Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 October	11 October >

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 speedy keep. Withdraw requested by nominator. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 22:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bahia Massoundi[edit]

Article about a local person, sources are some local coverage. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG Early life and education - no references; Career: Massoundi worked as a teacher at the Mursamudu High School from 2001 until 2010. She was a delegate for human rights between 2011 and 2013. no references --"In June 2015, he was arrested for selling tests.[5]" references her husband Dreerwin (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject meets WP:NPOL as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, Transport and Tourism in the government of Comoros. -- Whpq (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline, which she doesnt --Dreerwin (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting from WP:NPOL: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office..." (emphasis added). The position she holds is not a local political office.-- Whpq (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdrawal the delete proposal as per WP:NPOL Thank you --Dreerwin (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Afraid of the Dark? (2019 miniseries)[edit]

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

Should be still merged into Are You Afraid of the Dark?. Fits under crystal ball. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 23:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Support with caveat to suppress redirect as this article contains an obvious spelling/grammatical error. Keep Seems to meet WP:Notability guidelines. (miniserie) seems to have just been a typo in this AfD creation. --Doug Mehus (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion and suppress redirect per Dmehus above. There isn't really any useful information, nor are there any reliable citations, in this article that could be merged into Are You Afraid of the Dark?. –Matthew - (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. None of the other seasons of Are You Afraid of the Dark? have individual articles and because this article has minimal content (that could be included in the parent article), it makes more sense to merge it. The 2019 miniserie is already mentioned in the parent article and further information about it could be added there. Nonetheless, the topic is obviously notable (anyone living in North America would be aware of this). Articles in USA Today [1], Mashable [2], and Entertainment Weekly [3] all have articles about the miniserie. desmay (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Desmay. Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTV. This should never have been brought to AFD. Crystal was a poor argument given the program aired less than 24 hours after the nomination and was therefore aired during the window of this AFD. AFD is not the propper forum for a merger discussion unless there is a serious argument for deletion (which there isn't in this case). The closing admin could close as keep or merge per others above if desired. The proper process for this should have been taging the article for merger and discussing it on the article's talk page instead of taking this to AFD.4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, WP:NTV defaults to WP:GNG. There is no presumable notability for broadcast shows, like it says "however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." ~~Also, you haven't shown any sources for GNG.~~ Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is going to be a clear case of a no-consensus AfD, so no vote from me. The sources posted by Desmay are hardly sufficient for WP:GNG (only USA Today one is barely OK). But, there are WP:SIGCOV of the miniseries at Paste (magazine) [4], Consequence of Sound [5], Mashable [6] (a different article than that was posted), Decider (website) [7], TV Guide [8], Den of Geek [9]. The rest seems to be WP:ROUTINE. Enough for a standalone article even if not that much notable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging MatthewHoobin and Dmehus just in case. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnUnnamedUser, Dmehus, 4meter4, and Jovanmilic97: I say we close this discussion and move the article in question to "Are You Afraid of the Dark? (2019 miniseries)", in order to fix both the capitalization and the misspelling of "miniseries". Let's also get some citations in there (as I'm typing this, the only citation present is a link to the program's IMDb page). After that, someone can open a discussion on the article's talk page about whether or not it should be merged into Are You Afraid of the Dark?. What do you all think? –Matthew - (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jovanmilic97, I wouldn't say it'll be no consensus. Merge and Redirect are variants on Keep. My support is conditional on suppressing the redirect, per speedy criteria for obvious typographical errors. Matthew echoed the same support. Original proposer proposed merge or delete, so that means they will go either way. When you add those together, that's a clear consensus of 60% in favour of delete or merge with suppression of the redirect. Only one user has voted to merge keeping the redirect and, as you said, the sources cited by desmay do not provide WP:SIGCOV. At the same time, 4meter4 favoured either keep or merge. Thus, we have unanimity to merge here...the question is whether to retain the typo as a redirect, for which I'd argue for closing administrator to exercise good, independent judgment and authority and just delete it on the basis that, should someone feel the typo is useful, they can re-create it without prejudice. However, I suspect no one will see it as useful. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merge here as I think sources I have posted demonstrate notability. I also support what Matthew has said, close the AfD and move the discussion to the talk page. Another fact here, this is a reboot/separate series from the original, and as such it isn't just another season of the show. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have moved the article to the proper title, which is fixed in both this AfD and in the article (which also suffered from miscapitalizations). I have also repaired WLs in few articles that linked to this. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jovanmilic97, You should not have done this until the AfD closed. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point was to suppress the redirect. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I just tried to access the (miniserie) one and none existed. So, perhaps it was just a typo in this AfD? Doug Mehus (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote to Keep. My concern was with (miniserie) and wanting to delete the redirect. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Yoder[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, specifically WP:SIGCOV. Page has been tagged with questionable notability since 2009. Cited and found articles only mention him briefly, such as "being represented by Wes Yoder" and do not actually discuss Yoder. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Needs more references and substantial improvement to pass WP:GNG. TenderKing (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per aboove, does not satisfy WP:GNG· Alex-h (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Barca (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found several sources leading me to believe he may pass WP:GNG. I will be adding them to the article in the next hour. Reviewers may want to hold off commenting and admins from closing until I do this and others have a chance to evaluate. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 17 October 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 by nominator, without prejudice to re-nomination in the future. At present, consensus favours keeping this article, albeit one in need of substantial clean-up, including removal of the puffery prose and adherence to WP:NPOV, and/or merging. As well, notability has not yet been established, and while we would need to prove sources exist, there may be further offline sources that should be at least checked before re-nominating. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAA-Quebec[edit]

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

As written, fails WP:NORG. All sources are primary sources. The remainder of the potential sources do not provide significant coverage. One noted book may support the historical overview, but that's only one source. There are no other sources which provide significant coverage. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "CAA Quebec" reveals limited, if any, press mentions of or about the organization—all of it is either passing mentions, which mentions the organization in a tangential way, or which provides coverage of trivial matters such as surveys the organization commissioned. In fact, I couldn't even find further trivial press mentions re: new products and services. So, apparently, the press isn't even interested in covering this organization except for covering the occasional commissioned survey on Quebec road trips and the like. As such, fails current and future WP:SIGCOV coverage. I note, too, that few automobile associations meet WP:Notability, with only American Automobile Association attracting enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. As well, I would also remind that notability is not inherited. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, because an AFD is not needed. Although "Merge" would be okay as a decision (but it requires more thought, because it would effectively put a lock on article re-creation). This very short article could obviously be merged/redirected to a section within the Canadian Automobile Association article, at least for now and probably permanently, perhaps after calling for comments at its Talk page first. That does not require an AFD. That leaves open possibility of article's re-creation/expansion if substantial coverage is in fact found and someone is that interested; i would not rule out that possibility yet. And this should not be outright deleted, because having a redirect is better. --Doncram (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note this is one of a related series of AFDs:

Offhand, I think only one AFD should have been opened, or maybe none of them, because IMHO the first three probably should be redirected with or without Talk page discussion, but not needing an AFD, and the last should obviously be Kept (and IMO the current consensus of AFD discussion is for it to be kept). One multiple-item AFD could have been an alternative. Anyhow if you comment at one then please copy your comment over to the others. :) --Doncram (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Thanks. I'll remember that for next time. If the latter one is kept, despite there not appearing to be sources, there definitely isn't sufficient sources—especially enough reliable, independent sources on which to write articles of sufficient depth—to keep the other clubs. Few automobile associations are actually notable, especially when you consider my comments on Alberta Motor Association that they don't even disclose their annual reports or financial statements publicly (even to their own members). I can see some merit to merging them into, and rewriting, Canadian Automobile Association but you can't just say speedy keep without proving sources exist to write more than a stub. Thus, your vote should be Merge or Delete. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No way should the decision be "Delete", because it is obviously better to have at least a redirect in place, which also preserves original content and editor crediting in edit history. If material is in fact merged to main article, that should be done with an edit summary crediting editors of original article, and anyone very interested could find their way to that material and maybe import more of it, and/or would be able to re-create article if appropriate in the future, while still adhering to our copyright/crediting commitment to contributors, i.e. the Gnu Public License or whatever it was and whatever the current licensing is now.

I still prefer "Speedy Keep" as decision now, though I am not against your doing a sensible merge (leaving redirect) of the material for now (and if this is "Kept" you can still do that, even immediately. If there is an actual "Merge" or "Redirect" decision then that means we are taking the time to consider it in more detail than I want to do, and ruling that this should not be re-created by any editor in the future without their getting consensus somehow, like by an RFC. I'd rather leave that open, though I doubt anyone will re-create this if the merger is done sensibly. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, It's not a speedy keep. And, as Bearcat reminds us, we do have to prove that sources do exist. in terms of crediting the original author, there's not that much there worth crediting. I could've created this article, as written, in about 10 minutes. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:05, 17 October 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 Canadian Automobile Association. We'll see if that article's notability issue will finally be addressed. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAA South Central Ontario[edit]

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

As written, fails WP:NORG. All sources are primary sources. The remainder of the potential sources do not provide significant coverage. One noted book may support the historical overview, but that's only one source. There are no other sources which provide significant coverage. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "CAA South Central Ontario" reveals limited, if any, press mentions of or about the organization—all of it is either passing mentions, which mentions the organization in a tangential way, or which provides coverage of trivial matters such as surveys the organization commissioned. In fact, I couldn't even find further trivial press mentions re: new products and services. So, apparently, the press isn't even interested in covering this organization except for covering the occasional commissioned survey on Ontario road trips and the like. As such, fails current and future WP:SIGCOV coverage. I note, too, that few automobile associations meet WP:Notability, with only American Automobile Association attracting enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons cited above. Whispering^(t) 00:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (was: ~~Speedy Keep~~), because an AFD is not needed. Although "Merge" would be okay as a decision (but it requires more thought, because it would effectively put a lock on article re-creation). This very short article could obviously be merged/redirected to a section within the Canadian Automobile Association article, at least for now and probably permanently, perhaps after calling for comments at its Talk page first. That does not require an AFD. That leaves open possibility of article's re-creation/expansion if substantial coverage is in fact found and someone is that interested; i would not rule out that possibility yet. And this should not be outright deleted, because having a redirect is better. --Doncram (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note this is one of a related series of AFDs:

Offhand, I think only one AFD should have been opened, or maybe none of them, because IMHO the first three probably should be redirected with or without Talk page discussion, but not needing an AFD, and the last should obviously be Kept (and IMO the current consensus of AFD discussion is for it to be kept). One multiple-item AFD could have been an alternative. Anyhow if you comment at one then please copy your comment over to the others. :) --Doncram (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Thanks. I'll remember that for next time. If the latter one is kept, despite there not appearing to be sources, there definitely isn't sufficient sources—especially enough reliable, independent sources on which to write articles of sufficient depth—to keep the other clubs. Few automobile associations are actually notable, especially when you consider my comments on Alberta Motor Association that they don't even disclose their annual reports or financial statements publicly (even to their own members). I can see some merit to merging them into, and rewriting, Canadian Automobile Association but you can't just say speedy keep without proving sources exist to write more than a stub. Thus, your vote should be Merge or Delete. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No way should the decision be "Delete", because it is obviously better to have at least a redirect in place, which also preserves original content and editor crediting in edit history. If material is in fact merged to main article, that should be done with an edit summary crediting editors of original article, and anyone very interested could find their way to that material and maybe import more of it, and/or would be able to re-create article if appropriate in the future, while still adhering to our copyright/crediting commitment to contributors, i.e. the Gnu Public License or whatever it was and whatever the current licensing is now.

