church ^{corrected see below}" . from enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11537283 indianchristianity.org"
Vaideeka Sangham is from Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Adoor Kadampanadu Diocese.

So clearly both are WP:SPS from same Church. If there are sources independent of the church then you can present them here at AfD. regards --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray:Sabhavijnanakosham(meaning:Encyclopedia of church) is Published by Orthodox Theological Seminary, Kottayam.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 12:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This work was not published by OSSAE. OSSAE is an independent movement regarding to church. Similarly OTS is an independent institution. So I think that is not WP:SPS. It is from the publication of a separate institution. I removed the citations from OSSAE website because of WP:ORGIND and WP:SPS. But the book is by another one's. They are not officially by church. So it is not self published. Also, I didn't cited any from Vaideeka Sangham. It is only a wing of that diocese. I think you may misunderstood from this website. It is a copy from this wikipedia article's older version. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 12:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Path slopu thanks for clarification, It would be best if you can present sources from Kerala or Indian newspapers, books, magazines such as The Hindu for example. That would really help the notability. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray:Thank you for your advice. I will try for such citations. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 12:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending identification of reliable sources on the topic. Regards. — $f r +$ 04:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FR30799386:I had placed the citations from different sources. I had removed some citations because of WP:SPS and WP:ORGIND. But this new citations are reliable for topic. Finding citations from journals, newspapers, etc are quite difficult. So I depended encyclopedias and books. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took the source as per the WP:PUBLISHED, WP:TERTIARY.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Path slopu If we are unable to find any independent source per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage and only coverage is found in the church literature then that in itself is a confirmation that the subject lacks notability in the WP:MAINSTREAM media. regards.--DBig Xrayᗙ 14:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not enough coverage of the Association in oits own right then it can be merged into Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Rathfelder (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray:@FR30799386 and Buidhe:I have added some source from a reputed newspaper Malayala Manorama in Kerala and from a website not regarding to church. I think this satisfies the reliability and notability. Regards.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 15:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray, FR30799386, and Buidhe:I added the quotations of source in Malayalam in article's talk page. Please check--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 11:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Path slopu I reviewed both of your lines on the talk page, and that kind of coverage amounts to "passing mentions" and 1-2 line coverage, which is different from in-depth coverage that is needed for WP:SIGCOV. so I will continue with my Delete opinion. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new sources from newspapers like Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhumi. They are reliable sources. The publishers haven't any relations with the topic. The are independent. I think this satisfy WP:ORGIND. Regards.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 15:19, 10 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ResetEra[edit]

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

Aside from notes detailing that the site is an offshoot of NeoGAF, I don't see how this meets any of the Notibility guidelines such as WP:GNG. At least one of the references isn't valid (coming from their own official twitter account). Either a deletion or a redirect and information to be moved to the NeoGAF article would be more appropriate. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are four independent sources, three of them of reasonable length, which amounts to significant coverage, and since the sources explicitly state that it is not the same forum as NeoGAF it would make sense to redirect the title there. --bonadea contributions talk 10:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My only concern is more that the articles seem to be more about NeoGaf and the controversy on that site, rather than ResetEra outside of 'This is now a thing' which in turn fails significant coverage on ResetEra's part and fits more alongside NeoGafs coverage. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I quickly doublechecked the sources. Polygon's article is almost entirely about NeoGAF as is GameRevolution. Gamechup's article is minor and isn't notable enough and USgamer's article again alternates between NeoGAF news and a twitter press release. None of which fits significant coverage. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not discuss the subject in sufficient detail to constitute significant coverage. WP:WHYN explains that signifcant coverage is coverage that enables more than a few sentences to be written.--Pontificalibus 11:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very reluctant delete. The article needs improvement. I agree with User:Jamesbuc about most of the content being about how it originated. This needs to change if it is to stay. I'm reluctant to fully endorse the delete because NeoGAF has a fully fleshed out article, and from current Alexa statistics, it appears to be tanking and much less popular than ResetEra. So, I think the underlying entity itself is more noteworthy than NeoGAF. I think, if we leave this article alone, in a year or two, it may develop enough content to stand on its own right. However, this vote is for the article as it stands today, hence my vote to delete. A really paranoid android (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is just not enough sources covering the website itself to have it reach standards here. GamerPro64 04:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jamesbuc. Outside of those sources, I do not expect much else. Plus, forums are not as popular as they use to be. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per A really paranoid android. While this article has the potential to become more notable, sadly it currently just doesn't seem to clearly pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:16, 11 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PayPerPost[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company. Jehochman ^Talk 00:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

worked on existing citations — I've templated the citations in the article, including rescuing deadlinks using archive sites. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has coverage in reliable sources such as The Los Angeles Times. Does the nominator have a COI of working for rival companies ? Im asking due to the information on his userpage. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The test for notabilty is not "coverage in reliable sources". It is in-depth independent coverage with original analysis/opinion (at least 2 references). None of the references (including the LA Times) meets this test. The LA Times reference consists of a series of mentions-in-passing with information provided by the company or their "posties". HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you using VPN to read that as its not available in Europe? and have you looked for additional sources ? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, not using a VPN, available on archive.org and I am unable to locate any additional sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. No, but nice try at the ad homienem. There are thousands of tiny marketing agencies and websites like this one. None of them are notable. Getting a few mentions in the press doesn’t establish notability. Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are mentions-in-passing or unreliable blogs or routine announcements, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH not found; what comes up is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 5 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geronco[edit]

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

Originally PROD'd in 2008 just after creation, but de-PROD'd by creator immediately, so ineligible for any further PROD.

Non-notable surname. No sources located to substantiate any claim to notability. Not suitable as redirect as no article titles contain the name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: even names have to conform to GNG and there's no evidence to suggest this one does. SITH (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be an agreement post relist that despite the fact the text needs a rework, subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Marston (character)[edit]

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

The character is not independently notable from Red Dead Redemption. Video game characters usually require some real world association (such as Pikachu, or Sonic), however this character only appears in one game series, so is not any more notable than any other character. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Easily identifiable as WP:GAMECRUFT and in-universe-only topic. Lordtobi (✉) 20:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not inherited from his parent game. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Dead Redemption and merge any relevant details that don't already exist there. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the other RDR character was a problem, There a good deal of sourced development info and on character reception to make this one independently nktable. The bio has to be trimmed significantly. --Masem (t) 13:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's plenty of sources covering this character, many of whom are present in the article itself. The Optimistic One (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to say keep on this one as well. Unlike the other Red Dead character article, which is pure WP:GAMECRUFT, Marston has actually received significant coverage from reliable sources. Here are a few: Kotaku, Game Informer, Polygon, Digital Spy, Engadget, and more you can find in Google. JOE BRO 64 00:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Dead Redemption. Unlike Ellie, whose production was well-documented, most of the coverage of John Marston himself like [37] is tied to Rob Wiethoff, so WP:NOTINHERITED applies both for the game and for the actor I'm afraid. wumbolo ^^^ 16:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are demonstrably quite a few RSes that have dedicated coverage to Marston. Phediuk (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Masem, I see enough towards passing gaming Notability of the character. Govvy (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Marston is about as notable as Niko Bellic and Trevor Philips honestly. The bio definitely needs to be trimmed, but outside of that, the article is pretty well-written and there's plenty of reliable sources throughout. Aria1561 (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't agree with the assessment that the coverage is insufficient due to the association with Wiethoff, however I think the article is crufty, so someone either needs to slap an in-universe perspective tag on it or even better trim the crap. SITH (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking through some of the articles others mentioned, there is significant coverage in reliable sources of this character. Dream Focus 18:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:10, 11 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gangstar (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. The main series page is already a disambiguation between the various titles in the series. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This disambiguation is unnecessary.—Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 16:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: page views suggest the games are the clear primary topic, so a hatnote at the base game series article for the hip-hop duo should suffice. SITH (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unneeded dab page, but I don't see any downside to keeping it, and it could be useful to some... --DannyS712 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Video games are frequently informally referred to just by the series name, so technically they would all be proper entries on a dab page. The other entries at the DAB only have minor changes, and the link to the "gangster" DAB would be useful for those who misspelt the word initially. If deleted though, we have to update the hatnote to the other, non-game entries at the DAB. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and update the hatnote. Disambiguation not required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that Shelter Now meets WP:GNG per the sources Rajulbat included in the article. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shelter Now[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The organization was mentioned in 4 different news articles for the same reason: some of its aid workers were captured by Taliban, and were rescued. Daiyusha (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The article exists on the German-language edition of Wikipedia. Articles pertaining to similar organizations exist on the English-language edition, e.g., YWAM, SIM (Christian organization). The article is useful for providing context to articles in this edition which contain references or should contain references to the subject organization, e.g.: Christianity in Afghanistan, Freedom of religion in Afghanistan, Heather Mercer, Dayna Curry, 2001 in Afghanistan, Prisoners of Hope, etc. The arrest of Shelter Now's aid workers was a point of tension and potential starting point for negotiations between the Taliban and U.S. administrations following 9/11 (88 Days to Kandahar, p. 92). "[I]ndication[s] of notability" can be supplemented without the need to delete the article.--Rajulbat (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rajulbat (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind, see new !vote.

