Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 March	7 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Lin[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. The awards listed are not significant and well known. Does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Hmm.... I’m certainly not a proponent of the belief that awards = automatic notability but AVN and XBIZ are the so-called big awards in the industry. But if that’s her only claim to fame without independent reliable sources I say delete and refund if/when notability is actually met. Trillfendi (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Niche category award wins don't satisfy the "well-known and significant" standard of WP:PORNBIO. Can't pass WP:BASIC or WP:ENT without good secondary sources. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a lack of adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references provided are not satisfactory. Lapablo (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ACTOR, fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L&B International Football Consultancy[edit]

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

No claim to notability; tagged for two years with no improvement. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG not established, no significant coverage provided for the organization. Possible WP:PROMOTION issue as well. Jay eyem (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Jay eyem, article lacks any claim of importance, borderline speedy. Uninvited Company 17:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A poorly referenced listing-type article describing a sports management firm's wares without indication of notability. I left the External links in place during this AfD, but they concern one individual rather than this firm so fail WP:EL. Fails WP:NCORP. (A merge-redirect to The Dutch Football Academy might be possible, thought that has similarly poor referencing.) AllyD (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Statistical area (United States). I am not seeing a lot material to merge. But the page data is being preserved so anyone who wants to do a merge is free to do so. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary statistical area[edit]

Primary statistical area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
List of primary statistical areas of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The concept of a "primary statistical area" appears to be a Wikipedia construct, and doesn't exist in other sources. There have been discussions at Talk:List of primary statistical areas of the United States about the appropriateness of these pages going back over a decade, but they've never been discussed at AFD, as far as I can tell. The list is a combination of combined statistical areas, metropolitan statistical areas, and micropolitan statistical areas. These statistical areas are defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, which says that "Because Combined Statistical Areas represent groupings of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (in any combination), they should not be ranked or compared with individual Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas." [1] Delete as WP:OR. - Eureka Lott 05:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary statistical areas are essential for showing a full comparative list of population centers across the United States of America. Combined Statistical area listings, can be useful, but do not include certain major metro areas such as Phoenix that are not part of a CSA. They also do not include many smaller sized metro and micro areas. Simple metro area rankings, can also be useful, but they do not show the true extent of population centers in some cases such as comparing San Francisco to Houston in 2019. A full list of primary statistical areas is important for an accurate depiction, and ranking of all United States population areas with 10000 or more people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:8C (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with comment from 24 February 2019. When a CSA exists for an area, CSA often is the closest match to what is used in local parlance to describe the entire metro area. For example, the "Tri State Area" is often used to describe counties in NY, NJ, and CT that are closely tied to NYC, and while the CT counties are included in the CSA, they are not included in the NYC MSA, so the CSA most closely matches what is actually used by people to describe the metro area. However, as the previous commenter noted, some metro areas do not have a CSA (e.g., Phoenix). The existing article is a very logical way to compile CSA and MSA lists to be able to compare the relative sizes of different metro areas as they are frequently used in parlance. 2 March 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.66.88 (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selective - what is sourced and isn't there) to Statistical area (United States). I do see use of the term, so it is a plausible redirect. I don't quite see a need for a separate article. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Statistical area (United States) which already duplicates substantially all of the content in this page. Uninvited Company 17:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Equal Parenting Council[edit]

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

not notable. The ref in the Star was written by the organization's officer, and the other outside citations to it are mere mentions DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD nomination did not follow the WP:NPP guidelines. Those state that (i) Searching first for sources before nominating an article for an AfD discussion is crucial, and that (ii) You should mention in your (AfD) nomination rationale what attempts you made to look for sources and the results of your efforts. There is no such mention and using a couple of standard databases, it took less than 2 minutes to find dozens of additional media sources covering the organization. The nominator accurately describes the four outside media sources in the original version of the article, but was clearly unaware of these additional sources, some of which I have added to the article. Martinogk (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NONPROFIT (i) As a federation of local affiliates, the organization has national scope, with media mentions across both urban and rural Canada, including e.g. Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary, Windsor, Saint John, Yellowknife, Barrie, Oshawa, Alliston and Portage La Prairie. (ii) Coverage in multiple reliable media sources, many but not all by independent journalists, and significant in the sense that the organization is cited in articles about the topic on which it is active rather than passing mentions in articles about something else. (iii) Some international coverage. (iv) Additional newspaper, academic, book and web sources exist, but the article already has citation overkill. Martinogk (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. Reliance on primary sources won’t cut it. Trillfendi (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Trillfendi, Thank you for taking the time to comment. Can you explain how newspaper articles written by journalists are primary sources? I am e.g. thinking of the Toronto Star (Pigg 2009), the National Post (Kay 2010,14; Blackwell 2010), Laval News (Barry, 2009), Le Journal de Montréal (Agence QMI, 2011), the Yellowknifer (McMillan 2010, Campbell 2011), the Telegraph-Journal (Nabuurs 2011), the Windsor Star (Wilhelm 2006; newspaper written editorial 2006), the Star Tribune (Rosenblum 2013) and the Globe and Mail (Makin 2009)? Martinogk (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two problems here. First of all, there is no plausible claim of notability in the article. Qualifying plausible claims could include well-referenced claims that the organization is large and influential on a national scale. Second of all, there is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources regarding the association itself. The sources appear to be passing mentions and articles that use the organization and its members as a source of quotations. Uninvited Company 17:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymre Stiekema[edit]

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

Now that I think of it, I don't think Miss Stiekama has had a sustained career to meet NMODEL. There was a blip of controversy years ago about women getting mad that she had the perfect "bounce back" body in a Dutch stroller advertisement that was a Fox News Outnumbered segment (make of that what you will), but other than that you simply can't verify information about her. Appearance does not = notability. Trillfendi (talk) 20:34, 27 February 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 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has not made multiple significant appearances. Uninvited Company 17:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Gregory[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only for serving as a city councillor. Mobile AL is not a global city for the purposes of WP:POLOUTCOMES, but fact that a handful of local media hits exist is not in and of itself enough to get a city councillor over the bar, because every city councillor everywhere can always show five or six local media hits. Rather, the notability test she would have to clear is that she could be shown to be getting nationalized coverage that marks her out as significantly more notable than most other city councillors -- but that's not in evidence here at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an "ordinary" city council member in a city this size.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial. Not notable for stand alone article. An elected city official doing a job. Kierzek (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the subject was selected to serve as President of the Mobile City Council, I have not seen any nationalized coverage of the subject that would make the subject pass WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom, fails WP:NPOL. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nomination. Good nom. Failed WP:GNG. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Clear fail. Britishfinance (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Lacking enough sources currently. Lapablo (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. In particular I note that the article has recently undergone substantial revision which was not effectively addressed by many of those who posted early !votes favoring deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman[edit]