I still prefer "Speedy Keep" as decision now, though I am not against your doing a sensible merge (leaving redirect) of the material for now (and if this is "Kept" you can still do that, even immediately. If there is an actual "Merge" or "Redirect" decision then that means we are taking the time to consider it in more detail than I want to do, and ruling that this should not be re-created by any editor in the future without their getting consensus somehow, like by an RFC. I'd rather leave that open, though I doubt anyone will re-create this if the merger is done sensibly. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, okay, call it merge then. --Doncram (talk) 02:11, 18 October 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. Speedily deleted as a WP:G12 violation per Diannaa's tag. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinehouse Photography Club[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article about a local club, created by the person who runs is. Sources are some local coverage. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; the subject appears to be on only local interest. The author clearly has a conflict of interest. Luke ^Talk 23:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be notable. Unsure on local interest guidelines, though. So, for now, I'll say ~~Weak keep~~. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've changed my vote. The article is well cited. Formatting of citations could be improved to include name of publisher instead of just domain name, but that's minor. Some images may not be needed and I would encourage User:Dreerwin to look at WP:ER whereby she would propose in the page's Talk page what she would like to edit and have another editor peer review it, if she is works for, is on the board of, or a close friend or family member of anyone involved with this club. As to local restrictions on articles, I'm not aware of any. It appears locally notable to me. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, the WP:THREE are: CBCNews, Globalnews.ca, and Sask Polytec. Granted that third one is an alumni magazine, not the best RS. Here's a shorter piece from a radio station. There is also additional follow-up coverage from CBC [10] and Globalnews [11]. A GNG hardliner might not agree there are three in there, but the first two, without a doubt, are WP:SIGCOV, and so I think it meets the "multiple" requirement of GNG. – Levivich 16:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG heard of this on National news. Relevant add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.223.143 (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC) — 142.165.223.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Appears to be notable and credible with no conflict of interest. ~Verna Mogk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.110.58 (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC) — 24.78.110.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep passes GNG. Lightburst (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per comments, article possess notability. Barca (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Personally not wholly convinced this will have any lasting notability. But seem to have enough now to pass.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I trimmed 8KB of WP:coatrack items. Notable based on existing article sourcing. Lots of media coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Something very strange is going on here. For one, I noticed that the writing in this article was perfect. Earwig's copyvio detector led me to delete abotu 50% of the already trimmed article for copyvio. One source led me to the web site for the club, which consists of the Wikipedia page code and sources floating over a background image. In a four-day old article, that shows coordination between the club and the article author beyond what has been admitted. I am assuming now that the entire article is copyvio or COI product and/or paid/promotional editing (as the editing is quite good, but the article author does not match that quality level in the creator's own posts). It's all highly dubious. Pinging @Levivich, Lightburst, BarcrMac, Slatersteven, Walter Görlitz, and Melcous:. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  And lo and behold, two accounts above appear to be sockpuppets. Note the closing name.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for cleaning this up. Any copyvio sections should be removed, and if the whole article is copyvio then I think it must be deleted. (I haven’t checked myself.) If it’s not all copyvio, I’m ambivalent about deleting just because of COI/sock issues alone, but I see the argument for it (and against). If it’s deleted, recreation (of a policy-compliant version of the article) should be allowed, as I think the subject of the article is GNG notable, regardless of the problems with this version of the article. (BTW I didn’t get your ping, not sure if it went through). – Levivich 04:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still going for weak keep, but I note that [[12]] could be read (its not that well written, even by my standards) as an admission of COI. But there does still seem to be some reporting of the club.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep The article needs a rewrite to remove some the promotional content, and most of the reliable sources are really just feel-good or fluff pieces, but there are enough of them to make me think it could be a topic that someone might want to search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed a disconnect between Dreerwin's writing and the article prose. End result: the users that were posting here as Dreerwin and Halkett99 are socks. I'm going to just delete his/her/their contributions as they are both blocked and both !voted. If someone really wants to preserve that, then it is no problem to revert me. As the creator was a sock, had COI and the content looks to be all copyvio, I think delete is the only reasonable option here, unless someone wants to rewrite it from scratch. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have nominated the page for G12 speedy deletion; the material was copied from https://www.pinehousepc.com/pinehouse-photography-club. The overlap is visible using Earwig's tool when comparing with the Google text-only cached version. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 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 Canadian Automobile Association. We'll see if that article's notability issue will be finally addressed. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAA Saskatchewan[edit]

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

As written, fails WP:NORG. All sources are primary sources. The remainder of the potential sources do not provide significant coverage. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "CAA Saskatchewan" reveals limited, if any, press mentions of or about the organization—all of it is either passing mentions, which mentions the organization in a tangential way, or which provides coverage of trivial matters such as surveys the organization commissioned. In fact, I couldn't even find further trivial press mentions re: new products and services. So, apparently, the press isn't even interested in covering this organization except for covering the occasional commissioned survey on Saskatchewan's worst roads! As such, fails current and future WP:SIGCOV coverage. I note, too, that few automobile associations meet WP:Notability, with only American Automobile Association attracting enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (was: ~~Speedy Keep~~), because an AFD is not needed. Although "Merge" would be okay as a decision (but it requires more thought, because it would effectively put a lock on article re-creation). This very short article could obviously be merged/redirected to a section within the Canadian Automobile Association article, at least for now and probably permanently, perhaps after calling for comments at its Talk page first. That does not require an AFD. That leaves open possibility of article's re-creation/expansion if substantial coverage is in fact found and someone is that interested; i would not rule out that possibility yet. --Doncram (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note this is one of a related series of AFDs:

Offhand, I think only one AFD should have been opened, or maybe none of them, because IMHO the first three probably should be redirected with or without Talk page discussion, but not needing an AFD, and the last should obviously be Kept (and IMO the current consensus of AFD discussion is for it to be kept). One multiple-item AFD could have been an alternative. Anyhow if you comment at one then please copy your comment over to the others. :) --Doncram (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Thanks. I'll remember that for next time. If the latter one is kept, despite there not appearing to be sources, there definitely isn't sufficient sources—especially enough reliable, independent sources on which to write articles of sufficient depth—to keep the other clubs. Few automobile associations are actually notable, especially when you consider my comments on Alberta Motor Association that they don't even disclose their annual reports or financial statements publicly (even to their own members). I can see some merit to merging them into, and rewriting, Canadian Automobile Association but you can't just say speedy keep without proving sources exist to write more than a stub. Thus, your vote should be Merge or Delete. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No way should the decision be "Delete", because it is obviously better to have at least a redirect in place, which also preserves original content and editor crediting in edit history. If material is in fact merged to main article, that should be done with an edit summary crediting editors of original article, and anyone very interested could find their way to that material and maybe import more of it, and/or would be able to re-create article if appropriate in the future, while still adhering to our copyright/crediting commitment to contributors, i.e. the Gnu Public License or whatever it was and whatever the current licensing is now.

I still prefer "Speedy Keep" as decision now, though I am not against your doing a sensible merge (leaving redirect) of the material for now (and if this is "Kept" you can still do that, even immediately. If there is an actual "Merge" or "Redirect" decision then that means we are taking the time to consider it in more detail than I want to do, and ruling that this should not be re-created by any editor in the future without their getting consensus somehow, like by an RFC. I'd rather leave that open, though I doubt anyone will re-create this if the merger is done sensibly. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, It's not a speedy keep. And, as Bearcat reminds us, we do have to prove that sources do exist. in terms of crediting the original author, there's not that much there worth crediting. I could've created this article, as written, in about 10 minutes. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, okay, call it merge then. --Doncram (talk) 02:12, 18 October 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.

Canadian Automobile Association[edit]

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 by nominator, without prejudice to re-nomination in the future. At present, consensus favours keeping this article, albeit one in need of substantial clean-up, including removal of the puffery prose and adherence to WP:NPOV, and/or merging. As well, notability has not yet been established, and while we would need to prove sources exist, there may be further offline sources that should be at least checked before re-nominating. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

As written, fails WP:NORG. All sources are primary sources. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "Canadian Automobile Association" reveals limited, if any, press mentions of or about the organization—all of it is either passing mentions, which mentions the organization in a tangential way, or which provides coverage of trivial matters such as surveys the organization commissioned or new products and services. As such, fails current and future WP:SIGCOV coverage. I note, too, that few automobile associations meet WP:Notability, with only American Automobile Association attracting enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is one of a related series of AFDs:

--Doncram (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment As well, article, as written, is written entirely like WP:Advert and is another textbook example of WP:CORPSPAM that slipped through the cracks. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the nominator says, as written, the article does not pass WP:NORG; however, I think it's a reasonable argument that an organization with 6.4 million members is notable, so the problem here is that the article needs to be rewritten - and AFD is not cleanup.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Vulcan's Forge, 6.4 million members does not equal notable, though. Where's the significant coverage that would substantiate its notability? Note that press releases, or press coverage of press releases, related to company-commissioned surveys, employee departures or hires, tangential mentions, passing mentions, asset sales or purchases, or routine business arrangements, products and services, etc. does not count as significant coverage. With respect, you can't just throw around keep without proven, verifiable, independent, and exhaustive sources that establish its notability. Bearcat even said that we cannot keep articles on the basis that there may be significant sources available; we have to find them and prove they're there. I propose that we delete this article now, without prejudice to its re-creation, until such time as someone can do better (perhaps someone with access to local Ontario area libraries that can access offline sources. -Doug Mehus (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The question is whether the organisation is notable, not whether the article is good. Hill Times is not a primary sourceRathfelder (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder, But where's the sources that justify its notability? Press releases, company-commissioned surveys, tangential or passing mentions, and press coverage related to annual seasonal driving campaigns, executive or personnel changes, and business partnerships are trite and trivial coverage. Also, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. We don't have to keep this article just because it's been here for a long time. Most automobile clubs are not notable and thus don't have their own articles (case in point being BCAA, which redirects to here, indicating it may have had an article but was deleted due to lack of notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was founded in 1913, so it would be surprising if there were not print sources. I think with an organisation this old you have to prove its not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, I would remind you, though, we have to prove such sources exist; not that we suspect they exist. Why not delete it, without prejudice to someone with access to print sources eventually re-creating it? As such, it will go through AfC process and be a much better article at that time. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The component organisations have their own articles. Without this they are less useful. And actually Google gives me lots of references to the CAA. It's often quoted in reputable sources.Rathfelder (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, Being quoted in reputable sources doesn't equal WP:Notability, though. The coverage has to be significant (see WP:SIG), and the organization has to have at least five sources that meet all five notability criteria. As such, I haven't been able to find any sources that establish this, using Google web, news, and book searches. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since when have five sources been required? And what has WP:SIG got to do with it? Rathfelder (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, Oops, sorry, meant WP:SIGCOV, which I see is the same as WP:GNG. Have a look at WP:ORGCRIT for the five source requirement. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGCRIT does not say 5 sources are required. It says the organisation must have significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources.Rathfelder (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, Okay, but it doesn't say what constitutes "multiple". I would argue more than only two sources that meet all five criteria should be required. 3 would be barely passable; 4-5 would be what I constitute a minimally passing requirement. Also, WP:ORGDEPTH has to be considered such that if we were to strip out the puff sections from this article, we'd be able to write more than a company perennial company stub. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search found the Canadian Encyclopedia entry for Automobile Assocaitions, which gives two paragraphs on CAA history and numbers. With an entity this old and large, there's going to be reliable coverage out there. The Interior (Talk) 19:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Interior, Okay, that's one. Can you find at least two more instead of saying there's got to be more? Doug Mehus (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. This is obviously a huge and notable retail-oriented organization touching millions of persons' lives. I am not bothering to read the nomination or any other discussion, it is not necessary. But for the heck of it, why are you not trying to delete the American Automobile Association? I will probably not see any reply if there is one, though. --Doncram (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, It's not to say keep though without proving there are sufficient, multiple independent and reliable sources exist that take into account WP:ORGDEPTH. You haven't done that. You're just saying, "it's old, it's got a lot of members; therefore, it's notable". I would remind you, and others, that admins consider arguments, not votes. Simply voting keep without supporting evidence could still see the article deleted per WP:NOTVOTE. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I disagree. It is enough for us to have reasonably certain belief that plenty of sourcing does exist. Someone above said this was created in 1913(?) and there will exist plenty of off-line sourcing. Someone else suggested that to delete you would have to prove sources do not exist, which seems a bit much to me, it is very hard to prove a negative. But you would have to make a case that it is probable or likely that sources do not exist or could not be found if someone wanted to make the effort (e.g. by visiting any big library in Canada). Offhand, nothing you assert along those lines will change my view in a Bayesian updating way, because I hold nearly 100% certainty (prior probability) belief that plenty of history about the organization exists, based on my experience with this kind of stuff (you don't have to accept that I am any kind of expert, but I do happen to have a lot of experience on this kind of stuff). Perhaps it might help you to consider what happens when an article about any historic place listed on a major historical registry gets nominated for deletion: it gets shot down immediately because from experience/knowledge we (or many editors) might know that that the specific registry generally requires lots of documentation to exist, and we don't need to see it to make a decision. Even though technically for U.S. National Register of Historic Places registry listings, say, I know there a few cases where it turns out documentation in fact does not exist, and eventually it may be better to merge/redirect the topic to a list-article row, say. Because without making the effort to request/find offline documentation, we already know in advance that there is very high probability (say 99.5%) that plenty of documentation exists.

And, wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP, so please don't be too strident about demanding that others come forward with sources that you like, right away, now. It is okay for you to put a negative tag or two on the article as a whole, or in a few specific places, calling for more explicit sourcing though. Hope this helps. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I disagree that AfD can't be used for merger proposals that generate little traction, but arguably, what I should've just done was been bold and merged the articles, fixed up as best I could, and tagged the articles. I was mainly hoping to delete the redirects, though. That said, if this is kept, I'm willing to work on cleaning them up, removing the obvious puffery and lack of WP:NPOV and merging them. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i think now we are not far apart. If by your first phrase you mean something like:

When a merger proposal is not likely to attract sufficient attention to establish a new consensus, but there could still exist opposition, opening an AFD can be helpful to get the decision made reasonably well (like because the AFD system attracts regular AFD editors and usually establishes a pretty good consensus)

then yes I agree. Yes also about BRD here, I think, though I see some good advice about using BRD on mergers, or not, at your Talk page. I hear you wanted to delete the redirects, but I don't see why you would want that, and IMO that would be wrong because a) we should seek alternatives to deletion (see wp:ATD?) and b) doing so would lose the content and credit attribution that otherwise is kept in the edit history. Useful for meeting our obligation to past contributors, and for allowing me or anyone else to review the merger you might do and maybe move over a little more or not. I see elsewhere u say you could have created those articles in 10 minutes, but I don't necessarily agree, and even if so then it is still proper to leave credit in place to the original editors for having identified the topic as notable and for their doing what they did, including making judgment about what to include or not out of more material than we can see. And that leaving that credit in place is more important if it turns out in the future that the article should be re-established, say if plenty of good sourcing is found or some majorly newsworthy event happens. I think we agree about going forward. Thank you for all your consideration about these topics and the AFDs. I am glad you are contributing. This is probably all for me. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, yes, I can see we're not that far apart, though I'd still disagree on your use of speedy keep in the other articles. Merge can be used in AfD discussions or, if you feel on keeping it but don't have an opinion as to standalone or merging, then you could just keep. My understanding is "speedy keep" has special meaning, per Speedy Keep. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Where I'd disagree is on the need to credit prior editors. Articles are routinely deleted, re-created, revised, and the like, without necessarily attributing the original creator. Content on Wikipedia is licensed under a CreativeCommons ShareAlike (same, or better) license terms, not necessarily with the requirement to attribute. Case in point is other sources, including Everipedia, have re-used Wikipedia content but don't necessarily highlight the preceding editing history. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content is licensed under a CreativeCommons-Attribution-ShareAlike license, but that means only crediting Wikipedia, not the individual editors. By editing Wikipedia, you agree to give up your claim of separate attribution. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just want to make something clear regarding the number of sources, per WP:MULTSOURCES, the number of sources required is not set in stone. It is the judgment of the community on what multiple means. Rollidan (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rollidan, Yes, thanks...has there been any discussion in terms of what constitutes multiple sources? I'd argue more than two; three that meet WP:ORGCRIT would acceptable, but 4-5 would be better. At the same time, WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGDEPTH, as applicable, need to be considered. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuchoon[edit]

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

Only reference is to their own website, which is defunct. Not obviously notable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N; no secondary reliable sources can be found, and the only source cited no longer exists. Luke ^Talk 00:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find is Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N Website is even defunct. --Dreerwin (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of passing WP:GNG or anything else. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ATM Network[edit]

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

As written, does not meet WP:Notability guidelines; lacks WP:CORPDEPTH, and is another example of WP:CORPSPAM that slipped through the cracks. Additionally, it has no prospect of future notability as it was acquired by Cardtronics, which, in turn, does not even have a Wikipedia page because it may or may not be notable. As well, a Google advanced phrase search for "ATM Network" or "ATM Network" + "Phil Rock" (the company's apparent founder) reveals only a few results, most of which are either circular sources to blogs and digital-only pseudo-news publications. Coverage is nearly non-existent and often the sort of trivial, non-significant matters. As such, fails WP:SIG. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment - I notified the page creator, so I checked out their profile, and found their account was blocked by an administrator following a WP:Sockpuppet investigation. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP; the only source available online is their website, and coverage by secondary sources is non-existent. Also clear WP:CORPSPAM. Luke ^Talk 21:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP and GNG. I cannot find any "independent content" references, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Andrew Base (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted. There is no reasonable prospect that this will survive by further input. bd2412 T 21:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Rock[edit]

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

As written, does not appear to meet WP:Notability guidelines, specifically, WP:GNG. Additionally, cited references #7-9 are circulation references for cited # 3. A Google phrase search for "Phil Rock" + "ATM Network" (the company he apparently founded, of which also likely lacks nobility per WP:NCORP), reveals a few blog and digital-only pseudo-news articles—most, or all of, which offer only either tangential, passing mentions, or which provide coverage of trivial matters. Does not meet WP:SIG. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lead appears to claim that he invented the ATM. In fact, he merely owns an independent ATM company. Even if he were the first one, that is not a notable achievement. Bearian (talk)
Delete Seems very puffery to me and I can't locate any decent references and doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for people. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Klemens Fischer[edit]

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

Foreword: I have admittedly not spent much time researching this as I stumbled across this article while busy with something else.

This article appears to be entirely written by its subject as an autobiography. The only significant contributors BeatrixESMT (talk · contribs), KHFischer (talk · contribs) and Beatrix_Becker_2015 all appear to have some connection, along with a variety of IPs that all geolocate to the same area as the subject of this article (194.78.56.186 (talk · contribs)). The article itself falls fowl of a variety of BLP rules such as WP:BLPSELFPUB. A fair portion of the listed sources in the article have nothing to do with Fischer himself and seem to just be about other things in the article to fluff up the number of refs.