~~Delete~~: let's examine the sources.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.shelter-now.org/about-shelter/our-work/	WP:SPS	Reliable for basic info but independence and reliability are co-dependent when it comes to asserting notability.		✘ No
https://www.shelter-now.org/about-shelter/history-and-philosophy/	WP:SPS	See above.		✘ No
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010808/aponline045410_000.htm?noredirect=on			WP:ONEEVENT case. Nothing sustained.	✘ No
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/14/gen.aid.workers/index.html			See above.	✘ No
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1362483/Charity-workers-freed-from-Kabul-cell-by-Alliance.html			See above.	✘ No
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1480281.stm			See above.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Conclusion: WP:CORPDEPTH is not satisfied because most of the coverage in major media sources are about one event, namely the Taliban kidnapping. At the most, a section at Foreign hostages in Afghanistan would suffice. SITH (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even granting for the sake of argument that your assessment is correct as to the current state of sourcing in the article, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not the state of sourcing in an article." There exist sources touching on the subject organization not related to the 2001 kidnapping incident. This is a very new article, created today and within hours of its being proposed for deletion. I will attempt to gather additional supporting sources to prove their existence, and the presumed notability of the topic.--Rajulbat (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Rajulbat: please do, I'll amend my analysis if you ping me with enough time before the AfD closes and I agree with your assessment of the sources you add. SITH (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @StraussInTheHouse:. At the time of your analysis above, there were six sources. There are now thirty.--Rajulbat (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that WP:ONEEVENT is a part of the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page, is only applicable toward human beings, and is not applicable to organizations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient independent sources exist. There doesnt have to be sustained coverage.Rathfelder (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: changed !vote from delete per significant WP:HEY done by Rajulbat. The article now clearly demonstrates the requisite depth of coverage for an article. SITH (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG, per Rajulbat's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:53, 10 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children with Cancer UK[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable nonprofit. Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article has seven references, suggesting the charity does have some notability. Vorbee (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The existence of references does not form part of the criteria for establish notability, rather the quality of the references. The guidelines on which references meet the criteria for establishing notability are described at WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several articles discussing the subject directly in detail (e.g. 1, 2). --Pontificalibus 16:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The first is not considered intellectually independent as it relies extensively on an interview with the founder and fails WP:ORGIND and the second is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:ORGIND and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the sources given in the article are poor (Sun and Mirror should not be used), but the organisation is undoubtedly notable, and their activity is widely reported (fundraising, its funding into research, etc.). The number of sources on the fundraising efforts for the charity is huge [38], so I won't give them, here are some of the other articles on the various aspects of the charity (the work it funds, etc.) - [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Hzh (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. They are either based on announcements, are mentions-in-passing, or are based on interviews with company officers. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these are the work they funded, so perfectly valid information about the charity and not just passing mentions given that they are the one directly involved in such activity. They are also not routine announcements, nor simple interviews (this is one of most misused rationales - there is no blanket ban on interviews). There are also a lot more sources out there. Hzh (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think articles about organisations are going to come from if not for announcements? Its the fact that someone thinks they are notable enough to be published that matters.Rathfelder (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseIf it comes from announcements (in that the information comes from company sources), the source doesn't meet the criteria for establishing notabilty - see WP:NCORP especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Not a "blanket ban" on interviews per se - just Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion of the sources posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable article(WP:ORG).--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You've to provide reasoning. This isn't a !vote counting exercise. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 9 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds of the world[edit]

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

Per its talk page this is an article that is very long and has no reasonable hope at being usefully split or being transformed into something else beyond articles that currently exist, and it's not even a complete list despite its size. All possible splits such as by species groups and by continent are already made, so there doesn't seem to be much more use for this article remaining. Otherwise this article is arguably indiscriminate information and/or a scientific journal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There is already a List of birds, this is just a different way of categorising them. At a first glance, there's no content which does not exist at the aforementioned list or on the article about the IUCN Red List, so no merge is necessary. SITH (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above as being redundant. A redirect doesn't look useful for this term either since list of birds would show up in the search engine before typing the rest of this out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to list of birds. A knowledgeable editor should carefully compare the two first before deletion to see if there are any improvements that the other is missing. postdlf (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary spin-off to List of birds. Ajf773 (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 19:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 23:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meropidae, Videsh Ramsahai, and Owlsofeurope: Pinging some people who have put significant amounts of work into this list for their input. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons and also because there is no reason to maintain such a huge list when that job is already being done by HBW and the IUCN. The creation and maintenance of a "definitive" list of birds is a mighty task, and not one we ourselves do. Nor one we should do, as it would tread towards OR. Since we are using someone else's one here (and not even the one that Wikipedia uses as the basis for our articles) best to just let them do it, rather than mirror it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of birds is a good overview with much less required continual curation; this type of content is better aggregated through the category system and more refined lists by smaller taxonomic groups and places. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that this is long, but I wish to observe that this page was clearly an extremely ambitious but well-planned effort to create one encyclopaedic checklist of birds of the world, akin to the useful publications of HBW, Gruson or Howard & Moore. As such, the suggestion and tagging by the OP of splitting it into sub-pages would have caused it to fail utterly in its purpose, and one that I find misguided. One checklist, not lots of little bits in separate places are what actually makes a checklist useful! Sometimes big is beautiful. Equally, the rationales for deletion (WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTJOURNAL) are daft). First off, this is/was far from an indiscriminate list (whilst a little over-ambitious, it set out to be an encyclopaedic taxonomic checklist down to species level, which no other Wikipedia page on birds offers.) Such an encyclopaedic checklist falls outside all the descriptions given in WP:NOTJOURNAL, too. Were that rationale regarded as valid here, it could be used for all listings of a myriad of other taxonomic groups of animals or plants.

Lets be honest: the only reason to delete it is in full acceptance and recognition that better and more accessible resources exist online elsewhere, and that we here on Wikipedia will never be able to match those efforts in maintaining them. I could support that rationale. I found it extremely surprising that the already-mentioned List of birds offers no clear and obvious 'External Link' to any such free online resource, such as those maintained and available for download at the IOC World Bird List website, and no doubt elsewhere.