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

Individual is known only for one event. Per WP:BLPCRIME: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." –dlthewave ☎ 17:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that page has been renamed to avoid BLP issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G10 as a rather egregious violation of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. Being subject to racist screeds by Donald Trump after being suspected of a crime does not make a person independently notable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC) I've changed my !vote to show support for the speedy delete under G10 grounds notwithstanding the other problems with the article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLPCRIME and even if he were convicted WP:BLP1E. Something should really be done about the users who routinely violate policy to create such articles. nableezy - 18:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG. That he hasn't been convicted is irrelevant if he has a large amount of coverage in reliable sources, which he has. President Trump's comments on him only increase his notability. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or MOVE (revised iVote, see below) per WP:NCRIME, WP:SIGCOV. The names of suspects in major, highly publicized crimes are not protected by BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notwithstanding your novel reading of WP:NCRIME the requirements of WP:BLPCRIME definitely take precedence in a BLP article that is not about a crime but rather about a suspect of a crime. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing page move to 2019 Nevada killing spree.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G10. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:MShabazz just blanked the page [2], WP:DISRUPTING this AfD process.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate. As per their statement here, they are arguing (quite reasonably) that this page is a WP:G10 speedy deletion candidate. As per speedy deletion criteria they blanked the page except for the speedy deletion template. This isn't disruption, it's the correct way of handling a WP:G10 page. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a regular AfD, and everyone except one editor is treating it as such. This article should go through the same process as other AfDed articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of an AfD discussion does not preclude an editor putting an article forward for speedy deletion.Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either let the Afd run to a conclusion or start with a Speedy deletion tag. Both at the same time, and enforced by the editor initating this AfD is disruptive, at best.BabbaQ (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG indeed. Per coverage, per reliable sources. Trumps comments also goes for notability.BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article focuses on a person, not the crime. And Trump's emphasis on the immigration status of the suspect is prominent throughout this article-- in Trump's case, a rank appeal to prejudice for a political purpose, which unfortunately is served by this article. (There once was a time when a president slipped and stated that a suspect was guilty, and realizing his error, withdrew the statement and emphasized the presumption of innocence.) This is an article about the suspect, and not a carefully-worded article about the crime. Kablammo (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear case of WP:BLPCRIME combined with WP:RECENT which should be enough to show this article's existence is unacceptable. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 01:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLPCRIME issue, as well as no evidence of lasting significance — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When the suspect's name and photo has been published in the New York Times[3], it's no longer something that needs to be shush-shush in Wikipedia. And obviously there are a plethora of examples of articles that have suspect names from high-profile cases before judgments. As with all BLPs, editors should be careful not to add additional material from non-RS. --Pudeo (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OSE is not justification for a page existing. Are there other pages that violate WP:BLPCRIME? Yes. Should we keep this one? No! Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, who is claiming OSE, I don't see it. I see plenty of good rationales for Keeping the article. BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - A speedy deletion tag has been placed on this article over and over again. Possibly effecting the result here as the AfD tag was not visible during this time. In my opinion a disruptive action, and continued by the nominator for this AfD.BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Simonm223 has just BLANKED the page [4]. This is the 4th time this page has been blanked in the last couple of hours, by Simon223, by MShabazz, and by the Nom of this page who replaced the blanking when it had been reverted (by me, unaware that page creator cannot remove such a template.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I've just noted it in the page history, but consider that G10 tag declined on my part. I don't think we need to get into whether it should or shouldn't be tagged while at AfD, and I don't think there's any value in discussing anyone's behavior in that process, so hopefully we can just continue with the AfD as usual. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors arguing for depetion based on WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR appear not to be familiar with our COMMON standards with articles about recent, notable crime. The question experienced editors ask before creating such pages, and the question at AfD is how notable is this crime? Our practice in recent years has been to add recent crimes and name the suspects when coverage of an WP:EVENT has met WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE, even when it is TOOSOON to determine WP:LASTING. I agree that the black-letter law as spelled out on these pages is misleading to editors with little experience in editing crime-related pages and AfDs, nevertheless our COMMON law practice is clear. (Noting that in some countries suspects are not named.) Here are a handful of recent examples of articles where we named the suspect as soon as one was identified: Toronto van attack, Capital Gazette shooting, Death of Lesandro Guzman-Feliz, Murder of Blaze Bernstein, Federico murder case, Murder of Desirée Mariottini, Murder of Pamela Mastropietro, Nashville Waffle House shooting, Murder of Nia Wilson, October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Effectively what this statement is saying is that the users who have been creating crime articles have been acting without regard for WP:BLPCRIME for long enough that they no longer consider it, and WP:LIBEL to be worth considering. Not when there's juicy newsmedia hay to make. This is unencyclopedic and harmful to Wikipedia as a project. It's also deeply WP:DISRUPTive that they continue creating these and forcing reasonable editors to police a constantly shifting terrain of WP:BLPCRIME violating hit-pieces. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite common for editors within a certain topic area to develop their own common practices and, sometimes, bad habits. Central forums such as AfD play an important role in applying our community standards regardless of what the common practice may be. In this case the relevant policies and guidelines advise discretion and caution in publishing information about suspects, and the BLPCRIME policy takes priority over guidelines such as WP:PERPETRATOR (even calling them a perpetrator is problematic in many cases). Per WP:BLPCRIME: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." In this case, although they have received media coverage, we are still dealing with Wikipedia's definition of a low-profile person. –dlthewave ☎ 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should handle this case as per the COMMON editing practice of editors writing about crimes committed in Common Law countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. We handle these cases according to our policies and guidelines, regardless of what editors in that topic area happen to be doing. –dlthewave ☎ 17:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really see why you keep capitalizing COMMON as though that means something. Because our policies are actually what document our common practices and standards of editing, and WP:BLP is a policy. That editors routinely violate that policy to the point where one of them claims it is a common practice means something very different from we should stop enforcing the policy. It means that WP:NEWBLPBAN needs to start being used to enforce that policy. nableezy - 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately the United States being a country rooted in the common law system is so entirely irrelevant that E.M.Gregory's repeated references to it, up to and including what appears to be an attempt to try and present it as if it had something to do wit WP:COMMON just strikes of more WP:TEND civil POV pushing. I hope, if any admins choose to take action with regard to this situation that this is taken into consideration. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:PERPETRATOR, please WP:BLP vio. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing a MOVE to 2019 Nevada killing spree to emphasize the seriousness of a crime spree that terrified Nevada as an unidentified killer broke into a series of homes, murdered the elderly inhabitants and robbed their valuables. The events pass WP:NCRIME, WP:SIGCOV. (A suspect is under arrest; investigation is underway.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is this users second !vote in this AfC - I hope a strike-through of one or the other is forthcoming shortly. I also find the requests to move the content to be deeply tendentious all things considered. It's WP:DISRUPTive to require editors to play whack-a-mole in order to ensure WP:LIBEL violating material stays off the site with multiple rapid related page creations. This also seems like an attempt to circumvent WP:AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Libel" is a well-defined legal concept, but it does not apply to individuals whose actions have made them well-known public figures, a concept that has been routinely applied in Anglo American law for centuries with regard to individuals who commit well-publicized crimes. While I understand that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, it is important to respect settled fact of law. It is a fact that writing an article about a criminal whose name has been splashed across pages nationwide - whether writing in a blog, in an newspaper, or in Wikipedia, is NOT libelous.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN revision, with expanded sourcing, to comply with opinions expressed above tha t article shouldfocus on crime spree, not suspect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, this is not an improved article - just a weak attempt to keep the WP:LIBEL violating content up by re-framing the article. Second, you still have not struck through either !vote. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Creator seems to be an WP:SPA account trying to create a series of articles about immigrants involved in crimes. NickCT (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An absurd, possibly libelous, reading of my editing record.