In summary this seems to me to be pure self-promotion (WP:AUTOBIO, WP:SELFPROMOTE), barely more than a resume, and doesn't pass various notability requirements. The corresponding German wikipedia article has also been written by the same accounts listed above. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody without a conflict of interest can do better. I can't read German, so I'm not equipped to determine whether he has enough coverage in reliable sources to clear WP:GNG — but this is written like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, is based entirely on primary sources (his own staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers, etc.) rather than reliable ones, and is stating nothing about him that counts as "inherently" notable enough to make it necessary to keep an article that's written and sourced this badly. And the German article, as written, isn't any better — it's following exactly the same format (the English one is literally a straight translation of it, in fact) and citing exactly the same primary sources, and should rightly be deleted on DE too. If a German speaker can do better, be my guest. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ping User:Gerda Arendt. She speaks German and may be able to help form an opinion.4meter4 (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: regardless on who wrote this, he is a professor (Honorarprofessor) in Cologne and a politician for the European Union. The article has too much detail for my taste, and seems a not too elegant translation, with bare urls for refs, but I see no convincing reason to delete. Improve. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: does being a professor and being a low-level politician inherently mean notability? Also looking at the official website, his claim to being the Head of Department at the Permanent Representation of Austria to the European Union seems blatantly false based on [13] and based on this list he seems to be one of hundreds of people doing the same job, I'm not convinced they're all notable. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't automatically keep every article just because somebody uses the word "improve" in the AFD discussion — we wouldn't even be able to delete outright hoaxes anymore if all you had to do to save an article is speculate that better sources might be out there somewhere than anybody has actually found yet. Rather, it has to be shown that better sources definitively exist to improve it with before a poorly sourced article can get kept. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply: I didn't even say "keep". I also didn't argue for having him as professor, but a politician who is also a professor. In this, I read "head of a department, which is not the same as "head ofthe department. Looking further: this even says which department, "Länder and Regional Affairs". - Senior Research Fellow in Cologne. - 2018 when Austria had the EU presidency - I was busy, and still have many more urgent things to catch up. - (signature much later, sorry) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 21:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep = he;s an ambassador from Austria to EU. Normal editing can remove the cruft. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure promotional article. If he's notable, we can WP:TNT and recreate, but none of the sources pass WP:GNG. Not convinced on the WP:NPROF, or that being an honorary professor would convey notability. SportingFlyer T·C 05:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice towards recreation in the future if an editor can prove notability and write in a non-promotionial manner, but the current sources don't demonstrate that WP:GNG is passed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reliably sourced subject with a poorly named article. Renaming can be handled outside AFD. RL0919 (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beatification and canonization process in 1914[edit]

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

The topic of this article is not encyclopedic. There is nothing special about the year 1914 as it relates the history of changes to the canonization process. This article is poorly sourced and appears to be mostly lifted from the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Ostealthy (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. The article is a very good encyclopaedic treatment of a notable subject. It just has nothing much to do with 1914. Possible new name would be Beatification and canonization process (before 1983). Mccapra (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as has reliable sources coverage such as the Catholic encyclopedia. It's not a copyvio as the 1913 encyclopedia is in the public domain and is properly attributed at the bottom of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kirstyn Pearce[edit]

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

Article about semi-professional soccer player who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was included in a bundled AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Logue) nine years ago, but the rationale for keeping the article was unclear (and likely a problem of dissecting the large bundle of nominated articles). There have been no substantive improvements to the article in the past 9 years and nothing available online indicates the potential that the article could pass WP:GNG - I could only find a match report that mentions her twice.Jogurney (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with OP's and Giant's reasoning. No significant coverage/ WP:IRS via ProQuest search. Cabrils (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree. No significant coverage --Dreerwin (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonie Attwill[edit]

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

Article about semi-professional soccer player who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was included in a bundled AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Logue) nine years ago, but the rationale for keeping the article was unclear (and likely a problem of dissecting the large bundle of nominated articles). There have been no substantive improvements to the article in the past 9 years and nothing available online indicates the potential that the article could pass WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with OP's and Giant's reasoning. I found a minor reference to Attwill in a local paper in her capacity as a local school physical education teacher (no longer a semi professional footballer) via a ProQuest search, so this reference was far from significant coverage and WP:IRS. Cabrils (talk) 00:09, 12 October 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 for deletion for not meeting WP:POLITICIAN, at least among the commenters who keep their socks on their feet rather than their hands. RL0919 (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamrul Hasan Nasim[edit]

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

Failed as per WP:POLITICIAN. Citations do not meet the original criteria. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to delete. He is not like traditional politicians. He was not born in political family. he struggled and Bangladesh people knows him as Reformist of Bangladesh nationalist party -BNP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aysha Akter Arin (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC) — Aysha Akter Arin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nomination. Kayser Ahmad (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. — T. 13:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

include a citation- http://www.newagebd.net/print/article/50707

https://www.observerbd.com/2016/01/18/131706.php https://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/the-curious-case-asol-bnp-196693 https://bdnews24.com/politics/2016/01/18/ashol-bnp-says-revolution-to-reform-bnp-will-last-seven-days-17-hours https://www.daraz.com.bd/products/nettrito-by-kamrul-hasan-nasim-i114966180-s1032842702.html https://www.daily-sun.com/printversion/details/107451/‘Real-BNP’-run-away-being-chased-by-BNP-men https://www.dhakatribune.com/uncategorized/2016/01/19/whats-going-on-with-the-bnp http://en.banglatribune.com/politics/news/17805/Nasim-of-‘Ashol-BNP’-seeks-talks-with-PM https://www.risingbd.com/english/asol-bnp-gives-ultimatum/31147 https://www.bangladeshpost.net/posts/aparna-murad-share-screen-in-lilith-1550

I will trying to provide related information. Thanx.Aysha Akter Arin (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC) Aysha[reply]

Source: https://www.daily-sun.com/amp/post/393377

https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/news/104927/Asol-BNP-again-attempts-to-enter-BNP-office?fbclid=IwAR2-xBIvXAmqEdA2R7vnkWOYjELDsobhYcj8t-zU5ClQ4x4g-RkzfkiNdwI http://en.banglatribune.com/entertainment/news/61629/‘Lilith’-trailer-hits-the-internet https://somefind.com/bangladesh/who-is-this-ishwar-mitra-39-in-39-lilith-39-trailer-bdnews24-com/ https://www.201tube.tv/watch/P5SMCd4P9r4

Hopefully I will provide all the real information.Aysha Akter Arin (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC) Aysha[reply]

Delete. I check all of reference but i couldn't find which source pass on WP:POLITICIAN. and he isn't notable Journalist because The Daily Amader isn't a notable newspaper. an also fail WP:RS becouse i don't find his any biography related news all of source are not with him.--Nahal^(T) 12:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I am strongly opposed to the removal." He is well known name of the political and cultural arena of Bangladesh. A few of news has given him a clear idea about him. Kamrul Hassan Nasim is the editor-in-chief of the kriralok--- which is leading and pioneer sports-related magazine in Bangladesh, Their online version is very popular today and going on full swing. Naimul Islam Khan is one of the best editor of the country's national daily. And somebody telling that this ( Amader Orthoneeti- amadershomoy.com) is not a significant national daily ! Unfortunate !Jabed Omar Astron (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Jabed — Jabed Omar Astron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

— Jabed Omar Astron (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aysha Akter Arin. Cabayi (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Serb Republic[edit]

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

Possible WP:HOAX. The unification of Republika Srpska and the Republic of Serbian Krajina may have been planned at some point, but the two para-states never went through with it. The creation of Greater Serbia was certainly the prime objective of the two para-states, but there is no indication that this proposed state would have been called the United Serb Republic. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplication of Greater Serbia. FOARP (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a de facto fork of Greater Serbia; I agree with FOARP. Bearian (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the infobox and contents with the Greater Serbia. Kutyava (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine the Great Cross[edit]

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

This cross was never constructed and the mere fact that someone thought of constructing such a cross at one point in time does not mean that this article meets our WP:NOTABILITY standards. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merely planning to do something doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to notability. The project was a great idea, but it went nowhere.Knox490 (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough sources to justify an article. Project not notable on its own.DrSangChi (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Peace Park[edit]

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

The key word here is "proposed". This proposed park never came into being. Hence, I fail to see why we would have an article for it. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear violation of WP:CBALL. Just because the park is planned to happen, doesn't mean it will happen; it could be cancelled or abandoned. Possibly fails WP:N; there doesn't seem to be much, if any, significant coverage, and is possibly only locally known. Luke ^Talk 19:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth R. Rosen[edit]

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

As an OTRS agent, when the subject of an article contacts OTRS requesting deletion, we generally explain the inclusion criteria to the subject, and work with the subject to identify inaccuracies and corrections.

In this case, however, I agree with the subject that he does not need an article here. I have examined every source cited. Aside from the dead links, none of the sources provide the required significant coverage of the subject to meet the general notability guideline, and most of the ones cited are either written by the subject or are trivial mentions. If all that is removed, there's hardly anything left of the article.

The only claim to notability might be a couple of obscure journalism awards[14][15] — and the coverage gives Rosen only trivial mentions. Therefore I agree with Mr Rosen that this article is a valid candidate for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since nominating this for deletion, the non-value-added sources and associated text have been removed, leaving hardly anything left to merit a stand-alone article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The awards are not on a level that would make recipients notable, especially since at least one was awarded to a team of reporters. Not everyone employed as a journalist by the New York Times is notable, and short of that we have no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 11 October 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Artemevna Buturlina[edit]

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

~~A thoroughly nonnotable Russian noblewife. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn after expansion based on Russian sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)`[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Numerous appearences in Russian-language sources with reference to her art history, family life, expatriate life in Italy, and connections to Pushkin. Have expanded the article a little and will add more, time permitting. Spokoyni (talk) 15:52, 16 October 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 International recognition of Kosovo. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence[edit]

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

This article's contents can easily be copy-pasted to International recognition of Kosovo. Currently, that article's Brazil reaction box redirects to here. If Brazil was a key player in the Kosovo dispute, having an article such as this might be warranted, but given Brazil's marginal role with regards to the dispute, having a separate article is uncalled for. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge into Brazil–Kosovo relations~~ Wait.. no such thing? Merge per nom. E.g. Botswana's and Cambodia's reactions are doing well in merged state. BTW, there are several articles of this type (i.e., of marginal bilateral relations), see the infobox. Anybody wants to take care of them as well? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Brazil–Kosovo relations may not exist, but Brazil–Serbia relations does... *shrug* Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 20:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interested people can move the required content or rewrite anywhere else. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Usman[edit]

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

Article about a politician that was never elected nor has and coverage beyond being registered as a candidate. No proof of WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Just WP:ROUTINE mentions of his appointment as candidate. Got only 48 votes and was not elected, so also fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.Subject was not elected.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:08, 10 October 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 (self-withdrawal). Didn't realize that a relevant redirect target was created between nominating for PROD and bringing here. Withdrawing this nomination, and will redirect to Selfie of Success (non-admin closure) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burra Venkatesham[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is largely limited to either reviews of their debut book or quotes on behalf of their position as an Indian Administrative Service officer (which is not enough for WP:NPOLITICIAN). The subject's debut book, Selfie of Success would appear to be notable, but one notable work is not enough for WP:NAUTHOR. PROD placed by me, dePROD by an IP editor who made no other changes. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a redirect ? ∯WBG^converse 17:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric, oops, when I had created the PROD, that article didn't exist yet, and I didn't check again before nominating here. I'm going to go ahead and withdraw this as redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 10 October 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 Velika Kruša massacre. Selectively. Sandstein 17:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Krusha e Madhe[edit]