I don't care that this won't do my AfD stats any good, but purely in recognition of the incredible work done with genuinely encyclopaedic intent in the true spirit of Wikipedia by Owlsofeurope (453 edits), Meropidae and Videsh Ramsahai - and until such time as someone places a clearly visible link to download or freely view one or more definitive checklist of birds of the world on the List of birds page - I am going to make the futile gesture of !voting Keep. I respect their efforts, but as an afterthought I would strongly urge anyone with an interest in creating any taxonomic checklist or other species list in the future to only create them in sortable table format because, errm, they're sortable and much more useful to readers when content can be accessed in multiple ways. So much effort has been wasted in the past by list creators failing to recognise this, thus rendering their efforts far less useful or accessible than it could have been. But in this case I do recognise that better maintained and resourced definitive checklists do appear to exist off-wiki; lets at least make those checklists more easily findable from within Wikipedia and ensure that every one has a lead which explains which taxonomic arrangement they're following. And, please, let's get our rationale for deletion better thought through before we rush to remove really great content like this one could have been. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can put the content on a user page if you would like. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be honest back, if the purpose of this page is to create one encyclopaedic checklist of birds of the world, akin to the useful publications of HBW, Gruson or Howard & Moore. then my delete vote is Strong delete. We are not a taxonomic authority. We are not an ornithological society. We do not have the authority to make the kind of decisions about what constitutes a species or not, or where it sits in the list. This list is not, however, attempting to do that, it defers the IUCN. It's never going to rank with the great lists because its a mirror. That is no criticism of the work done, but I fear it was one in vain. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would on reflection be awesome to have a crowd-maintained wiki bird checklist, maintained and deliberated on by consensus. Unfortunately it doesn't belong on this site. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabine's Sunbird: In case there's any misunderstanding, I was, and am, actually in complete agreement with you and others here, and in reality I do side with those who move to delete it. The task of maintaining a definitive checklist is clearly not practicable here, though we do need to do better at sending users to external checklist resources that are freely downloadable and properly maintained by experts. My admittedly futile 'keep' !vote was purely to reflect my respect and admiration for those editors who tried hard to make a go of it over two years, against the odds. I have never felt the need to !vote in such a way before, and probabky won't again. To my mind, it was a far more worthy aspiration than compiling petty lists of Pokemon characters, and the like. I have no need to have the list on my userpage; maybe Meropidae might wish to comment on that helpful suggestion. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Maybe there's a place for a list similar to this which would only include scientific name, authority and common names. It could be restricted to species. That would at least be shorter. One could search it to find a name, or it could be useful for searching to see how many times Linnaeus was an authority in birds or how many times nobilis is used as a specific name, but even that is unworkable. Scientific names have many synonyms and common names are not standardized. Maintaining such a list would require a concentrated effort. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 17:28, 10 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-Oh! (film)[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources for example there are no critics' reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and no external reviews listed at IMDb Atlantic306 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 13:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of reliable sources. Reddragon7 (talk) 11:08, 10 January 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 Protestantism in Portugal. There appears to be a rough consensus against keeping the article. However, consensus is less than clear about what to do with it. In such cases I generally go with the least prejudicial alternative per ATD (absent a compelling argument against it). In this case that appears to be a merge. If the merge is not completed within 1 week of this close any editor may redirect the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Presbyterian Church in Portugal[edit]

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

Portuguese church without reliable sources. —Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 04:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This church does exist, but it does not appear to be WP:Notable because it has not been written about in WP:Reliable sources. The sources on the page are certainly not neutral. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- This is a denomination, though a very small one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All denominations are notable? —Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 19:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Protestantism in Portugal, which needs expansion. YBG (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ^{(Christian Presbyterian Church in Portugal was)} Deleted in Portuguese Wikipédia after consensus.—Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 04:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bullet, "Comment" and "^{(Christian Presbyterian Church in Portugal was)}" above because without these things, this looked like it referred to Protestantism in Portugal YBG (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacks coverage in reliable sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 08:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge. I haven't done enough research to form a keep/delete opinion, but just want to toss out there that since this seems to be going in the delete direction, a merge to Protestantism in Portugal is the obvious WP:ATD, with the proviso that only material which is supported by WP:RS can get merged. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nela Ticket. Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malvika Sharma[edit]

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

Non-notable, most coverages are interviews, two or three miniscule articles regarding her impending debut, no independent in depth coverage.... — $f r ❄$ 09:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find enough sources to say that she meets WP:GNG. She appears to have been well-known as a model and in ads before appearing in this film, so there is more coverage that one might expect of her film debut - 'Malvika Sharma to debut with Teja’s film', New Indian Express [48]; 'Malvika Sharma roped in?', Deccan Chronicle [49]; 'New girl on the block!' Deccan Chronicle [50]; 'Actress Malvika Sharma injured in a road accident, shooting postponed', Times of India [51]. However, this article is clearly not ready for mainspace. It was only created today, so Draftify until it is more substantial. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, the subject does seem to meet WP:GNG on paper, however, the sources you mentioned (which I also came across) are mere one paragraphs which mention in a very gossipy tone the she has been chosen to play a part in some film. Deccan Chronicle here even goes on to speculates that "Her audition for Nela Ticket could not have been easy, as she was given Telugu dialogues to read". All in all, I believe the sources cannot be considered significant in-depth coverage due to their poor quality of reportage which almost transcends into typical hyperbolic speculation. Additionally, it fails WP:NACTOR by a mile. Regards. —

f r ❄

17:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Nela Ticket would be helpful, as the movie is what she is known for (and is the only notable thing in her career so far). GSS (talk|c|em) 10:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nela Ticket - TOOSOON for an article at present however she appears to be generally known for the film so makes sense to redirect. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 16:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 08:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with a redirect if that's what consensus is. — $f r +$ 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am torn here because the article seems like a true WP:TNT candidate in it's state to Delete, really. A Redirect to Nela Ticket seems like an optimal thing since she is mentioned there in a sentence at least and could serve as a recreation in the future if she becomes more notable. But I would endorse the admin's decision to altogether Delete the article and then redirect it, as of right now the content is useless to keep in any shape or form. Anyway...she fails WP:NACTOR for lack of multiple significant roles in notable movies or series (only one in Nela Ticket), WP:GNG as well since there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. And no, I am not convinced by RebeccaGreen like with others, because that is all either WP:ROUTINE (she got the role), passing mentions or tabloid puffery. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Segunda División B. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Segunda División B Groups 1–4[edit]

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

This article is unupdated and unuseful as its information is all shown at the main Segunda División B article, more detailed in the current season's one. Asturkian (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as stated by nom, general info can be found in the main article, stats in each season article, so no need for this in addition. Crowsus (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Merge Keep the content of article by merging with Segunda División B.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above. Giant Snowman 11:17, 7 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dzvenkgau[edit]

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

Google search shows individuals with this name but nothing to support the history of the family set out in this article. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't know if the name is notable or not, all I'm seeing on the page is a bunch of original research because all of the weasel-worded phrases within it aren't referenced by either of the texts cited in the source section. SITH (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in its current form, this looks like OR and maybe some sort of genealogy self-promo. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, uunsourced genealogy cruft. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:51, 12 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra Network[edit]

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

Company fails WP:NCORP. Searched for "Hydra Network" returned no significant coverage, only some brief mentions. Searches for "Hydra Group" returned some results about a direct lender, but not the company that is the subject of the article. CNMall41 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article about an online advertising company, sourced to routine announcements, inclusion in fastest-growing lists and non-notable awards which are all insufficient for the WP:NCORP criteria. Nor are searches on the names of the company and its former product lines finding better. The company was acquired in 2010 by a company on which there is no article (and whose own site no longer exists) so there is no redirect target. AllyD (talk) 16:58, 5 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahllam (Iranian singer)[edit]