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC). While I am using "libelous" as hyperbole, I ask User:NickCT to return and strike his comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at your own edit history? Well over half of it is dedicated to pages somehow related to immigrants who have committed crime. The rest seems to be concentrated on notable Israelis or wierd far-left terrorists. This is not the edit history of a healthy mind. NickCT (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TAKE a deep breath, Nick. Then please walk that back. It is not at all accurate. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is accurate. You want to go line-by-line through your history? Look.... I'm not trying to be a hater, but my suggestion to you is that you take a self-imposed wikibreak from immigrant crime articles. Write about sports, or flowers, or cats, or any number of other things that make this world a beautiful place. You'll find that if you focus on the good stuff, you won't want to hate so much. NickCT (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY I have removed the name of the accused serial killer from the article. That being the sole objection raised to the article, I am happy to move it to 2019 Nevada killing spree now, or when this AfD closes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this point your refusal to strike through your duplicate !vote seems like a deliberate tendentious disruption. Likewise the fact that you just promised that if this article is deleted you'll recreate it under a new name. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. although "keep and move" is a COMMON iVote, and the first comment was annotated "(revised iVote, see below)". E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was not that you changed your !vote to "keep and move" it was that you were maintaining two separate lines that were presented as !votes. Furthermore, your conduct here remains deeply WP:TEND and I sincerely hope that whoever closes this mess at least gives you a formal warning for your comportment. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLPCRIME issue. Individual is not notable and the sad incidents received routine coverage. Reywas92^Talk 08:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reywas92 It is important to look both at page and at discussion BEFORE commenting. You objection has been responded with a PROPOSAL to change the title to 2019 Nevada killing spree in conformity with a WP:HEYMANN rewrite of the article to be about the crime, NOT about the suspect. Coverage, moreover, has been far from routine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would behoove you to stop assuming your post-hoc justification for how you intend to frame your WP:COATRACK was a legitimate application of WP:HEYMAN Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E issues. Yilloslime (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC) BLP issues have been fixed.Yilloslime (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth mentioning that the suspect has confessed.XavierItzm (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act". Not only that, but there is WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. XavierItzm (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename topic meets GNG, but it should be renamed to avoid any potential BLPCRIME vio. If renamed, I'm confident it will be consistent with all relevant policies.97.70.177.110desmay (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No it won't. See below. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least this should be renamed immediately. E.M.Gregory, you should know better. And next, this should be proofread because it's atrocious--I mean, seriously, it's pathetic. Third, the article should be pruned ruthlessly of the unencyclopedic and salacious detail. "...residents advised to leave outdoor lights on at night, lock doors, and keep a cellphone with them at all times"--sheesh. Who wrote this? Who thought this detail was in any way helpful or objective? Shall we not have a discussion on whether it's better to leave outdoor lights on or off? And why am I reading content about relatives and hobbies? Is the author going to provide that for all the victims of, I don't know, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17? Isn't this laying on of detail a pretty blatant piece of sensationalism? Drmies (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to rename it immediately. But, can that be done during an AfD? I got savaged for doing that that once. If it is permissible, I am happy to move this immediately to 2019 Nevada killing spree.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it is permitted, per WP:EDITATAFD. Moving page now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that page has been renamed to avoid BLP issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would this be here if Trump hadn’t made something of it; and would he have made something of it if the suspect hadn’t been Hispanic? That is, will WP end up adding crimes because the suspected criminals are Hispanic? WP:BLPCRIME O3000 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone renamed the article 2019 Nevada killing spree. Its about the crime, which is clearly notable, not just the person. Ample media attention to pass WP:GNG. Dream Focus 21:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The incident by itself is not notable and has no long-lasting significance. The only reason for this page to be created is the false claim by D.Trump about illegal immigrants committing mass crimes in the US and using this case as an example. However, that claim by Trump belongs to pages about Trump and his policies. This does not justify creating separate pages, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have been well covered, but no one has been convicted yet. The fact that Donnie has pipped up about this makes it notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After the rename the main problem has been solved. Meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom's problem is solved. The incident itself is very notable because of the coverage of the Lenny Skutniks. This public-domain photo of the surviving family is great. It's a shame that editors above want to delete because they incorrectly frame Trump's statements about illegal immigration – as Trump tends to point out that even one murder by an illegal immigrant is too much to him. And mass crimes are happening; here's a story just from yesterday [5] about drug overdose, and most of the drugs came from – Mexico. wumbolo ^^^ 12:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- has received national news coverage in multiple sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The crimes (not the bio)) easily meets GNG and NCRIME, with wide national continuing coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The incident by itself is not notable and has no long-lasting significance … … belongs on pages about Trump and his policies" per My very best wishes. There the political use can be given context as that use is the only claim to significance. 10:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Pincrete (talk)
Comment Trump being interested is not a signifier that this crime is notable. Nor, sadly, is it being a spree killing since those happen in the United States almost daily. So far, there's no evidence that coverage of this all-too-common tragedy is anything other than WP:ROUTINE. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and it's WP:NOTMEMORIAL as such, I'd suggest that claims that, "Trump tweeted about it, so it's notable," fail to reach even the far-too generous bar for notability of WP:NCRIME. Frankly, if Wikipedia's notability guidelines break down to, "a demented old man tweeted about it," then we have a pretty serious problem with the project. And while this may shock American editors, the relevance of the opinion of the American head of state was never as big as they estimated, and it has never been smaller. Simonm223 (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- has received national news coverage in multiple sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE65000 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 2019 Nevada Killing Spree as suggested. When opinion si as divided as it is here, a compromise solution is often best. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think DGG's suggestion has merit, but I am too wimpy to implement it without further discussion. Consensus has yet to develop in any sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but refocus the article on the event and not the perpetrator, as it is the event, not the perpetrator, that has received the majority of the significant coverage. Accordingly, also move to 2019 Nevada killing spree. SITH (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article was moved about a week ago. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 22:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the rationale for the nomination no longer exists. The article was renamed a while ago and the name of the suspect utterly expunged from the article. As it now stands, it is an article about a quite notable crime that has current and ongoing coverage. XavierItzm (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator’s rationale is now obsolete. No BLP issues. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the article was created because the suspected perp may be an illegal immigrant and for no other reason. There exist an enormous number of crimes that are not DUE. The BLP issues still exist. O3000 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still strong delete unless I'm really missing something, this is a nomination for the page entitled "Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman", not a nomination to delete the page entitled "2019 Nevada killing spree". To say we have completely expunged the subject's name from the article, and therefore we don't need to delete the redirect of the subject's name to the article, is, perhaps, missing something? :-) The final piece to clear up BLP issues is to delete the redirect of this guy's name to 2019 Nevada killing spree. Leviv ich 21:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we should keep in mind that this is one of a group of articles about crimes that may have been committed by illegal immigrants by an editor who has now been Topic Banned from articles like this. O3000 (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close as moot and relist The article was moved prior to the afd listing being closed, making this discussion moot. While it does not appear to me that there was a clear consensus for this move, I'm not going to revert it. I believe the best way forward is to close this afd, and open a new rfd listing for the redirect and, possibly, an afd listing for 2019 Nevada killing spree. Uninvited Company 17:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite incredibly convoluted - not to say unintelligible - lengthy discussion, this appears to be a straightforward article about a notable crime spree.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are a lot of keep !votes above along the lines of "all the issues have been resolved." The BLPCRIME issue was indeed an urgent issue, but even if that's largely resolved, there's still basic notability. As we know is routine for such a topic, there was a flurry of news coverage within a short time after the events. We need evidence of lasting significance, though. A Google News search looking for how the subject has been covered in the first half of March (still only a short time after the initial news cycle, and thus which would just start to show lasting significance), returns one hit, and that's just a mention in a story about a different topic. Maybe the initial round of coverage is enough to make people want to wait and see, but if so, we'll certainly want to revisit it down the road to make sure. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, with thanks to MarkZusab for finding reviews that I couldn't unearth (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Meaning of Marxism[edit]