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

This article is essentially a coatrack with elements of original research and WP:PROMOTION that combines some cursory information about a village in Kosovo, backstory about a wartime massacre that took place there, the post-war activities of some NGOs in the village, and then essentially advertises the village's agricultural products, their prices and where they can be bought. If there is a paragraph or two of encyclopedic value here, I see no reason why it can't be copy-pasted onto Velika Kruša massacre. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Concur about the COATRACK issues, delete it or merge the relevant bits elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creffpublic (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WTF??? Move to Krusha e Madhe (red link as of nom time) and edit accordingly. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Velika Kruša massacre seems like the most sensible approach. Most of this article appears to be about the massacre that we already have an article about, and this article appears better developed than the latter. Certainly it should be edited to remove OR/POV content rather than merged wholesale, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion on what quotes to keep, what amount of quote content to keep for each entry, and whether or not the article should be merged are best welcome at Talk:Reactions to the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2019 Rojava offensive[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Contains mostly the expected diplomatic platitudes, including by countries about whose opinion nobody in the region cares, in the form of flag salad. Excessive detail. Can be summarized in a few sentences in the main article, 2019 Rojava offensive. Sandstein 16:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree and Keep. The purpose of the article is not to be news, but instead to clear out the "reactions" section of it's parent article, which had gotten quite bloated. Faced with the undesirable alternatives of deleting relevant information or making the article too long to be comfortably readable, the splitting off of the reactions section offers a moderate middle ground, which allows for the most significant reactions to be summarized within the parent article, while maintaining the full list for willing readers on a separate page. This is very similar to what was done with Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Reactions to the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, as well as many other articles. Goodposts (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge. A legitimate sub-page. A part of the content does not qualify as WP:RECENTISM. The page should be fixed, not deleted. In the really significant international events (such as that one) some reactions are important and should not be lost. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge this article, on other operations, (Operation Euphrates Shield, and Operation Olive Branch, these reactions were on the main article. Beshogur (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be "merge"? My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was already under Operation Peace Spring article. Beshogur (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. As for its "purpose ... not to be news, but instead to clear out the "reactions" section of it's[sic] parent article, which had gotten quite bloated"; well, indeed it had, but the solution is to remove the platitudes, summarise the remaining quotes, and let the three sentences you are left with remain in the parent article. Not create a horrible NOTNEWS-busting list of politicians' quotes from Twitter. This is just shifting the problem somewhere else. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This would entail the deletion of a huge amount of information needlessly. Feel free to do the summarization on the parent article, but the child article is fully legitimate in expressing the full list of reactions, as many other articles have done so far. Some readers may be interested in reading about the official position of a perticular country, a regional bloc, or would simply like more information on how the world in general reacted to this event. This is the purpose of the article. Goodposts (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. As regards "the child article is fully legitimate in expressing the full list of reactions", please see why we are not an indiscriminate collection of "stuff". If it is kept, the article will have to be drastically trimmed in any case.--The Huhsz (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – contains more than "platitudes". See for instance the reaction of the EU commissioner for migration on the day before the announced invasion. Wakari07 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but please merge it into the current Rojava Offensive article as this is important information as it does have obvious historic value.Takinginterest01 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge -- the vast majority of material here is notable. Whether it is placed here or on 2019 Rojava offensive is a style choice.--Calthinus (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every reaction documented here carries some geopolitical significance; this isn't like the reaction to a massive terrorist attack where everyone can be expected to denounce it in language identical to their response to every other terrorist attack. Additionally, this seems to have been split off from the main article because it was already too long; if it was believed that this information could be reasonably summarized, then this would have occurred on the main article. In regards to WP:ICONDECORATION, the flags are helpful for quickly finding country responses, so they serve more than a decorative purpose. Regardless, AfD is not clean-up; the desirability of the flag symbols does not impact the appropriateness of there being an article for this topic. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The strong and virtually unanimous condemnations of Turkey go far beyond 'normal' reactions this time. The reactions are relevant, and backed up by ample sources. Keeping them all in the article on the Turkish invasion of Rojava would be too long, making a separate article relevant. Jeppiz (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High ranking and unanimous condemnations of the aggressor. BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – For already given reasons. If the operation ends up being short, this article should be merged. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Information is relevant for an ongoing event. Provides consistency in that 'international reactions' are recorded on Wikipedia pages for many events that have occurred (not just military operations). Maybe to make the article a bit easier on the eyes to split the respective nations into continental areas if possible. If not then a merge might be the best option. Information should definitely be kept though. DarkLight753 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It would be better to have this be its own article than to jam it into the Rojava offensive one, and other military events have had their own pages dedicated to reactions to said event. However as mentioned previously, if the operation is short, merging this article would be better. Fernsong (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Presenting a wide overview of international reaction has a significance beyond the conflict itself. It is a nice illustration of undeclared alliances in international politics. Darwwin (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the entirety of the article back into 2019 Rojava offensive. I don't have an opinion whether it should be a separate article, but all the information here should be kept. I found this AFD because I went looking for this information. It's an aspect of the main event, and not inherently more newsy than the main event. This will be useful information to retain in the long term. -Pine457 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and merge) - as per sentiments expressed by @Pine457.Resnjari (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate article. Turkey's actions have attracted lots of attention, and might have a wide range of consequences. A topic that deserves to have its own article, though it might need to be restructured. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (have already voted Keep/Merge above) at this point we may as well close this per WP:SNOW, and instead discuss how/if to merge it with the main article.--Calthinus (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a very helpful colored-in world map image, that was removed from the main article for some reason. It would be quite practical to keep the image on the main article to provide a good at a glance overview, while keeping the actual reactions themselves to the reaction page. That way we maximise both information density and article readability, imo. Goodposts (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge obviously! Worldwide opposition to this offensive is just too notable for us to just ignore and delete the article. The sources make this fact quite clear. The information can either stay here or be merged with the main article but not be deleted. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The so-called "diplomatic platitudes" from the United States, in particular, have achieved wide distribution and notability. - Jandalhandler (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the information here should be kept its helpful. PakEditor14 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These "reactions" articles are the cruft-iest most useless list pages on Wikipedia. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, fails WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - per Spirit of Eagle. Andysmith248 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Well-referenced and notable. Keivan.f^Talk 22:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others-- BoothSift 00:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Obviously need to keep. Far more than "platitudes"; either that or merge with main. Useful for details and reactions, yes? Also, stop allowing Turkish nationalists to edit this and the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.23.63.30 (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep This is a clearly escalating situation in Syria, to delete this article would be extremely counterproductive at this point.Theprussian (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Well-referenced and notable. Will no doubt become more useful in the future, given the escalating and changing military situation. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable and well sourced. Felicia (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gives option on the current event. --cyrfaw (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and Merge into the main article. While most of the reactions are noteworthy and significant, it is not necessary to provide the exact quotation of the words chosen by every foreign ministry (this article is a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM). I'm sure we can summarise the reactions and move them back into the main article.VR _talk 22:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current state is a bit of a long and disorganized, but the topic is notable and the article has a place here. Sourcing and notability aren't the real issue here, but the WP:NOTNEWS arguments are a fair point, particularly for less significant world events. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:05, 18 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 23:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernetz (township)[edit]

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

Article about a geographic location, not properly referenced as clearing WP:GEOLAND: this is a township in the geographic surveying unit sense of the term, not in the "community where people live" sense, so it doesn't fall under our notability standards for populated places. For example, it's within an unorganized territory, which a place that was a township in the municipal sense could not be — and the entire unorganized territory had a 2016 census population of just 10 people total, all of whom live in the hamlet of Despinassy and none of whom live in a community named Bernetz. But the only source here is a government directory that indiscriminately lists every single geographic name that exists within Quebec at all, and thus is not a notability-clinching source in and of itself if there are no other sources to support any content more substantive than just "this exists, the end" — but it's not even really worth redirecting to Lac-Despinassy, because that article doesn't mention Bernetz at all. And if we couldn't compile a comprehensive list of all the geographic townships within Lac-Despinassy, there's no reason why Bernetz would warrant being singled out for special mention denied the others, either. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge I don't see why Lac-Despinassy can't have a list of townships within it, but as it stands there are no sources discussing this place or evidence that is is an actual community. Reywas92^Talk 16:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Per Reywas92. Rockphed (talk) 17:37, 11 October 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 and redirect to Double Dealer (disambiguation). RL0919 (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doubledealer[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. The current reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When an article on a fictional character spends all of its time in universe, it is a bad sign. I could not find any reliable sources about this character. Verba Delenda Est! Rockphed (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others and redirect to Double Dealer (disambiguation) - valid search target. ミラ P 17:32, 17 October 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 Herpetology. Since the nominator has changed their mind and nobody else has expressed any interest in deleting the article, I'm calling this now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheloniology[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources about Cheloniology. Thus fails general notability guideline. Also WP:NOTDICTIONARY

Article has been puffed up with content about turtles rather then content about Cheloniology. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 14:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 14:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a fairly large field of biology. The lack of sources is absurd but so is the idea that we should delete this article. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herpetology - for now. I share the suspicion that there should be an article here, but I'm unable to point out obviously suitable sources right off the bat. Looking at the other subdisciplines noted at Herpetology, only Batrachology has its own article, and that's functionally unsourced as well - not a good role model. Current article state is obviously undesirable: not a single on-point source, and inflated with lots of related-at-one-remove material. - Possibly a subject expert with a good library can solve this in a minute. Dropping a note to Faendalimas here, who I fully expect to have All The Books :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Herpetology. Most of the article is about turtles themselves, not about the study of turtles, and the rest is largely tautological which can be covered in the herpetology article perfectly well. Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect /merge to Herpetology. Although this is a field I work in as @Elmidae: was clearly getting at, thanks for the heads up, it is a field that uses all the same resources, terminology for the most part as Herpetology. Its also actually spelt Chelonology. But like I say to focus the article on Chelonology would be a reproduction of herpetology. Although some may feel this is a big field, it really is not. There are only some 375 species of turtles alive, probably only 7-800 scientists worldwide in the field and that includes all facets of science and many of the more prolific keepers as well. Turtles are popular it is true, people tend to like them. But it is in the end a study of one group of reptiles which means it is herpetology. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herpetology. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herpetology, especially in light of the comment by Faendalimas about the spelling. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:37, 12 October 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 19:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scahrossar[edit]