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

Just TOO SOON for her to have a stand alone article here in Wikipedia. Although, some trivial mentions are found, there's no in depth coverage in reliable sources. Not to be confused with Ahlam (singer). Mhhossein ^talk 11:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, not notable yet. Excelse (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by WP:MUSICBIO she clearly passes point #9, #10, #11 and #12; #9:She has won first place in Jashne Ahang (Celebration of Song)here. #10: She had performance in a television show in GEM TV (Sheytoon and Behtarin) also in DREAMLAND TV (Nafas). #11:She has been placed in rotation nationally by major music television network PMC here and Galahere. #12: Sina Valiollah talking with Ahllam in Farsi1#Talk Shows (Chandshanbe ba Sina)here. Tanks--Reza Amper (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review #9, #10, #11 and #12 of WP:MUSICBIO. None of what you quoted are "a major music competition", "a work of media that is notable" or "major radio or music television network". --Mhhossein ^talk 18:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject is even recognized by the Fa wiki users to be non-notable and hence is deleted from there. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mhhossein, You need to explain on this page why you feel PMC it is not major music television network See Category:Music television channels can you tell me persian music television bigger then PMC?Reza Amper (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to prove it's a major TV network. I think you were not serious when you described PMC as a "nationally major music television network". Iran does not have national music TV network, as far as I'm concerned, and if it has, it's not PMC. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability isn’t even the main problem here.Trillfendi (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dreamy Jazz and Trillfendi I'm talking about WP:MUSICBIO; #9, #10, #11 and #12 in the top. As regards she is a Iranian singer she isn't famous in Europe but she passing WP:MUSICBIO According to the explanations given above. She has 375k followers in instagramhere and for example more 3,000,000 played her track in radio Javan Avang Music is the biggest Persian record label and also PMC is the biggest Persian TV music which Ahllam working with --Reza Amper (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find her performances in "nationally major music television network"s, which you can't. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Avang Music its singers they have a article and see Category:Music television channels and Category:Music Music television channels look at nationally in dictionary do you mean PMC have to create by Islamic republic of Iran that never allow to a women singing can you tell some Persian music television? all of them rotation plying Ahllam WP:MUSICBIO#11.--Reza Amper (talk) 15:38, 10 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobobangla[edit]

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

I can't find any information that would verify this. Tried searching under "Nobobangla" and "Nobo bangla" (second one suggested by Google) but found nothing. "Language in India publication" giving me an Adobe error so can't check it, and Nobobangla.org is dead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google Scholar search shows that this vowel rich Bengali script was developed by S Musa. I was not able to find any independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the script, so it is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bengali script - this is only a brief article, and merging it with the article on Bengali script might make it easier to follow. Vorbee (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the 'Standardisation' section of Bengali script. Article subject doesn't meet WP:GNG but it would add meaningful content to that section. Cesdeva ^(talk) 10:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bengali script. Subject fails WP:GNG but there is some meaningful content here. GenuineArt (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 21:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 21:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bengali script, there just isn't reliable sources out there. Neither is the script much used. — f r ⁺ 06:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are no reliable sources, why should we merge this? Unreliable information should not be merged. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is just another self claimed linguist + language reformer's pipe dream, somehow managed to get published in a journal. Shah M Musa is an computer engineer and is not an linguist. His proposal has not been studied upon and has no significant relevance. We cannot merge it to Bengali script, as this is fundamentally a different script and will give this non-substantial design undue coverage. --nafSadh ^{did say} 15:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a highly relevant comment that should be strongly considered by the closer of this AfD. A merge would give undue weight to a non-notable proposed script. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:33, 7 January 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. Possible merging and/or redirecting can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Reformed Church in Portugal[edit]

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

Deleted in pt.wiki after consensus at pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Igreja Reformada Evangélica em Portugal. The two references aren't sources anyway: first is the pt.wiki deleted page, and second isn't reliable. —Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 04:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- This is a denomination, though a very small one. The initial redlink can probably be replaced with something else, probably Dutch Reformed Church. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All denominations are notable? —Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 19:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Protestantism in Portugal, which needs expansion. YBG (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But is there a valid content in this page to merge it? I don't think so: one source is a Portuguese Wikipedia deleted (by me), and other isn't reliable.—Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 06:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the information is inaccurate? If so, then the lack of WP:RS would be a good reason to delete instead of merge. On the other hand, if the information is verifiable just not verified, then the lack of WP:RS is not a reason to delete without merging, but rather a reason to merge and try to get better sources. YBG (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Yes, inaccurate and without reliable sources. A search don't present relevant results.—Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 02:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pórokhov: Nothing jumps out to me as being likely inaccurate. Maybe non-notable; perhaps the sources aren't WP:RS or independent, but to say it is inaccurate means that there is some information that you believe is false. What information do you believe to be false? YBG (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I don't know if the content is false, but we can't confirm the truthfulness of facts. Maybe inaccurete is a wrong word, sorry, I'm not a native speaker :P. —Pórokhov ^{^Порох} 03:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 5 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CHILL (consortium)[edit]

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

(Consortium of Independent Health Information Libraries in London – Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NORG. SITH (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I’ve considered putting this one up for AfD in the past too. Mccapra (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:NORG. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:46, 7 January 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. Salting seems like overkill for one recreation two years after the prior deletion, but is an option if there are further revivals without new evidence of notability. RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-Day Evangelist Church[edit]

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

My WP:BEFORE search was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this topic. It looks like it was tag-bombed in 2011 and has not been referenced since that time. I looked through Google Books (a few mentions but nothing of substance), Google News, and Google Search without anything significant. Fails WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging others from previous AfD in 2007 - RHaworth, DGG, Dennisthe2, Hornandsoccer, Maxamegalon2000, Rimmeraj — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also given this article is fully unsourced and was deleted once before. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NORG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Will also suggest the closing admin to salt the page so as to prevent repeated creation. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:32, 6 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Junglists[edit]

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

De-prodded. Original rationale was failure of WP:BAND. Cannot substantiate alleged quote from NME which was the rationale for the deprod. SITH (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources except a single article about their disbandment in local newspaper Newbury Today. NME quote is unverifiable as searching for them on NME.com finds nothing and no-one's going to trawl through paper archives without even a publication date. Nothing that meets the other criteria of WP:BAND. Qwfp (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zodiac Aerospace. RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac Seats U.S.[edit]

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

Not independently notable from Zodiac Aerospace. Searching for Zodiac Seats U.S. just produces results for Zodiac Aerospace Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or redirect - According to the Zodiac Aerospace internet site and this Gainesville Register article, ZSUS was renamed to Safran Seats, and should probably be moved to such title. There are several references in the article, in addition to [52], [53], [54], [55] and [56]. If the article can not be kept at the new name, it should probably be redirected to Safran. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zodiac Aerospace per nom (why is this at AfD?) StarM 00:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Redirect to Zodiac Aerospace ~~and Delete~~, fails criteria for notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @HighKing:, why is it imperative to delete the article history if the material gets merged? Also, why should there not be any redirect from Zodiac Seats U.S.? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've taken another look and I'm happy with a Redirect instead of a Merge/Delete. Thanks for the ping. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:09, 9 January 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 Procedural close. user: Anthony Appleyard, you say you deleted the page, but the log says otherwise. If this is a blatant copyvio, then speedy delete it, or at least restore the speedy tag for someone else to deal with. If it is only suspected copyvio, list at WP:CP. If there is something else to this, a nomination with a clear rationale is required. SpinningSpark 03:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Oops sorry. I was intending to delete it after the rest of the procedure, but the situation looked complicated, so at 05:56, 5 January 2019 during the deletion procedure I changed my mind and decided to get it discussed at AfD. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Independence Model[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Riclas, DESiegel, and Gaspanic99: Queried speedy delete as copyvio of https://nlp.stanford.edu/IR-book/html/htmledition/the-binary-independence-model-1.html Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messages copied from Talk:Binary Independence Model

i was trying to make a resumed presentation of the model in question with source from that books pages. If it is still too close to the book's wording what should i do? would it be acceptable to refer people to the book link with the definition of the method and delete the definitions section? i am not sure i can rewrite better in my own words...