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

Bit of a borderline case, but I'm going to be a staunch NPPer here: no more than one high-calibre review of this seems to exist (which is referenced in the article). Anything else I can find is from blogs and marketplace comments. If people consider sources such as this sufficient to make up the required coverage, I'll happily backtrack, otherwise I think WP:NBOOK is not met here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that WP:AUTHOR is not met. Let me know on my talk page if you want a copy of the article emailed to you or to talk about AUTHOR. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erina Harris[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, whose strongest notability claim is being shortlisted for (but not winning) a trade association's internal award referenced only to the awarding organization's own self-published press release. The difference between a literary award that's notable enough to get its winners over WP:AUTHOR and one that is not hinges specifically on whether the award gets independent media coverage or not, but this one doesn't. Very little else here is reliably sourced either: other than one news article in a community weekly pennysaver in her hometown, which would be okay if the rest of the sourcing were better but isn't enough to get her over WP:GNG all by itself as the only reliable source in play, virtually everything else here is resting on primary sources: her academic career is sourced to her "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of the universities where she was a graduate student, and the section listing her writings metareferences each piece of writing to itself. Even here, the notability test for a writer is not just that her writing metaverifies its own existence -- it is that other people have paid published attention to her writing, such as critical analysis and book reviews. None of this is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee her an article just for existing, but the referencing isn't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My quick searches confirm everything Nom says. A writer who has had a few things published, but fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Defence As this was the first article I've created, I recognise that I am yet far from an expert at these matters; I hear and acknowledge your experienced arguments, and I am certainly willing look for better references where appropriate. I wonder, though, if minds are already made up unequivocally that this poet fails pass the muster of WP:AUTHOR and that no improvement in references would be sufficient, or if better references would in fact sway opinions on the question? (If the former, that would be good to know so that I don't waste my time researching the futile). As a mild defence of my first article attempt, I'd like to reference another article, one of several I examined as models before I attempted my own, one about another Canadian poet named Sandy Pool. Here is someone who has published two poetry books rather than just one, one of which was shortlisted for (but did not win) an award. Granted, the award-giving organisation is better known and has a larger geographical scope than the one Harris was shortlisted for (I assume each organisation had independent and qualified judges), but we are talking about poetry here. I wonder how many Canadians even know that there is a GG for poetry, let alone who won it, for for that matter who almost won it. I feel a bit like WP:AUTHOR should be read in the context of an article's likely audience - both Pool and Harris would likely be totally overlooked by the average NFL fan, but might well be both regarded highly by the smaller audience that comprised Canadian poetry enthusiasts, in which case the bar for WP:AUTHOR might be considered somewhat variable. But maybe such discussions have already been had long before I arrived on the scene... At any rate, the entire Pool article contains only three references, one of which (the Trillium) points to the awarding organization's own website (a fault that was identified with the Harris article), and the other two references are dead links. In creating my article, I diligently tried to _exceed_ the quality of an existing, approved article, so I'm a bit disappointed to see it apparently rejected. Is a poet who wrote two books, one of which almost won a GG and has no practical article references, so much more qualified than a poet who wrote one book who almost won an Author's Association prize and has a number of references (even if they aren't all the strongest possible)? I'm asking these questions not to be a pain in the ass - obviously I hope it will sway you against my article's premature demise - but because it appears to me that there is a certain subjectivity to the question of WP:AUTHOR and notability, and the distinctions between these two writers don't seem at all clear to me in light of that. If I'm going to persist in further article authoring, it would be most helpful if you would assist me in comprehending those distinctions, if you feel the call so be so charitable, so that I can aspire to be a better author going forward. In gratitude! Amicoknop (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for all your hard work, but I am afraid that this is nowhere near notability yet WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Per norm. Doesn't meet notability guidelines for WP:AUTHOR. Lapablo (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Clear hoax, "Edmund is fake" on IMDB: [6]. —Kusma (t·c) 19:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Von Danilovich[edit]

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

I think this is a hoax. Even if a filmmaker by this name does exist, they do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.

A google search of the subject or of the subject's wife reveals literally no hits from reliable sources. At first glance this may not be too surprising, given that experimental and avant-garde films tend not to get much exposure in reliable sources online. However, even The Film-Makers' Cooperative, which the subject supposedly joined within two years of its creation, do not mention him or any of his works on their website. They maintain a comprehensive list of independent and avant-garde filmmakers, and so the subject's omission from their website is glaring. Particularly so when the subject supposedly made several films in conjunction with the Cooperatives' founding members. And because the subject's film production website does not exist, there is not even a self-published source with which to verify content.