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

Non-notable D&D character TTN (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even in Dungeons & Dragons, she is described as a "fairly minor" deity. In real life, she doesn't seem to have any sort of notability. Not a very active user (talk) 12:53, 11 October 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 19:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatea[edit]

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

Non-notable D&D character TTN (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. D&D is a commercial property, and since every source is from that properties publishers, this is essentially using Wikipedia as advertising for these products. Every article like this should be supported by at least one reliable, independent source. Grayfell (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not seeing any independent (much less reliable and significant) sources in my cursory search of the internet. Rockphed (talk) 17:24, 11 October 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. It's heretical, anyway, so extermination is for the best. Sandstein 19:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while I am leaning delete based on every current source being primary (the Black Library is Games Workshop's fiction publishing label), I would rather do at least a cursory internet search before I cast that vote. Does anyone have a suggestion for getting more than the 78 (bad) hits that the google link above gets, but less than the 2.3 million hits that moving the quotes to be around "Warhammer 40,000" gives? The Inquisition is an important part of WH40K, but I am not convinced it is notable. What complicates things is that there is a video game series, "Warhammer 40,000: Inquisitor". There seem to be 2 or 3 games in the series that seem to have received reviews in various gaming publications, so the series of games might be notable, and definitely is destroying my ability to search the internet. Rockphed (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) is not notable enough for a standalone article, this is certainly not notable enough and fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:08, 13 October 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 Horrid Henry. Notability as an individual character is not met, but suitable for inclusion in the parent article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Peter[edit]

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

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources, only source is main topic itelf (in-universe referencing), definitely does not have a cult following. Best deleted. 109.228.137.207 (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and improve The character Perfect Peter is the brother of the titular character Horrid Henry of the Horrid Henry cartoon and storybook series. A simple Google search spews out multiple references to the character. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7356688/Anhgamat (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete @Anhgamat: IMDb is not a reliable source, searched Google and no relevant reliable sources. 38.117.105.189 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38.117.105.189 (registered to Cogent Communications) - what information in the article do you believe is false and inaccurate? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: This IP user and the (IP) nominator are both using open proxies, and in my opinion they are probably the same user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless sources can be provided, this article currently shows no signs of notability. TTN (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Sometimes our mischievous protagonist triumphs over Perfect Peter, his tidy, pious younger brother ... Horrid Henry and Perfect Peter’s competition for control of the TV does lead Henry to devilish attempts to thwart his irritating brother" [16] Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Horrid Henry as one of the main characters in the series which is verifiable as having sold over 20 million copies worldwide. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)\[reply]
Merge with Horrid Henry. There is critical appraisal of Peter (e.g. [17]) that would belong in a GA/FA version of the Horrid Henry series article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main Horrid Henry article would seem to be the most sensible option as outlined above. I suspects character lacks the level of notability and critical coverage to have their own article. Dunarc (talk) 19:25, 17 October 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 Horrid Henry. Notability as an individual character is not met, but suitable for inclusion in the parent article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moody Margaret[edit]

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

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources, only source is main topic itelf (in-universe referencing), definitely does not have a cult following. Best deleted. 109.228.137.207 (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Horrid Henry as one of the main characters in the series which is verifiable as having sold over 20 million copies worldwide. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Notability isn't established. TTN (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Horrid Henry as there is some element of her character that belongs on a well done version of that topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 17 October 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 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

زهرا جهرمی[edit]

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

Article not in English Hughesdarren (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recreation of page deleted via WP:BLPPROD. 165.91.13.55 (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not on the grounds given by the nominator. Afd for not being in English is premature for pages that haven't received the prescribed consideration per WP:Pages needing translation into English. However, delete as a recreation after WP:BLPPROD without supplying any qualifying sources. Largoplazo (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete in accordance to A1. It is a fragment. It starts in medias res and ends in medias res. Also, I strongly suspect copyright violation, but I'm going to have difficulty procuring proof. flowing dreams (talk page) 17:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced BLP, without a clear assertion of notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreated BLPPROD, no sources. Lectonar (talk) 06:34, 11 October 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 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Geleijn[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCYC. Only raced at junior level so far. Will next year be part of Team Jumbo–Visma Academy, a development team for Team Jumbo–Visma, which is unlikely to participate then in the races which qualify under WP:NCYC either. Fram (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reasons are:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of those pages. I'll be honest I never read that WP:NCYC section, I was not aware of that, and I do find that understandable and logical. However, the amount of pages which fail the WP:NCYC section is just massive. One random example I came across after 3 minutes of search is Mattia Viel. My suggestion is that the WP:NCYC list is updated, mainly to include that if a rider rides for a WT/PCT(/CT) Team, then that should be considered notable. Like Mattia Viel, he rides for PCT and has done many HC races, should his page be deleted? Also most of the pages I created, like Hidde, that guy will most definitely win big races in the future. But I do understand, recognise and respect that these pages fail WP:NCYC (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the NCYC rules are too strict. Even so, there still is a difference between e.g. Viel, who rides for a procontinental team, and the above three, who will ride for a continental team. Compared to other sports, WorldTour is first division (about 20 teams), Procontinental is second division (25 teams), and Continental is "lower divisions" (many, many teams). Most cyclists never make it out of the Continental circuit, no matter how talented they may be. Fram (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is true, and WP:NCYC should be more detailed as to the rider's success, like Hidde van Veenendaal should probably not be deleted, as he is already quite successful, while some others have little to no notable results. Pro Continental riders, should definitely meet the guidelines, so should riders who compete in HC/WT events, so we should probably adjust the criteria.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none of these cyclist are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 14 October 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 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bourada[edit]

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

Not sure that this illusionist is notable. The article seems to have been created by a single-purpose account (the user page redirects to the mainspace article). There are a few sources from the local press, but there is no sourcing at all for the biographical details in the article. Overall this looks doubtful to me. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable illusionist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 14 October 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. Those advancing a delete argument suggest that the coverage out there does not meet the criteria of the GNG and thus this flight is not notable. Those advocating keep suggest that there are several distinguishing factors about this particular flight for which there are RS to thus demonstrate notability. As there has been extensive discussion on these two points and no agreement, a no consensus close is merited here at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson Airways flight BY-1526[edit]

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

Seems to me that, while serious, this isn't notable. There's many incidents in commercial aviation daily. Madness ^Darkness 22:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There’s muddle here. Aviation Herald does not distinguish between "incidents" and "serious incidents". - SquisherDa (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no muddle whatsoever. Look through the listings, you will find many serious incidents included on there. Madness ^Darkness 08:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compare them, though, with this one! It stands out from the bunch. – SquisherDa (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like synthesis or original research. Appropriate for determining which sources are reliable, but rubbish for writing articles. If you can't point to sustained, significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then all the synthesis in the world is useless. Rockphed (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation classified it as a serious incident; thus, it is significant to air safety. It is not speculation, it is the conclusion of the investigation. The difference between an accident and a serious incident is only in the results. News media in the US, UK, Canada, China found it significant enough to report the incident in which 195 people could have been killed. --Pierre5018 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is preferable to merge, as it makes linking easier. The article's relevance is more about a lack of cross-check in an installed FMC, than about the typo that nearly caused a catastrophy.--Pierre5018 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, itstil fails WP:GNG drastically, let alone any criteria in the WP:AIRCRASH essay.--Petebutt (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable, doesn't even warrant a mention in anaccidents list.--Petebutt (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: This is not significant for a separate article or merge to List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 and summarize. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are dozens of similar incidents every year, the vast majority of which fall under WP:NOTNEWS and/or do not meet WP:GNG. This one is no different. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, based on the discussions below, I have no objection to the content being merged to Takeoff Acceleration Monitoring System and/or other articles as appropriate, but my !vote for this article remains Delete. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Report lists (Appx.A) 33 "Examples of accidents and incidents involving problems with takeoff performance" over the years 2004(Apr) - 2018(Mrch): 14 years, so 2+/yr. That really isn’t "dozens .. every year"!! (Anyway, though, it’s the Report, and it’s feasibility review, tht make this incident unique.) – SquisherDa (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oppose merge per comment below. For some reason I thought the accident report had just been published, but it actually was published nearly a year ago and that's when a lot of the worldwide coverage of the event occurred. per WP:RECENT. Flying is hard. Mistakes happen. I really don't envision a situation 15 years from now when someone will ask their friend, "remember that time that plane took off but the pilots made a mistake and something really bad could have happened but everything worked out just fine, and the plane landed safely?" But right now, there appears to be worldwide coverage of the event (or non-event, depending on your perspective). Under the principle of the essay WP:NORUSH, let's give this a month or three to let the facts settle. We might learn soon that there was scandalous misconduct on the part of the flight crew. Or, more likely, we won't learn anything since this will turn out to be a simple mistake that resulted in the flight crew being asked nicely not to do that again please. Or being newly unemployed and never heard from again, since it's Thomson Airways that just went bankrupt and ceased all operations. I expect to wholeheartedly support deletion this December or next January if nothing new comes out before then, if this article survives this AFD, but for now, let's give it a bit of time. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I oppose merge because I'm preferring to keep solely based upon WP:RECENT and the WP:NORUSH essay. If it ends up that nothing notable develops in the near future, then the incident shouldn't have been included in any List articles, but someone is going to have to remember to remove it back out from that article later. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional clarification- The incident happened in 2017, the final incident report was only recently released, which is what my references to WP:RECENT and WP:NORUSH are addressing. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Thomson Airways (part of TUI) hasn't just gone bankrupt - it was Thomas Cook that has failed.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(facepalm). I knew that. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After watching the comments on this AFD, I reviewed the accident report that was produced by this incident. I'm left feeling stronger on the KEEP side now, because of discussions below about WP:NTEMP, which covers concerns about ongoing notability. Also, this incident led to two changes in the procedures at the airline; first, the company added a mandatory scenario to its 6-month required simulator training of its pilots in which the pilots would have to react to an incorrectly calculated takeoff thrust situation, and second, the company expedited the upgrade of the software in all of its FMC units in its aircraft to a more current version which performs an internal cross-check between the outside air temperature entered by the pilot flying into the system and the detected outside temperature. The incident also resulted in in Boeing sending out a service notice urging all of its operators to perform that upgrade on all aircraft that had not yet been upgraded. That is relevant information that should be added to the article. I'm left feeling less like this is a flight where something could have gone wrong, but didn't and more like this is an incident that will result in long term improvements to overall aviation safety even though it did not result in serious effects (crash, runway overrun, etc.) The flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder were overwritten before the seriousness of the incident was detected, and the investigation is complete, so it is unlikely we'll ever learn any scandalous information about what was going on in the cockpit at the time, or why the mistakes were made in the first place beyond speculation. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets the GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Not a high-profile event, little damage, and no injuries, but a serious aviation incident that resulted in several safety and procedural recommendations by the official investigation ("Lasting effects" in the Event Guideline). I won't argue that it may seem marginal for our purposes, but coverage is adequate for Notability, and an event like this is not "routine". Article does, however, require significant revision and editing so it reads like a proper encyclopedia article. Comparable to Emirates Flight 407. Whether or not deleted as an article, event can be included in List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737#737_Next_Generation_(737-600/-700/-800/-900)_aircraft (although nearly all of those events do, in fact, have their own article). In looking at the sources, I haven't seen where it is identified as shown in the article title; seems as though title should be "Sunwing...etc." DonFB (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title could be Thomson Airways flight BY-1526 operated by Sunwing--Pierre5018 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly needs rewriting - at the moment it isn't clear what happened - the article doesn't say what the result of the error was.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There have been a myriad of no-damage, under-powered takeoff incidents due to wrong data input in recent times. This one seems to have enjoyed slightly more news coverage than previous ones, but is no more notable (and indeed, we didn't cover previous ones either). --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not quite, description of damage is now included in the article.--Pierre5018 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that a runway light knocked off makes this incident any more notable? I don't. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage it got in RS makes it notable, by my reading of the GNG. It might be possible to argue it's not notable by invoking IAR, but not, I think, by arguing ad hoc and without regard to the Guideline, that "damage was minor". If some or many of all those other incidents got sufficient coverage, they'd be notable too. If they didn't get the coverage this incident got, then they're not notable. DonFB (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to be convinced that it meets GNG, but even if it did, that is not in itself sufficient – see the last line of GNG about creating an assumption that a topic might merit an article, subject in particular to WP:NOT (in this case, there's no sign of the enduring notability mentioned under WP:NOTNEWS, aka WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in the WP:EVENT criteria). Rosbif73 (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Damage is a side-issue in this unusual case. What makes this serious incident notable is what’s in the very full (81-page) investigation Report (and the reasons why the Report is so substantial). The Aviation Herald gives very useful perspective. Incidents are, yes, pretty common, but narrowing the search to "serious incident"s thins it to a trickle. Even among the serious incidents, this one is an outlier. The usual pattern there is human error or equipment failure + resulting risk situation + operating procedures applied to control the risk + satisfactory outcome. In the subject incident, once the situation had developed there was nothing anyone could reasonably be expected to do. (The Report explores this point in depth.) 185 people were endangered and the outcome was a matter of luck. In this case good luck; slightly less so in the similar Emirates Flight 407 Melbourne accident in 2009, said to be "as close as we have ever come to a major aviation catastrophe in Australia". (Both pilots they re were requested to resign the following day, and did so.) The UK Report is notable - and makes its 'parent incident' notable - for including a feasibility study on means of warning pilots when a take-off run is under-performing and recommending development of Takeoff Acceleration Monitoring Systems (TAMS).