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riclas (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 January 2010

I have done some rewriting. I think, given the technical and factual nature of the content this is now far enough from the source not to infringe copyright (and it is only a page or so from an entire book, although that is spread over many web pages, so more eligible for fair use). However I will leave the decision for another admin to review. DES ^(talk) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any reviewing admin should note that not all of the content on the page is in any way derived from the source, so this probbly shouldn't be a speedy in any case. DES ^(talk) 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? @Anthony Appleyard: Why is this at AfD? It's currently tagged for CSD, and there's no other explanation except a copy-and-paste of a couple talk page comments as well as "queried CSD", whatever that means exactly. Are you querying something? Is someone else? WP:CSD doesn't have any information about queries. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Riclas, DESiegel, Gaspanic99, and Deacon Vorbis: At 05:55, 5 January 2019 I deleted Binary Independence Model because at 00:57, 5 January 2019‎ User:Gaspanic99 speedy-delete-tagged it as copyright violation.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've posted a request for assistance at WP:AN. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close unless Anthony Appleyard actually answers Deacon Vorbis's question and provides a clearly stated deletion rationale. And JJMC89, can you clearly explain why you appear to think being at AfD makes this immune to copyvio-based speedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion reason would be WP:DEL2 (copyright violation). G12 has been declined twice, by Ged UK (Speedy deletion declined. Might have been blatant before, but rewrite has changed it sufficiently) and Anthony Appleyard (AfD'd). Given the first decline and DESiegel's note on the talk pagw, the article should not have been CSD'd by Gaspanic99 for close paraphrasing. Tagging as {{close paraphrasing}} or listing at WP:CP would be the appropriate action. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So let's see if I understand. The article was closely paraphrased, but that was fixed by a rewrite as determined by Ged UK. After that, it was tagged for CSD twice more, and brought to AfD, with a confusing pile of copied talk page comments, because why? Out of inertia, or is there something we are still supposed to be deciding here? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein and Deacon Vorbis: The situation looked complicated, so at 05:56, 5 January 2019 I changed my mind and decided to get it discussed at AfD. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 6 January 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. Obvious sockpuppetry aside, the keep comments do not make any commonly accepted arguments for notability. RL0919 (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tanster[edit]

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

I have not been able to establish any notability for this person, and the included references do not do so either. This doesn't appear to meet the standards for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and clearly displays a lack of NPOV even in the first paragraph. Jelleecat (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are all local. If you do a search for "Tanster Rainbow Project" you will quickly come to someone's Linkedin page where they claim they did social media manipulation for the "Tanster Rainbow Project", which was apparently intended as a way to promote local charities. Inadequate independent and diverse sourcing to establish notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP'Bold text' I created this Wiki account when I heard someone had made a recommendation to delete Tanster’s Wikipedia page. I am fan of Tanster’s and regularly follow her blog and YouTube page. She has a very active presence across multiple social media platforms. I have noticed that Wikipedia seems to have a preference for old media forms in determining whether a person is worthy of inclusion, but I would suggest this preference is not reflective of modern culture. Tanster has thousands of fans not only across America but also throughout the world. She is popular, respected and influential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilisk Bowbow (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above account is an SPA with two edits in the Tanster-related fandom field.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP'Bold text'Hello. Why would someone want to delete a page? I'm betting it's one of the crooks Tanster's exposing. The NXVIUM cult is associated with high profile politicians, such as Anthony Wiener, Huma Abedin, and a whole host of others. Tanster has broken the story about a witness to these high profile politicians. Do you think they want to avoid publicity like this? I'm sure they do. There is also the black magic con man sleazy sex guru pervert Mas Sajady who Tanster has exposed. She has loads of publicity about that on her Facebook and website. Mas Sajady has ties to pedophilia. You would think that anyone who would publicize that someone has ties to pedophilia -- would be a highly notable figure. Unless, perhaps, you are a pedophile yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret Wahrheit (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPI would agree that this motion to delete Tanster's page is probably politically motivated. According to the Wikipedia definition of general notability, there is a presumption of notability if the person has received coverage in reliable, independent sources. The definition goes on to say that there are no fixed amount of sources required but "generally" multiple sources are expected. This means that one source can be sufficient. The definition also includes that any form of media is acceptable, not just "old" media as another commenter stated. Tanster has a very active following both of her art career and her activism. She is well known through out the Hamptons in New York but also has a large fan base across many countries. She is a social activist working in both women's rights and cult victimization. Her renown is growing. I think it would be a disservice to the community to deprive the public of the information that Wikipedia has about her. I also think it would a disservice to the good work she is doing. Thank you for your time.

Similar to ThatMontrealIP's comment above, both of the two previous comments are also from SPAs with edits only related to this Tanster fandom. I've commented on the Jamesbernet SPA before - the original creator of The Tanster article. I need to reiterate: Wikipedia is not about YOU. See also: Conflict of interest and What Wikipedia is not. Jelleecat (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realize it wasn't clear. I created the Tanster page. Full disclosure, I've been a fan of Tanster's for years. Who else is going to create a Wikipedia page but someone interested in a subject? Tanster has brought hundreds of new donors to the Coalition of Women's Cancers charity. She's raised tens of thousands of dollars. I have no financial interest in that charity or her work. I just admire and respect what she is doing. This was my first Wikipedia page. I am also thinking about making one for the Coalition of Women's Cancers. This wonderful charity has helped thousands of women with therapy and services over the years. I am also planning to make a page for them. Hopefully it won't get attacked the way Tanster's has. I'm really not sure why there is any resistance to her having a page. I will admit I have found the mechanics of Wikipedia difficult to navigate. Sorry if I'm not doing right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbernet (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My name was deleted from my original comment along with the date I made it. I think something Jelleecat did by adding a response may have deleted it. Anyway, it's from me and I'm not sure how to fix it. Sorry again. Jamesbernet —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very interesting. How about explaining this edit where you make a detailed comment under your account, but intentionally sign it with "Secret Warheit"?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin lots of duck-like fishiness in the malformatted keep votes above, an SPI was filed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP So let me see if I've got this straight. Someone wants to take down the page of charity artist? Is that right? Why would anyone want to do that? You know Tanster donates her original and innovative artwork for women's cancer, right? She's active at many charity events. She participates in parades with her art cars promoting the charity. She's got tons of fans. She's inspired a lot of kids to get into art and charity. I mean seriously, why would anyone to take her page down? This is ridiculous. Thiscantbereal (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

another sudden SPA.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Lindy Exchange[edit]

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

This seems to me to meet criteria 5 (content fork from Lindy exchange, which itself is likely a fork of Lindy Hop), 6, and 8 (WP:GNG of the WP:DEL-REASON) Jelleecat (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The current page is no more than a listing of several events organised around 12 years ago, without evidence of notability. Google provides social media indication that PLEX events are continuing, and passing coverage such as this student media item but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:58, 5 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Wallington[edit]

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

typical PR bio for midlevel executive: promotional aspects include: putting current position first, giving a list of what he supports but without evidence he has done anything particular about them, using his name as often as possible, listing minor awards.