Not a single one of Danilovich's supposed films can be verified to exist. "Underground cult hit" Ice of Man or "great critical success" Miya have been discussed absolutely nowhere. Other film titles appear to be jokes at the expense of existing works—see for example Memories From A Journey to Aarhus (1972), evidently a parody of the title of Jonas Mekas's 1972 film Reminiscences of a Journey to Lithuania.

Even the newer content cannot be confirmed. The reference to the "Independent Curtain Award" is made up—no such award exists. Likewise, if the "Solar Veil Award" has ever existed, then it has not been discussed anywhere. While the Ohrid Film Festival appears to be a real film festival, it did not program a film from any Daniloviches in 2018. And the IMDb technical specifications for this supposed 2018 film indicate that the camera used is "Edmund is fake". Indeed. /wiae /tlk 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is so little coverage that it is unverifiable even in unreliable sources so does not pass WP:V or WP:GNG. All I found was only one recent short film listed at IMDb and evidence he's reviewed films at user generated site letterboxdvd, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kitco[edit]

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

I can't see that this satisfies our new and improved notability requirements for companies. Yes, the company has been accused of tax evasion; but that's hardly unusual. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, considering I added the 'notability' template in the distant past. Nothing much has improved. The artilce in World News is actually authored by Kitco themselves. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Scant evidence of reliable in-depth news coverage in non-industry news sources. Sionk (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP also noticed self published sources on GNEWS nothing from a secondary source. Lapablo (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete Kitco is a highly respected company within the precious metals financial markets. They have analysts and sector based news that are widely read and quoted. Unfortunately this has not translated into the independent in depth coverage required by our guidelines for establishing notability. If someone wanted to argue for an IAR exception, I'd be tempted to support it. But I have already made an IAR argument recently and that's my six month limit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Terrorism in Greece per ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilist Faction[edit]

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

Reason Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:10, 6 March 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 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Αντικαθεστωτικός, you need to provide a more detailed rationale for deletion or the article will be "speedily kept"

Merge to Terrorism in Greece as a valid alternative to deletion. The IBM attack is sourced in multiple books (see Google Books) as a noteworthy event, but at least in English, I'm not seeing enough info for a dedicated article. Can adequately handle in the list of all Greek terrorist attacks. czar 12:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merge is fine. thank youΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Czar. There is nothing here to support a seperate article on this organisation. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Terrorism in Greece. Anyone interested in merging is free to do so as the page history is being preserved. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Star (anarchist group)[edit]

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

Reason Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:06, 6 March 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 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator's original edit summary when initially tagging the article was "Totally unknown. Just one or two actions i guess". I have no opinion at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~Speedy~~ Delete.~~ These searches tells me everything I need to know. Outside of the Daily Mail, there is no coverage. Fails WP:GNG. I will note that I did find one passing mention here and this 2000 BBC article. That is not much, but I suppose that changed me from a Speedy to just a normal delete !vote. I imagine a Greek-language speaker (such as SilentResident) could provide more insight on the matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am completely unfamiliar with anarchism and its groups. Googling on net about it, didn't provide any results, so I guess it is safe to delete it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Czar. I feel this is a fair compromise. It could be marked with an Rcat that it has potential. I would say that it is fair enough to say there is enough WP:RS to justify its inclusion there. I don't appreciate the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments being made to justify its full inclusion as an article, however. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It existed:

Greek guerrillas attack Italian official's car,BBC Monitoring Newsfile; London [London]17 Aug 2000: 1. " The Greek guerrilla Black Star (Mavro Asteri) group has set fire to a car belonging to an Italian embassy official in Athens, the Italian news agency ANSA reported on Thursday, quoting Greek police. The attack took place at 0230 local time on Thursday in the residential district of Vouliagmeni, and responsibility for the attack was claimed shortly afterwards in a phone call to a newspaper `Eleftherotypia'. The car belonged to Antonella Tassi, an official at the Italian Consulate in Athens, and was parked near her home. ANSA described Mavro Asteri as a "Left-wing anarchist group... one of the myriad terrorist groups active in Athens and in the region of Attica in the form of arson attacks." The left-wing `Eleftherotypia' is the newspaper which on 9th June received a message from the most feared guerrilla group in Greece, 17th November, claiming responsibility for the killing of the British defence attache in Athens, Gen Stephen Saunders. Credit: ANSA news agency database, Rome, in Italian 17 Aug 00 181 ANSA news agency database, Rome, in Italian 17 Aug 00/BBC Monitoring/(c) BBC [7]E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I did a google books search under the term "Mavro Asteri" [8] and it come up in scholarly books on terrorism. RS sources cite it and can be used for the article.Resnjari (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

its only three sentences about a single terror act. Nothing more. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are heaps of articles about single terror attacks by armed groups on Wikipedia. So for this article to be deleted does not suffice. Anyway the sources are RS, some being reports from the US government. Now the previous search i did was in the English language (i.e using the Latin alphabet), but writing the group's name in the Greek alphabet yields other content like: [9]. Also in the Terrorism in Greece article, there are other small groups who have done terror acts that have their own article and few sources. Here as i posted there is sufficient amount of RS sources. Its just that no one has placed them yet into the article.Resnjari (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in Greece where it can be covered in summary style, per the above Google Books search. Redirection is a preferable alternative to deletion. I'm not seeing reams of English-language or immediately usable content, so it would be sufficient to convert this stub (dropping its unverifiable short footnotes) to a listing in Terrorism in Greece's list. czar 12:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't have to be "reams" of sources, all there has to be is RS sources. They do come up when one does a google books search, however i understand that that those sources refer to a specific act of terror by the group or other acts like targeting US and Jewish property in the country. Also there are a few other articles (Revolutionary People's Struggle, Revolutionary Nuclei, Sect of Revolutionaries) linked to the Terrorism in Greece page and have few less footnotes like here. If where going to merge this article into the main Greek terrorism article with redirects, they also should be up for consideration for a merger into the main Terrorism in Greece article so we don't have to deal with multiple threads like this.Resnjari (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Resnjari Do you have details - dates, names of the person or building targeted - by "Black Star" terrorism? I could run some searches if I had such details.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What comes up in the RS is that they were involved in low level terrorism with high level targets, like burning cars of foreign diplomats or other property damage for political purposes. The google search yielded RS on the Italian diplomat car incident [10]. Apotitis, a scholar on Anarchism cites they did car burnings belonging to US diplomats and targeted pro-Zionist offices in Greece [11] -no one was ever caught from the group and may be a factor for the limited amount of information available. Anyway these are sources from English, in Greek i don't know what's out there. Greek speakers here and those who know about Anarchism in the country could assist the thread about sources.Resnjari (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