– 20:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

If it’s felt there’s a consensus to delete, I hope we’ll keep a copy in someone’s User space. (We’ll need it eventually, when we’re documenting the emergence of TAMS.) But applicable guidelines etc are as follows:

GNG(1): If a topic has received significant [suitable] coverage .. it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article ... (News coverage round the world has been identified - it was felt tht there were too many sources cited.)
GNG(2): .. even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. (The article’s not finished yet - it’ll be good to be able to focus a bit more on that.)
WP:AIRCRASH is not relevant to the question of article deletion ("should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not"). Its function is to assist with cruft control (presenting "generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles"; my emphasis) and "it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions"
WP:NOTNEWS has no relevance. It’s the ongoing significance of the Report (and therefore the incident) that is the basis for inclusion. None of the four classes that "Wikipedia articles are not" applies.

– SquisherDa (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not receive lasting or sustained coverage - all of the articles, which I believe would ordinarily be good enough for WP:GNG given their international scope in a range of respected newspapers, all ran the story on 22 November 2018, and all of the articles state essentially the same thing - the news is that a report came out. Doesn't appear to be an event that has sustained lasting coverage, a requirement for an article on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Sustained lasting coverage [is] a requirement": can you point us to where this is said to be a requirement? (in guidelines / policies / essays, I mean)? Some of what’s been said above seems a bit impressionistic, and I’m hoping to relate the discussion to principle, as far as may be helpful. – SquisherDa (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, part of WP:EVENT, and WP:SUSTAINED, part of WP:GNG. Both are guidelines, not policies, so perhaps the word "requirement" was a little strong... but then again all of the notability requirements are "mere" guidelines. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP ("Notability is not temporary") addresses this exact point. This incident, and the Report, put a peg in the ground. The next event in the story will be either introduction of a new warning system (TAMS), a front-page accident + recriminations (or, if it’s too soon, regrets tht the lesson of this Report couldn’t be acted on faster), or a third Awful Warning (following Emirates Flight 407 and then this incident + this feasibility review). Whichever it is, the call for TAMS made in this Report will be a milestone in the narrative. – SquisherDa (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NTEMP applies to topics in general, but by definition cannot apply to events, which aircraft incidents inherently are. You're making a good argument for transferring some of the content of this article into the TAMS stub, but not for maintaining it as a separate article. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? NTEMP is only three sentences long in the WP:N guideline, but I don't understand "but by definition cannot apply to events". Where are you seeing that? RecycledPixels (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the guidelines again, and SportingFlyer's explanation below, that was something of a misunderstanding on my part. I was seeing a logical contradiction between WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED, and interpreting the latter as effectively excluding events from the scope of the former. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a relevant incident with WP:RS and no need for continued coverage WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. Once a subject is notable it is always notable. The nominator also is not sure if this is notable. Nominator does not put forward a strong rationale for deletion. Wm335td (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Already !voted delete above, but this was such a non-notable incident, I cannot find any contemporaneous news articles from 21 July 2017. Aviation Herald, which is pretty on top of things, only created their article on 25 July 2017 and rated it an "incident," of which they rate several every day, and of which very few are notable. [18] The only news here is the release of the report, which received heavy media coverage, but again, we are WP:NOTNEWS. Compare to the Qatar Miami flight or the Emirates Melbourne flight, both of which received international news immediately following their issues. SportingFlyer T·C 10:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hradecky (The Aviation Herald) doesn’t mark Serious Incidents as distinct from Incidents - but doesn’t seem surprised there was a Special Bulletin as well as a final Report. Chris Brady (Boeing 737 Technical Site; ref in article) regarded it as a "significant" Serious Incident. Yes, the aircrew obviously hoped they’d get away with it if they kept quiet; even the airport didn’t mention it until they noticed one of their little lights had had a bad day (and then just left a note in someone’s in-box rather than actually phoning!) But once the AAIB got on it they gave it the works - SB, 84-page Report, specially-commissioned "how could that happen??" analysis, contextual list of 33 takeoff horror-stories over the last 10+ years. They saw the point OK. Please can we? Pretty please? Cos we’re an Encyclopaedia?? The Report’s the main thing, of course. – SquisherDa (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still saying Strong keep (and oppose merge) - on the same basis as before, above the line, and after reading what Rosbif73 has been saying, also above the line, rather carefully. @Rosbif73, that’s two interesting points! I’m a bit puzzled by the first, tht NTEMP doesn’t apply to events . . why not? (Yes, NTEMP appears in Notability and not in EVENT: but EVENT is supplementary to Notability. EVENT says, as Background, tht it "was formed with the intention of guiding editors in interpreting the various pre-existing policies and guidelines that apply to articles about events, including WP:GNG." So what’s in Notability applies to events; and what’s said there at NTEMP seems plain enough; and I wouldn’t doubt tht it’s intended to apply? - "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with [GNG], it does not need to have ongoing coverage"?)

What EVENT does say, at Lasting effects, is "an event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable", and that’s really what I’ve had in mind all along (though I hadn’t seen the guideline) in emphasising the Report and the finding of feasibility within it. That leads to your second idea, of 'folding' the incident article into the new TAMS stub. I’d certainly prefer that to deletion!! The idea is addressed generally in NOPAGE, "Whether to create standalone pages." The emphasis there is on "how best to help readers understand" the topic. Clearly, the TAMS context will help a reader understand why the incident is notable. But as regards understanding the incident itself, I think stand-alone is the right thing. There are aspects the reader is much more likely to grasp if reading an article fully focused on the incident itself. That’s because of the limitations imposed by OR and RS. In particular, it’s obvious, reading "between the lines" of the Report, tht both pilots were trying to enter the wrong Outside Air Temperature into the Flight Management Computer. It wasn’t just fat finger trouble. Both their figures came from the Flight Plan. They plainly thought that was where they were supposed to be getting the figure from. The chilling implication is tht a simple misunderstanding would have resulted, if there had been a brick shed near the perimeter fence, in a front-page air accident. (A fuel fire could have made it a disaster with three-figure casualties.) The Report can’t say so, because it is strictly fact-based (and the Cockpit Voice Recorder information wasn’t available). We can’t say so, because that would be OR, unless we can find a source; trawling through web forums etc might deliver one, but probably not sufficiently RS (for such an important point). So the reader is left to fill in the blank h/h-self. For this and other details s/he will benefit from the best possible focus.

If I understand you aright, your views have evolved as we’ve discussed this. I’m grateful to you for what you’ve said. May I suggest you amend your 'vote', above, to reflect what you think at this stage?