There is furthermore no actual proof of notability except for misc. press releasees, listings, and his own publications.

I tried rewriting this to remove promotionalism , but I found there was nothing left. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads more like a promotional bio than an objective Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. AD ^Talk 04:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Daily Mail as a source goes without saying. Trillfendi (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete claims are highly exaggerated. For example, "starred" in a BBC series, but the series was a home gardening show where the show visits a different home gardener every week, and one week they came to his garden. None of the several similar claims in article are claims to anything recognized here as notability. and there is no WP:SIGCOV of him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:01, 8 January 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 John Kerry. czar 18:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of legislation sponsored by John Kerry[edit]

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

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK. One sentence is sourced with one RS: FactCheck.Org. There are no other RS. Whatever content is deemed noteworthy can simply be merged with the John Kerry main article. To be honest, I don't think there's any salvageable content here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented in your similar AFD, CONTENTFORK doesn't provide a deletion rationale here. There's also no question that what bills Kerry sponsored while in Congress can be sourced, with citations to the bills themselves. I'm really inclined to view this kind of list to politicians what bibliographies are to writers, though I'm open to a compelling reason why we shouldn't. postdlf (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, anything notable can be merged to John Kerry, per nom. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The lack of verifiability here is easily addressed, but the real question is whether treating this in the detail it deserves would overwhelm the parent article and necessitate a spinoff. At the moment, I'm not seeing compelling evidence that that is the case, so a merger would be appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Eldridge[edit]

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

(NMODEL / GNG) The problem here is this article relies entirely on one source, a questionnaire no less, that really contributes virtually nothing except that she’s from Seattle. In trying to find any sources about her or her career, nothing has turned up. Trillfendi (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 5 January 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. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. RL0919 (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Politeja[edit]

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

Academic journal that fails WP:GNG. I used WP:JOURNALCRIT for specific notability guidelines and Politeja fails the three criteria. The page states that it is indexed by Social Sciences Citation Index and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, which would help it satisfy c1 and c2, but I did not find evidence of that. I also checked the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences and the journal is not indexed there. The article creator stated that they created the page to distinguish it from a different journal with a similar name, which is helpful in spirit but not grounds for having an article on Wikipedia. Citrivescence (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I checked the Journal Citation Reports, because those will often still display journals that were included but discontinued, but found nothing. Same for the Clarivate Master list, so apparently the article is incorrect in claiming inclusion in the SSCI. None of the other listed databases are very selective, so even if the journal was included in them, this would not meet NJournals. Likewise, MIAR does not include this journal, but lists 3 non-selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. If research on this were thorough enough, it would show the publication is not defunct.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Po Mieczu (talk • contribs)

References

^ http://www.politeja.wsmip.uj.edu.pl/en_GB/

Comment I also noted that the journal is not defunct. However, that is immaterial. It's not enough for a journal just to exist in order to meet our inclusion criteria. And reversely, if a journal is notable, it remains notable even if it stops being published, as notability is not temporary. --Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That was a typo on my part. The other journal that the creator wanted to distinguish it from, Politeia (journal), is defunct and I confused the two. Citrivescence (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like most non-English journals, it is an obscure title with little impact. It seems listed on the Polish government list of journals (pl:Wykaz czasopism punktowanych przez Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego) in the 'worse' (B) category ([57]). The B category should not be seen as sufficient for notability as per the pl wiki article cited, it has been known to list predatory journals. I have to conclude that the journal does fail Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) - it is not influential, widely cited nor of historic significance. PS. The article also claims that 'Politeja is abstracted and indexed in: Social Sciences Citation Index'. If this was true, it wouldn't be on the B list, and it would probably be notable - but this claim needs cite and verification. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is false. I checked (see my !vote above) and Politeja is not indexed by Clarivate Analytics (the successor of ISI and Thomson Reuters). --Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 7 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhakar Tomar[edit]

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

Unremarkable businessperson, fails WP:NBIO. "Top 100" lists are really not useful to establish notability unless there's some more meat in the hamburger. And established notability practice is that non-notable awards from non-notable organizations also don't contribute. So we've got basically nothing left here for sourcing. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~Unconscionable~~ (pardon me) Blatant spam written as if Wikipedia is LinkedIn. – Athaenara ✉ 01:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only this [58] article might be notable but also i am quite confused about these site which is named as Turkish British Council but this is not enough to prove. AD ^Talk 04:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything to suggest notability; promotional Spiderone 23:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBIO. These awards fall short of the 'well-known and significant award or honor' criteria of WP:ANYBIO, and I was unable to find coverage that meets the in depth, independent, reliable coverage required by WP:GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - independent reliable coverage not found and failure of WP:NBIO. Reddragon7 (talk) 11:14, 10 January 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. – Joe (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Babalola[edit]

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

Babalola has not met the threshold of multiple significant roles in notable productions. His role in The Legend of Tarzan was not significant. His role in Mary Magdalene may or may not have been, but one significant role is not enough. The sources here are either from the school he graduated from or local paper reports, nothing that really shows notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has been appeared on wide independent medias and has played multiple movie. He has quite notable to be on wikipedia. AD ^Talk 04:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another case of WP:BEFORE. In March 2018, he ended a five-month run opposite Bryan Cranston at London's National Theatre, surely a significant role in a notable production. Have expanded the article accordingly. Edwardx (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to be quite early in his career, but he has at least one other major role in progress ([59]), and there's certainly more than local coverage: [60], [61], [62], [63]. --Michig (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charles passes WP:NACTOR for more significant roles in notable plays, movies or series like Network (play), Bancroft (TV series) where he is among series regulars and has a Radio Times citation for that per [64] and Mary Magdalene (2018 film). As for WP:GNG...ugh. Coverage that is not in passing mention in [65] and [66] but that is all I can find. I am not convinced by the other sources in the article (passing mentions or bio sites, Radio Times is a good verification of his Bancrof role but not about the actor in depth, UOL article is about Tarzan movie, not him in depth, Deadline reference is about a movie that may or may not come out so that role is a pure WP:CRYSTAL). Overall he seems somewhere between WP:TOOSOON and notable, really. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:42, 12 January 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. The majority presented cogent arguments that the topic meets WP:LISTN and is not simply a travel directory. This does not exclude the possibility that the article could be improved, but that is not an issue for AfD. RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete per WP:not After reviewing, Wikipedia is not is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal Not a Travel guide (details of bus/train service are not pertinent here) . Wikipedia is not a information database (route infomation for buses, trams, municipal railways) .This page should be deleted . Once deleted, users can get transit route information on the local transit site which is heavily maintained by the agency them self, if a route been changed. The SFMTA Website provides up to date and accurate information. https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway_lines 13 years ago this page was proposed for deletion and somehow failed. Colton Meltzer (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: This is an utterly frivolous nomination. This is a featured list - one that has passed examination as one of the best lists on Wikipedia - not a travel guide. It is not intended to provide up-to-the-minute travel information; it presents a high-level overview of service types and routes and is heavily cross-linked from other articles. (Note that the nominator first tried to PROD the article against policy, then harassed the closer of the old AfD. His claim that the old AfD "somehow failed" is clearly false - ten of twelve commenters indicated it should be kept.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The harassment claim is invalid accusation. This page is a Travel Guide. What is this 28 19th Avenue Inbound Terminal Van Ness and North Point | Outbound Terminal Daly City BART - 23 Monterey Inbound Terminal Palou and Third Outbound Terminal Great Highway and Sloat/Sloat and 47th Avenue) These are details of streets of stops or final stops. Something provided in SFMTA Routes and Stops website. Colton Meltzer. Many more examples. (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not an expert on these sort of transport articles, but the fact that this was promoted to featured list status in 2010 and remains a featured list today says to me that the premise of the article is fundamentally sound and the article itself is well done. If the objection is to links to stale route sources, those links could be updated or even perhaps deleted. But deleting the whole article seems an unnecessarily extreme response to stale sources. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being on "featured list" does not void Wikipedia guidelines. I agree, some information like the background should be kept and moved to this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway#Route_namee Colton Meltzer (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but consensus is policy and is part of one of our 5 pillars. See WP:5P4. If this article has been vetted by multiple editors and not only be found to be encyclopedic but worthy of featured list status--for 8 years, that is a strong consensus. A contested interpretation of WP:NOT is a weak argument for overturning such consensus. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Per Pi3.14 this seems quite frivolous; listings of train and bus lines are quite standard on Wikipedia (such as List of King County Metro bus routes and Metro Local. Perfectly notable and sourced topic that is not remotely a travel guide. However I could certainly see a restructuring that involves a partial merge with List of Muni Metro stations. I fail to see why bus routes being on their websites makes it invalid to be here. Reywas92^Talk 05:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure this does not violates the WP:NOTTRAVEL ?