these three organisations have/had major activity in Greece. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the articles are small like this one. If i or any other editor adds the refs from the RS sources to the article then content wise it still will be a similar size to those other small articles on terrorist groups in Greece. Why then have those separate in their own right while this one is done away with a merger (this group, like the others have also been involved in violent acts)?Resnjari (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have right with your critism about the other articles. But we known very well that these organisations are a major topic in Greece. Maybe we should extend them. S.R has assassinated people. Ela was the most massive greek terrorist group etc. Black star was nothing. There are hundreds of this kind of organisations with simple car burnings. I don't insist in any case. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, yes, fine about making them bigger, i'm not against that, but few editors if at all have bothered to expand them with two of those articles existing for more then a decade and one for about 2 years and a half (see their page edit histories). So my point is well might as well then incorporate them into the larger article and if editors later make those sections bigger they can split it off into a separate article through one of the redirects. Otherwise it makes no sense to merge one of similar size and keep the other 3 separate of similar size as articles.Resnjari (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari, as alluded above, we call this an "other stuff" argument because we only address one article at a time. There are many articles that warrant attention, but we judge each on its own merits. The other three organizations that you mention may each very well end up merged, but in the case under discussion, if all we reasonably have as source material is a few passing mentions in Google Books snippets, then we hardly have enough material with which an encyclopedia article can do justice to the topic. With a redirect, the page history remains, and we can always restore/expand the content as needed. Also, the three discussants below this comment all read Greek and can help if you're looking for more Greek sources. czar 01:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with a merge to the Terrorism page. The group did exist and was involved acts of terrorism.Resnjari (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Resnjari. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Czar.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Terrorism in Greece, per Czar. A group with a hardly traced course and/or ideological impact of any sort. At best just a footnote to the history of anarchism inspired terrorism in post Junta Greece. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Terrorism in Greece with sources bought above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Clay[edit]

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

Insufficiently sourced WP:BLP of a city councillor. Indianapolis is not a global city for the purposes of WP:NPOL #2, so he isn't automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- the notability test he would have to pass is that he could be referenced to nationalizing coverage that marked him out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors.The ability to show six pieces of media coverage in his own local media market is not evidence of notability for a city councillor in and of itself, because every city councillor in every city can always show six pieces of local media coverage -- city councillors require evidence of media attention beyond just their own local media, or at least the ability to write a really substantive article that contextualizes their importance and not just a short stub that reads like a "meet your councillor" blurb, before they're notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for precisely the reasons given by Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm. Lack of references, fails WP:NPOL. Lapablo (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - if you Google him per WP:BEFORE, there's actually more coverage of him, not much of it good. Allegations of a sexual assault of a minor surfaced, although charges were never filed. He also made a controversial power grab by cutting a deal with Republicans to appoint them to oversight committees so they could save him, before he was forced out. The Indianapolis Business Journal [[12]]. CBS 4 Indianapolis [[13]], the Indy Star [[14]], WTHR Channel 13 [[15]], and the Indianapolis Recorder [[16]] all had coverage of him. This isn't routine, but it is certainly local. Since this never seemed to make it out of Indianapolis, the coverage is light on biographical profile info, and including the controversies could be construed as WP:UNDUE, I'll support a weak delete. It's not a slam dunk though. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judicially Murdered[edit]

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

I’ve looked for references to support this article. All I’ve found is two brief passing mentions here and here. That’s it. I don’t think that’s sufficient to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Gazette[edit]

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

This publication, just a year old at this point, does not appear to meet WP:NNEWSPAPER. Claims of notability seem to rest on one interview that Scientology picked up and ran with. No other apparent impact or outside coverage; at best, this is WP:TOOSOON. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NNEWSPAPER, from what i've seen it just a new blog and the readership is less than 1k/daily. There's not enough references to support this page at this time maybe in the nearest future. Lapablo (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American activists[edit]

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

The term "activist" is so broad (and used so broadly here) that it is meaningless; this list will not assist anyone in finding anything they are looking for. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN. For example see Jews in American Politics - Activists and Organizers. Note also that there is a corresponding Category:Jewish activists and so WP:CLN applies. Andrew D. (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom. There is already a corresponding Category:Jewish activists. --תנא קמא (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUP explains that lists and categories are complementary and so we don't delete one to promote the other. Anyway, as soon as I pointed out the existence of the category, above, the nominator rushed off to try to delete that too. But note that, while there are numerous types of activists indexed in such ways (cats, lists), the nominator is only trying to delete the Jewish ones. Andrew D. (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my ears were burning. "rushed off", "only trying to delete"? That's an unpleasant way of describing things. In relation to Jews, the intersection with "activist" is meaningless, because "activist" is too broad a term to be helpful to readers in this case. When you pointed out there was a category too, I proposed deleting it too, for the same reason. As for "only the Jewish ones", a) that was the one I saw, and b) "activist" might be helpful/meaningful when it intersects with many other things (I don't really know), but not in this case. I will note, however, that this is the only list that provides an intersection between an ethnicity and "activist" (there is one other that provides an intersection between an ethnicity and a specific kind of activist). So it seems that this list is the outlier, and other lists do not exist precisely for the reason I proposed this list be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The category was nominated for deletion 8 minutes after I mentioned it above. That doesn't seem to have been enough time for the nominator to check the facts of the matter. There are numerous categories for ethnic activists – so many that we have a category to group them all: category:Activists_by_ethnicity. which has 30 sub-categories, including Arab activists,Romani activists,Yoruba activists, &c. Per WP:CLN, lists and categories are equivalent and so the use of these terms and concepts is well-established. Andrew D. (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eight minutes was more than enough, since the issue with this list is identical. There may be several categories of ethnic activists, but you'd hard-pressed to find a similar list. In any event, your point is based on WP:OTHERSTUFF, which I don't think is a particularly strong argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Activist" is too hazy and broad a criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nom needs to clarify why the Jewish American activists have been picked out from Category:Lists of activists, as the nom merely objects to the vagueness of 'activist'. (It is quite easy to find List of African American activists.) Oculi (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oculi, thanks for finding that. I think the term "activist" is too broad, particularly when combined with an ethno-cultural group. As such, I've proposed it for deletion too. The only list I see there that is similarly broad is List of Sri Lankan activists, which combines nationality with the term "activist", and it's possible that should be deleted too. The other lists are much narrower (e.g. "Nepali democratic movement (1951) activists", "New Zealand left-wing activists"), so are likely more useful. Does that help clarify? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.; As תנא קמא mentioned, too, it has already a corresponding Category:Jewish activists. So I presume it might be better to be deleted. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not our policy. WP:NOTDUP explains:
It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided.