* 37-Corbett (goes to) Haight and Masonic

* 56 Rutland (goes to) McLaren Park (Visitacion Valley Middle School)

* NX Judah Express (goes to) Bush and Montgomery Colton Meltzer (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason for keeping an article in a deletion discussion. Spiderone 10:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The fact that this is a featured list is no reason to keep it. Spiderone 10:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the following reason(s). At the first glance, it passes GNG and by virtue of being an FL, it clearly is a page of high quality. However, I got around to checking other cities. New York seems to have pages on List of Bus routes by borough. There's one for Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, et al. But then just because New York has a page, doesn't mean San Franciso gets to have one. I get it. Now List of Bus Routes in London has survived not one but two AfDs (albeit both were over a decade ago). One of the arguments then was "some things are encyclopedic to some but not to others" and I'm inclined to agree with that. I would ask folks to take a look at those AfDs and the deletion reviews linked there as well. My reasons for backing this article is more or less the same. This article acts as an index. It's primary intent is for tram routes (or cable car if you like it), which is fixed infrastructure. Subsequently it extends to bus routes, which ideally shouldn't be in this article with the current title. That's all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly relevant and encyclopedic information on a notable topic. I'm at a complete loss as to why anyone would think Wikipedia would be made better by deleting coverage of significant infrastructure in a major city. The deletion rationale has no more substance than a slogan—a completely superficial reading of NOTTRAVEL, as the details and examples given there of what kind of ephemeral or nonnotable content consensus has deemed unencyclopedic (pricing, contact info, nonnotable hotels, etc.) should show. It does not mean that we delete otherwise notable and valid information just because it could also possibly be useful to travelers (though I don't see how it really could be used as such without timetables, addresses, fare info, etc...which, as with most NOTDIR issues, we would just remove those details rather than deleting the whole page). postdlf (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Francisco Municipal Railway. Most of the content (with exception to the links to the route maps and schedules) can easily be moved to the parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merge is good alternative option. Most of content shall be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway#Route_names and "Travel Guide Table for each Route can be a drop down table.The Agency also already setup a "Travel Guide" for riders to look up - https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops. Colton Meltzer (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no different to a bus route list - I cannot find any evidence of notability nor can I find any indepth coverage - Closest we get to that is maps,

Being a FL isn't a reason to keep and as can be seen here one FL has already been deleted (That AFD was in 2009 so whether anyone knew it was a FL is anyones guess),

Fails NOTTRAVELGUIDE (to a certain point) and GNG/BASIC. –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nor can I find any indepth coverage I have several books with substantial coverage (1 or more chapters) listing and describing the specific lines (not merely discussing the system or its history, but specific lines). Broader histories that discuss specific lines, and non-travel-guide information about current individual lines, are widely available in book and online sources (including this highly detailed analysis of service proposals.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's reasonably well written and well sourced. People read it. (Or at least they open the page.) It could do with some improvements to be sure, but you can say the same for (?virtually) every entry in wikipedia. Our principal customer for wikipedia is not ourselves and fellow contributors. It's the general reader. (Yes, sometimes the same person: very often not.) Someone sufficiently interested to key in a collection of words on a search engine to land on a page where he or she can learn more about something that she or he was wondering about. Why would you want to tell someone interested in this information that wikipedia won't help (despite folks having already done the work) because we think we know better what he/she should wish to know, or that he or she should look some place else? Regards Charles01 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles01 - If you could replace each and every "schedule" and "maps" with actual reliable sources I'd be more than happy to keep .... –Davey2010^Talk 22:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As so often, we are faced with a choice between "improve" and "give up". I guess that in the absence of powerful evidence pointing the other way, I instinctively prefer the idea of improvement. You don't. But if the nominator here has already spent half a day looking for better sources and then failed in the attempt, I guess he would have told us so. I might even find his nomination more persuasive if he had done that. What we can both hope for is that someone more familiar with the available sources than (I suspect) either of us may now be stirred into action.... and that could well include adding or substituting better and more convincing sources. And please .... someone Charles01 (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer improvement over deletion but so far I've found nothing convincing although in many AFDs people find things I do not which could easily be the case here, The nominator would've performed BEFORE although agreed they should've said that,

If you could improve it that would be fab. –Davey2010^Talk 22:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was 13 years to improve this page, but people who want to look up travel in SF for each route should be directed to the agency website which shows a live GPS map, frequency of each bus and stops. Been told many times Wikipedia not a travel guide. https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops .

Here a example of "Transit Guide on Wikipedia similar to "List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines " " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_Subway_services & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herald_Street_station&oldid=820997875 Colton Meltzer (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not a proponent of PRODD Good or Feautured Articles before reassessment is done. But from what I see from this is a travel guide. Having schedule pdfs on it is wholly inappropriate.Trillfendi (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This nomination makes no sense. While the links to the actual schedule may seem superflous, nearly every other major city transit system has an article similar to this. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 01:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vertium - Having major articles like this isn't a valid reason for keeping this, Can you please provide a policy based reason for !keeping, GNG is so far not met nor is BASIC so if you have any others I'l all ears. –Davey2010^Talk 02:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davey2010 - Hi Davey - If maintaining similar articles isn't justification to your thinking, then I guess the opposite approach could be taken and we could nominate all city-wide mass transit articles. But I think that would be silly. I'm sorry you don't think I've sufficiently argued my !vote here, and since I noted that you have rebutted many of those who believe we should "keep", I'm going to politely decline to further comment, beyond this edit. Thanks! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 02:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion shall last longer than last nomination to allow more users to review the direction of this Page. No way posting travel details for buses like "36th avenue, 37th avenue and 38th avenue" can be allowed. Colton Meltzer (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article is well-written and sourced, and covers a notable subject.TH1980 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and i can see speedy keep from repeated speedy keep comments which is unacceptable to wikiepdia. AD ^Talk 04:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't see my way to supporting a deletion of the entire article although I'm not enthusiastic about the list of bus routes. In any event, though, it would have been better for the nominator to campaign to have the list demoted from Featured List status first, rather than nominating a Featured List for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides here. Ultimately I have to ask whether it would make sense to include a list of lines in a good article about the railway/bus system. I tend to think that, if space allows, the answer would be yes. So I'm not necessarily opposed to a merge. What we tend to do when such embedded lists get too long, however, is spin them out to a separate article. I'm surprised this made FL with so many external links and no sources outside the lead, but I don't think that's so relevant for this discussion's purpose. Presumably if this, a FL, is deleted on WP:NOT grounds, then then the entire category Category:Lists of bus routes in the United States (as well as for other countries) would also be deleted. That's the sort of thing that I think should be discussed with the relevant wikiprojects first. Not because wikiprojects determine notability, but because I think it's more about how best to handle this sort of information (in a parent article vs. a stand-alone). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is a list of public transportation routes which are as permanent as permanent is. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN. For example, see History of Public Transit in San Francisco. Andrew D. (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note Canvassing by the nominator. Andrew D. (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This some sort of public stunt. Its random invites. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it was canvassing, it was not effective. (I was pinged and !voted keep). :) Colton, pinging random specific people is often frowned upon because it's easily confused with (or overlaps with) canvassing. The best thing to do is to leave concise, neutral messages on discussion pages like a relevant wikiproject. Ping individuals only if, for example, that person has been involved with this page in the past. Rule of thumb anyway. I don't think there was any harm done here, regardless. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I can't imagine what the nominator thought they were doing nominating a featured page without even attempting a discussion first. My rationale is as Vertium. This type of page is well established as desirable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Yes, OTHERSTUFF exists, but this stuff has repeatedly been kept by the community at AFD, and surviving an FAL review is even more significant. None of the nominators rationales, not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, apply. The article is none of those things, and against that WP:5P asserts that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. I do think, however, that the inclusion of bus routes in an article on railway lines is odd and needs examining, but AFD is not the place to do that. SpinningSpark 17:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, so many of the complaints seem focused on bus route details, which could be excised if a consensus of knowledgeable editors decide that's not appropriate for this topic. That's a matter for informed and targeted editing, not wiping out a page. I think on the OTHERSTUFF issue, the fact that this is not a one-off page but rather part of a longstanding, and systematic attempt to document transit infrastructure in major cities around the world is evidence of a project-wide consensus among many more editors than those who drive by AFDs. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The San Francisco Municipal Railway is a transit authority which operates a variety of lines, not just railways. The featured list nomination specifically focussed on its bus lines as kurykh wrote, "There are actually no featured bus line lists on Wikipedia, so I'm going to try to make this the first one." If the name of the authority seems anomalous then people who are bothered by this should take it up with them. They might also complain to the "London Underground" as the majority of its network (55%) is not actually underground! Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Andrew, I hadn't clocked that it was part of the authority's name. SpinningSpark 21:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — When WP:NOTTRAVEL was added in 2004 it said articles should "mention landmarks" but exclude telephone numbers and prices, and exclude advice on the best places to visit. Since then, the wording has been expanded and tweaked here and there, but the meaning has changed little. Exclude the changeable, the ephemera: phone numbers, prices, departure schedules, business hours. There are exceptions: the Georgetown Steam Plant is a museum only open one day a month for only four hours. The Maharajas' Express is perhaps the most expensive train ticket on Earth. But identifying the routes and constituent parts of transport lines falls well within the bounds of encyclopedic content -- What is it? Where is it? What's it called? What is it for? What does it do? What Plato and Aristotle would call the thing's essential, not accidental properties. The traits without which it would no longer be itself. Perhaps external links to train schedules are better off lower down in the page than up in the main tables, but that's WP:SURMOUNTABLE, outside the scope of AfD. Even so, WP:ELLIST actually suggests a travel guide external link as the right way to do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cards84664 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dennis Bratland's !vote just above. I'd like to see more history, and perhaps the linking to the ephemera could be handled better, but there's no need for deletion here. Transit infrastructure is a vitally important part of urban life, and thus a general encyclopedia should cover it. "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" means that we're not in the business of restaurant reviews. But we do write about how cities work. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
13 years from last nominations should of hinted "improvements", but still looks like same as before. I agreed there should be improvement (to distant away fro being travel guide), a merge into this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway#Route_names. However, willing work with other to improve Request Deletion Closure' 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Colton Meltzer (talk)
Keep per Dennis and Andrew D. Also willing to work on it as with Colton Meltzer. SITH (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not just a "improvement". Expected to be a major overhaul in coming days, once this is complete.

List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines Page Improvement Plan

Merge into parent page section "route names"
Possible Template change for the list of routes.
to be discussed

Colton Meltzer (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think you're really reading the tenor of the discussion here correctly, but in any event the list's talk page is the proper place for you to raise your editing suggestions and try to establish consensus for them. postdlf (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just note, my stance remains at (Delete). Is there a specific Transportation Wiki page?
Delete. You must be joking: this is 100% guide material, which belongs on Muni's own web site. If the Keep voters really and truly think this is salvageable, move it to Draft space so they can prove it. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That why i request Articles for deletion remain open longer, because something 13 years ago is still here. The Travel Guide principles. Colton Meltzer (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These recent discussions, which soundly reject the notion that NOTDIR excludes transit system/transportation-related lists, should also be considered: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 9#Adria Airways destinations and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?. There simply is no consensus that NOTTRAVELGUIDE = NOTTRANSITCOVERAGE; quite the contrary both as demonstrated in this AFD and in the broader community. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Already indicated, 13 years from last nominations should of hinted "improvements to distant away from being a travel guides", but still looks like same as before. San Francisco already have a "well dedicated - updated - Travel Guide for the routes - Once this page gets removed and retain background info to the parent page under route names as the most reasonable place to put the information. Add a link to direct users to the agency travel guides for routes - https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops Colton Meltzer (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - This page isn't going to get removed, nor is there a consensus that it needs significant improvement in order to be kept. That's the whole point. The consensus is that it is not a "travel guide", whatever you think that means, and that was the same consensus 13 years ago, as that AFD was a clear "keep". You simply aren't understanding the discussions. postdlf (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page should not be deleted as it is a notable topic with much coverage in reliable sources such as reliable book sources. It has been extensively reviwed as a high quality article and should not be subject to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT whims of editors who hate list articles for some reason or another. If Wikipedia starts deleting featured articles it is a very bad sign to the public that deletionism is going to extremes and that even the best articles are not safe Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not about hate, but about WP:NOTTRAVEL. Does List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines still fails some WP:NOTTRAVEL after 13 years from last nomination? Colton Meltzer (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is no less of an encyclopaedic list than when it was nominated for very similar reasons (and nearly unanimously kept) in 2006. There is plenty of evidence that the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:LISTN as well as passing the bar if it were considered just a sub-article of San Francisco Municipal Railway. Broader than just this article, lists of rail lines have been found, time and again, to be perfectly encyclopaedic topics so the nomination needs to detail what is different about this list, but it fails to do this. Finally, the nominator's main concern seems to be with some of the specific links/sources in the article - this is something that should be discussed on the article talk page as deleting the article would be overkill even without all the other reasons to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but no buses Railway lines are notable like canals and major highways partly because of the physical infrastructure on the ground per WP:GEOLAND. I have no idea why this article on railway lines features a list of bus routes - these may or may not be notable and should either be split to a seperate article or deleted.--Pontificalibus 11:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, the article is about all the lines operated by the SFMR and this specifically includes its many bus lines. The SFMR operates a variety of transport and they have much the same function and purpose: wheeled transport moving passengers from A to B along a route. The idea that trains are ok but buses are not seems to be an absurd prejudice. Andrew D. (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I remember now that US English has bus routes as "lines" (well, some of the time anwyay: Category:Lists_of_bus_routes_in_the_United_States) this is especially confusing with this title, and not just to me it seems. --12:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. NOTDIR does not apply. It does not require any significant change, either. Put into words better by several others above. --Doncram (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.politeja.wsmip.uj.edu.pl/en_GB/

[1]