Andrew D. (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:LISTN, this is a "cross-categorization list (such as "Lists of X of Y")" where both X (e.g. American Jews) and Y (e.g. Activism) are WP notable; and therefore the list is acceptable. The list does not cause harm/offense under any other WP:PAG, and all the listed people are blue-linked to other WP articles (e.g. they are notable). It is a Keep. Britishfinance (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ list is subdivided by topic: AIDS activists, Anarchists, Animal right, Anti-communism, Anti-racist right through the alphabet to Z for Zionists. ~~Looks accurate, valid, useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Delete~~ On second thought, I take [[User:Jayjg's point, "activist" is pretty vague. But I am more concerned with the fact that "Jewish " is pretty vague. We have an increasing number of pages where the "Background" or "childhood section" says somehting like: his father's mother was an immigrant from Hungary, his father's father immigrated from Bohemia, his mother's father was a Jewish immigrant from Smolensk, and his mother's mother was Irish-American. (See Bill DeBlasio for an example of how hard it is to define an American as Irish, German... or Jewish. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC) (striking iVote,) bowing to consensus tha tethnic identity is relevant to everything, although I find this classification-by-ancestry weird.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Leopold Eidlitz, an architect, we list him in Category:Jewish architects, but maybe we shouldn't, because he dropped his Jewish identity as he crossed the Atlantic. Eidlitz came from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, he was born a Jewish family, but here's the thing: he married a Christian and no one appears to have known that he was Jewish until a nosy biographer figured it out a century later: Leopold Eidlitz; Architecture and Idealism in the Gilded Age by Kathryn E. Holliday, W.W. Norton. He clearly didn't want it known. So, was he Jewish? E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what do we do with complicated claims of Jewishness made by Julia Salazar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others? It may make more sense, as Nom suggests, to delete this list and let readers find their activists in categories like Category:American civil rights activists, Category:American activist journalists, Category:American Zionists etc.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do have a Category:Jewish activists which is something reasonable and other "activist" pages and categories. So that list seem to be consistent with WP:List. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consistent with WP:LISTN, category exists, WP:NOTDUP applies, WP:CLN applies. Our goal should be to make information easier for people to find, currently if one enters 'Jewish Activist' In Wikipedia search, this article is the first result, which hopefully will point them in the right direction. Unoc (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fun Labs. Sandstein 19:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cabela's Adventure Camp[edit]

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

Not notable. What I find is just listing for the game, proving it exists, but not demonstrating notability. No significant coverage of the topic. The article itself admits that 2 of the 3 platforms never received a single review. Notable games get lots of reviews. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't received significant coverage on reliable or third party sources. Review sites are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. The game existed, but there is nothing significant about it. Page is just promotional right now and a look for additional sources didn't turn up anything that could be used. Betanote4 (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fun Labs. It does not have the sources to show independent notability, but a redirect to the developer's article, where a list of there developed games is located, seems like a good idea. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TBH, I didn't edit much because of school. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Bauman[edit]

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO or WP:GNG based on the information presented in the article, nor can I find any substantial coverage of him in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete article is written like a WP:RESUME and WP:PROMO and most likely was created by the subject himself or by some sort of PR professional. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, the article contains just two sentences stating that he exists as a person who has had jobs, while containing no substance to indicate why he would be notable for that, and the referencing isn't getting him over WP:GNG either: two of the four sources here are his own self-published contributor profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, while a third is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself on a podcast. The last is a "five things to know about him" listicle in a digital magazine, but that publication's status as a notability-making source is debatable at best — and even if we take the charitable position on that question, it still takes much more than just one acceptable source to get a person over GNG. So no, neither the substance present here nor the sourcing provided to support it are enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON for this political operative, although there is some sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NPOL. -Zanhe (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above does not meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable political consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Latest version was copyvio but it is a non-notable subject. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ekospol a.s.[edit]

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

Marketing5 just created this. It is unclear whether or not this page meets WP:NCORP. Seems more like a case of WP:PROMO. See EKOSPOL (deleted twice) for further background. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raffles College of Design and Commerce[edit]

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

Australia has lots of questionable private training providers, and this is no more notable than the average fly-by-night one. Every source is either a primary source to the tertiary regulator making some decision about them, to their own website, or media coverage of some non-notable event they were involved in. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~Very strong keep~~ for as long as the Accreditation section stays as it is. People might read it and be warned off so that they do get not fooled by such an organisation. Perverse reason for keeping I know! I reckon it meets ACADEMIC and ORG by being officially recognised as so NOT worthy of accreditation. Aoziwe (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete. I must apologise for my very late at night my time and somewhat emotive response above. While purposeful, it is not exacly within guidelines! The subject simply does not meet GNG guidelines. For example, the major IRS in its own city pretty much only, and rarely, mentions the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was an accredited degree-awarding institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In nearly all other circumstances, I'd agree - but hundreds of these private providers popped up with little fanfare as a result of an Australian government policy change a few years back. Most of them are just a rented office somewhere. Very few have ever received any coverage in reliable sources of any sort, and many just disappeared without a trace. I once lived near a "health college" that operated out of a smash repairer. These really should be an exception to that - you're just never going to find any sources for any of them because the sources don't exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tried to do some research to find additional sources for this page with little luck. Even the lost accreditation wasn't covered in a reliable source. Leaving the page up as a warning isn't a valid reason to keep in my opinion. At least without the proper sources to back up the claims made here. Betanote4 (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could not find sources! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Emeka Anigbogu[edit]

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

The subject has never played in a fully prefessional league, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. In fact, he is an amateur footballer, who played three matches in the Maltese League, and got some local press coverage related to transfers, however, he still fails WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I got an edit conflict while creating an AfD :-) His Maltese club (3 games only) is semi-professional, all others are amateur clubs or playing in amateur leagues. Fram (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG, doesn't pass NFOOTY (Maltese League not sufficient). Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Amateur player fails NFOOTY. His current club and many prior clubs don't even have an article. Also fails GNG, as coverage is routine or otherwise insignificant (not more than a passing mention). Leviv ich 16:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The International Institute for Homeland Security, Defense and Restoration[edit]

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

An organisation set up in 2004 that seems to have vanished without trace. The external links are to a different Institute that has evidently taken over the domain name. A couple of mentions in listings, but other than that, not a trace. Whatever it was, it doesn’t seem to have been notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that as Nom says links at bottom of page line to [17] The International Institute for Family Development.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. News and Books brought no results. ML^talk 14:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I ran a Proquest news archive search on the name. zip. zero. nada. SPEEDY becasuue no sources at all. none.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saartje Corteyn[edit]

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

Not yet notable. One article in the regional section of the newspaper, where she gets mentioned (but not really gets indepth attention). Belgian champion fencing is impressive, but not something that gets a lot of attention (fencing is so far a very minor sport in Belgian media). Fails WP:BIO so far. Fram (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my BEFORE this isn't close to SIGCOV. At the moment TOOSOON - if she ends up being the 2024 Olympics that may change. Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derek DeGrate[edit]

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

This article has two problems, notability and tone. It does not satisfy musical notability criteria or general notability. Google search shows that he exists, and finds non-independent sources, but does not find independent sources.

This draft was written to praise its subject rather than to describe him neutrally. If he warranted an article, it would need to be scrubbed and rewritten, but that isn't necessary.

Deleted in January 2019 by expired PROD, but re-instated with this page (and a draft). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious WP:PROMO by somebody or other. WP:TNT looks like best solution if, by some chance, this is actually a notable musician. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMO with no indication of notability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bushra Amiwala[edit]

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

The subject does not pass WP:NPOL. She has never held office, only running for local offices (and then losing). The coverage is only local; the Chicago Tribune pieces are actually the Skokie Review, a hyper-local paper. She does not meet notability requirements IMO. Kbabej (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:NPOL. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but nothing else here constitutes credible evidence that she's notable for other reasons. The thing that comes the closest to that in theory, "was on the cover of TIME Magazine in January 2018", falls down when you actually examine it: she was one of about 50 thumbnails in a collage cover, not the main cover subject in her own right, and she wasn't a subject of the associated article at all — literally the only time her name appears in the text at all is in the photo credits footnote. But magazine content supports notability based on how much substance it contains about the subject in the body of the article, not based on whether her photo was incorporated into the cover art or not — so this is not a notability claim that makes her special. And other than that, the sourcing is a mix of primary sources and the purely local media coverage of local election primaries that's routinely expected to always exist, so none of it assists in making her a special case of significantly greater notability than most other unsuccessful political candidates. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The article regarding this person seems like it was written entirely for the purpose of advertising, and to increase the appearance of the subject's prominence. It includes details that seem knowable only by the subject or people close to the subject. It is notable that the newspaper references written "about" the subject are influenced at least partially by the fact that a duly elected incumbent of 16 years had their first challenger in 12 years, and the novel aspect that the challenger of a long term incumbent was under 21. Being young does not, in and of itself, seem notable. It is worth pointing out that there was another challenger in the election, who also lost, and that person does not have a Wikipedia article written about them.

Furthermore, I was driven to this subject's page due to repeated efforts to promote Bushra Amiwala on the incumbent (and winner), Larry Suffredin's page. These seemingly bad-faith edits predate the creation of the Bushra Amiwala page, and demonstrate an ongoing effort to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform for this person. These promotions on Larry Suffredin's page have frequently been perpetrated by anonymous IP addresses, have repeatedly sought to remove information regarding opponents other than Bushra Amiwala, and have included praise of Bushra Amiwala that has violated Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The IP addresses and named users that have posted these types of changes to Larry Suffredin have been warned according to Wikipedia policies, and have generally received multiple warnings. Gamerider (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local coverage and fails WP:NPOL Reddragon7 (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people who loose the primary election are almost never notable, those who loose primary elections for county commission are never, ever notable for that, and that is Amiwala's only possible claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The link is blue because I redirected the former article's title to The Water Babies as suggested by Patar knight. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Water Baby[edit]

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

The article doesn't demonstrate notability or demonstrate widespread use, I would use a speedy deletion but can't find the correct category Zubin12 (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to be largely a case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, where the article creator just found anytime the phrase "water baby" was used, regardless of the context, and cobbled this article together in attempt at making it seem like this was some notable concept. It is not, and appears to be a failed attempt at creating a neologism that never actually became used. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It’s total nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Freely concocted. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this article should be deleted for the reasons listed above. However, after its deletion, I believe that the page should be redirected to the disambiguation page The Water Babies, where several articles of the same or similar title are listed. MarkZusab (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move The Water Babies over this title per WP:DABNAME, and add a link to hydrocephalus. [18] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the hydrocephalus entry to the DAB, so there should be no problem moving it over. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sense of this discussion was that the actress did not reach notability prior to (or since) her untimely death. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Ivanko[edit]

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

~~Lack of notability. A little-known actress of episodic roles.--RTY9099 (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:10, 11 February 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 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 19:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Searching her anglicized name ("Vera Ivanko") on Google yields almost no results. But, if you search her name in its native Cyrillic script ("Вера Иванко") there are substantially more available sources. I don't know if the nominator speaks/reads Russian and already made the determination that the available sources were not enough to establish notability, but, if not, it might be more valuable to this discussion to consult someone who can. Gargleafg (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some Russian-language references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yellow press and Online database--RTY9099 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with my rudimentary Russian skills I can tell she is a non-notable actress at all. Trillfendi (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably for some more assessment of Eastmain's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not pass any part of WP:NACTOR or GNG. The subject has only been in minor roles in small films. --Kbabej (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Audrey Hepburn. czar 02:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Hepburn bibliography[edit]

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

A list of books related to Audrey Hepburn with no encyclopedic/educational value, and could be merged into the article Audrey Hepburn in a section of "Further readings" HĐ (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Audrey Hepburn per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DannyS712 though it’s maybe a bit long for ‘further reading’ and might want pruning. Mccapra (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: I'd be happy to work on pruning - currently I think its a list of all books about Hepburn, while further reading should just be a few selected books --DannyS712 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment oh great, that would be ideal I think. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Alhomoud[edit]

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

A filmmaker which from what I can tell has no notability going for him. None of his films seem to be that notable either. Wgolf (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not pass WP:FILMMAKER. A Google search doesn't turn up much. There's a list of movies he's worked on from the 15th Dubai International Film Festival, a mention of an award he got at the 13th Dubai International Film Festival, and a review of a film he directed in the Huff Post, but those don't cover him in depth by any stretch of the imagination. --Kbabej (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quikcycle[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Refs are dead links or press releases. Company website does not work. Searching does not find much. May be out of business. Regardless, it does not appear to ever have been notable. MB 00:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @MB: I got |IAbot to rescue some broken links in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Gale Technologies where its acquisition is mentioned (also mentioned in this press release). The article is merely describing the former company's proposition and funding and I see no evidence that it ever attained notability in itself. AllyD (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked Facebook posts in Sri lanka[edit]

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

Overly specific list of "the top 5 accounts of Sri Lankan celebrities with the largest number of Facebook post likes," apparently sourced from celebrity/gossip publications. Trivialist (talk) 00:27, 6 March 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 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:LISTCRUFT and got to have a laugh at the list which is valid "As of February 30, 2019"! Ajf773 (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. There is absolutely no encyclopedic value to this, and it's already outdated. --Kbabej (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, unneeded and non-encyclopedic page --DannyS712 (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on the creator’s edit history this appears to be an attempt to promote Michelle Dilhara. The page has no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Dan arndt (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StudySync[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage to pass WP:CORP; a few sentences in the Press Democrat article, an article in 7x7, a Bay Area news site of questionable notability, and a mention in a book. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless much better references can be provided. The Press Democrat coverage is a local business article about several local educational software firms. 7X7 is a good, fashion, entertainment and lifestyle website. This is far short of the coverage needed to show that a company is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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