– SquisherDa (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a bit of confusion here regarding policies - WP:NTEMP simply says, once an article establishes notability, nothing that happens in the future can take away that notability, though notability can itself be revisited. What we're looking at here is WP:SUSTAINED, which this badly fails. If you look at the timeline of what happened here: a plane takes off a bit long; four days later, a write-up of this occurs on an inclusive specialty aviation website; a year later, a report is released; the release of the report gets picked up by worldwide news coverage; no further coverage of the incident at all (all news sources are between 322 and 324 days old, according to one news aggregation service. That's not WP:SUSTAINED) Those keep !voters claiming the airline changed their policies haven't shown any sources, and the fact that this could have been a serious incident - well, it wasn't, and the lack of sustained coverage shows it, and we shouldn't have an article on it. SportingFlyer T·C 02:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I mentioned that. The final accident report was my source for the policy changes I mentioned above. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your bolding on vote words here to prevent confusion. However strong your position, you only get to vote once. Putting more votes up without striking previous votes just confuses the Admins at closure time. Rockphed (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks + sorry. (I wasn’t trying to double-vote: at the time, I was thinking everything would start again at the line.) – SquisherDa (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per SquisherDa. Bookscale (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is a bad sign when the majority of an article is WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, this is, while an interesting incident, also what looks like a WP:MILL incident. Aside from the flurry of coverage right after it happened and some articles right after the report was published, it doesn't look to have attracted attention. Rockphed (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you mention WP:SYNTH?? What you say, it’s "a bad sign", is kind of an understatement. SYNTH would be especially out-of-place in an article like this (= on this kind of topic). There’s none in there. (I’ve remarked above on "the limitations imposed by OR and RS.") What are you seeing tht makes you mention it? – SquisherDa (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mention "reading between the lines" of a source above. That is either Original Research or WP:SYNTH. The sentence that triggered my synth sensors in the article is "The incident was reported in industry and enthusiast sources,[2][3][4] (identified in one as "significant"[4]) and, following publication of the Report, in mainstream media around the world.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] ". No source says that. No source even implies either of the two halves of that sentence. In order to have that sentence in the article, you need to synthesize 12 sources. Rockphed (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Rockphed, gotcha, thanks for getting back on this. I understand you better now. (I was put off track by your phrase "the majority of an article" ("It is a bad sign when the majority of an article is WP:SYNTH.") I don’t know if you’ll wish to withdraw it?)

I think we agree on OR / SYNTH being out-of-place in the article. That was the point at the front of my mind when I wrote the phrase tht caught your eye, "reading between the lines". (You’ll see that if you revisit the context, "it’s obvious, reading "between the lines" of the Report, tht both pilots were trying to enter the wrong Outside Air Temperature into the .. Computer. ... We can’t say so, because that would be OR.") This limitation on what we can say (in the article) is a serious one. We can be explicit here, or on the Talk page; in mainspace OR is the reader's privilege and is forbidden to us as editors. That tends to mean, in this situation, tht we can include in the article the facts tht we consider make the Incident important - and even in doing that we have to be careful - but we can’t say tht they are reasons for considering the Incident important! (Another example: it strikes me, at least (you too? - maybe not?), tht one of the reasons the AAIB gave the incident such thorough full-dress attention is tht it so nearly went unreported. Cost considerations in the industry now mean two air-temperature adjustments are routinely applied to engine-thrust at takeoff. I think the AAIB suspect tht there are more of these wrong-setting occasions than they hear about, and they felt this incident was an important opportunity to avoid a catastrophe tht might otherwise come soon. Here I can say so: not in the article.)

On the SYNTH you say is in the article, "The incident was reported in industry and enthusiast sources,[2][3][4] (identified in one as "significant"[4]) and, following publication of the Report, in mainstream media around the world[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" . . er, no, I submit. It might be SYNTH if we said "The incident was reported in three industry and enthusiast sources,[2][3][4] .. " (though CALC there must mean tht counting like that is OK). Maybe you feel tht around the world in "in mainstream media around the world[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" is SYNTH? If so we could drop the phrase. Dropping it doesn’t affect the article’s notability: it only affects how explicit we can be within it about why it’s notable.

You also suggest this might be a WP:MILL story - that is, a frequent / unremarkable occurrence. It doesn’t seem the AAIB think so, from the scale of their investigative and reporting activity. And their Report lists only 33 incidents / accidents over twelve years (though they may suspect they tend to go unreported; but note the 33 include underperformed takeoffs from other causes too). These incidents are important because they’re hugely dangerous: not because they’re frequent, I’d suggest. More would be obvious, as go-arounds or crashes, if they were. Even in kindly terrain an underrun will sometimes cause a crash after becoming airborne - just because of damage from meeting the perimeter fence.

– SquisherDa (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A bad day at the office for a couple of people, making a mistake that happens regularly; could have been a bad day for several hundred people but it wasn't. There will always be reports generated by incidents like this (that's what investigative bodies are meant to do, they don't just roll for crashes) and in this day and age just about everything gets coverage by media hungry to fill their websites with stories, which is why there was a lot of coverage (all running essentially the same story) one day and then there was none... YSSYguy (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - your comment makes no sense at all - what Wikipedia policy are you relying on to argue delete? Bookscale (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then: "non-notable incident, a brief flurry of coverage prompted by the release of the investigative report; does not meet the General Notability Guidelines". YSSYguy (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except it did receive coverage, so it does meet GNG, so you can't argue that. Bookscale (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think YSSYguy is arguing that it didn't receive coverage in reliable sources, but that it doesn't meet WP:EVENT, specifically, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. There were, in this case, 2 spikes in coverage. One in a couple industry sources immediately after the event. Another in mainstream sources immediately after the government report on the event was published. There is also a mention in a single scholarly paper of the flight, but I do not have access to the full paper to see how in depth the coverage there is. In the free version, it is given a single line in a single table. The initial coverage reported the bare facts of the event (that an airplane had overrun the runway and hit a light). The coverage after the report gave the expanded details (and almost look like they are copies of a press release) including the exact sequence of events of the incident; they then repeat the recommendations of the report. If you would like to reframe your objections to his argument in terms of WP:EVENT, that would help this discussion move forward. Rockphed (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can argue that; house fires, car accidents and crimes all receive similar levels of coverage to this event. Let's say someone robs a bank and steals several thousand dollars/pounds/euros; the robbery is reported in the media and if the person is apprehended, tried and convicted, that is reported as well — the reportage does not automatically make the robbery notable. YSSYguy (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bank robbery example is a good illustration of why WP:EVENT does support keeping the article. If it was a bank robbery of a local branch of some bank somewhere, coverage would not extend much beyond the local news, and thus I'd be arguing that the incident would not meet WP's notability standards for an article. This aviation incident did receive global independent news coverage- the article presently includes news reports from England, Canada, US, Australia, and China. That touches upon the "geographical scope" section of EVENT. The long-term effects of the incident, as I mentioned in a comment far above, are that new safety and training procedures were implemented at the airline and Boeing made sent out new safety notices to all operators of the 737 around the world. There's also repeated arguments that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE should apply more than WP:NTEMP. I wish those two guidelines weren't so obviously contradictory, but I think the pendulum swings away from CONTINUEDCOVERAGE because the incident has already been included in the code7700.com reference (dated September 2019) linked from the article as a case study, demonstrating continuing coverage of the incident. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though CONTINUEDCOVERAGE's name suggests opposition to the article, in fact it is supportive of keeping it! - "coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established", and "events .. only covered .. without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an .. article" (whereas this one has attracted extended analysis, in the commissioned study the AAIB appended to their Report, as well as the Report’s analysis of the incidence of similar events, their earlier SB and the code7700 discussion). There’s even a mention of case studies, as in the code7700 piece: not yet a matter of "multiple" sources, but of course "editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not"!

Similarly, SUSTAINED's name strongly suggests it'll argue for deletion, but in fact it has little to say (my emphasis): "brief bursts of news coverage may not' sufficiently demonstrate notability." (In this case it was a worldwide brief burst.) SUSTAINED then continues with thoughts limited to new companies and future events - not relevant to this article.

– SquisherDa (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was not a noticeable accident. It wasn’t an accident at all, and it nearly went entirely unreported. It is notable, not noticeable. RecycledPixels was perfectly right to think tht (my paraphrase!) come 2024 people aren’t going to be chatting with friends about that time aircrew screwed up their takeoff settings and an approach light got dinked. This is not a Watercooler Crowd Event. But people into aviation safety will be having conversations (in 2024?) along the lines of “That abort yesterday was TAMS-to-the-rescue, according to some of the maintenance people!" / "Yeah, good thing they brought in TAMS. Took long enough. It was after a top-tier safety authority read the industry’s horoscope for it, after an underpowered takeoff in Ireland. It had been going on for years. And they’d had some proper scares. Emirates, for one, at Melbourne. The Australians didn’t think that was very funny." / "I’m remembering now. Belfast, weren’t they putting three different air-temperatures into the FMC?" / "Well, yeah, they were supposed to. Just not those ones. They took off well under 2/3-thrust. Could have spoiled their whole day. Everyone was very lucky."

Seriously, the Report is aviation safety history. Too much of the Delete argument above is based on phantom "myriad" events etc; all the details in my imagined conversation (up to the present!) are verifiable, and several additional points of relevance to the current MCAS story could be added to it. Can we please keep the article?

– SquisherDa (talk) 15:01, 17 October 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 Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. Sandstein 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Scot[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG. We can't have an article on every persecuted person. Störm (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.There are some mentions in passing, even years after (ex [19]), but they are in passing. I can't find a single source that describes his case in-depth outside of the ONEEVENT articles back from the incident in early 2000s like [20], but SMH is a good newspaper and there might be more in the Australian media from back then. Also Google Scholar search for "pastor Daniel Scot" [21] suggests his case was mentioned, at least in passing, by several scholars. If someone can find several paragraphs discussing him it would be helpful, through one may wonder whether this article shouldn't be rewritten from a biography into an article about his court case. Please ping me if there are further comments/sources and you'd like me to consider voting based on them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. A search via ProQuest pulled up very little bar one short article (and a couple of Letters to the Editor of The Australian that refer to the Scot case), which I've added to the article, but I'm not sure it's enough to justify the page...Cabrils (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 as a suitable alternative to deletion. The legislation is the basis for Mr Scot's notability (he being the first person sued under that legislation). If an article was created on the case involving him that would also be appropriate, but no such article currently exists. Bookscale (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Merge and redirect. Agree with this helpful suggestion from Bookscale. Cabrils (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils: Bear in mind only one bolded !vote per person is allowed. Please strike the "soft delete" above if you have changed your position. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Thank you! My mistake-- removed my previous comment as suggested. Cabrils (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils: Thanks. But you removed it entirely rather than striking. :) See WP:REDACT. Basically, if it's been a while or if discussion has continued after/in response to a comment, it's best to strike it rather than remove it entirely. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: thanks again! I didn't know about WP:REDACT and now I do! Hope this is looking better now. Cheers. Cabrils (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect seems like a sensible approach. Doing a look for sources finds a few, but not very high quality, and not sufficient to justify a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:57, 12 October 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 19:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhau Kalchuri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO. Nothing in reliable independent sources apart from a Telegraph Obituary. Seeking redirect to Meher Baba.

It may be prudential to mention that Asian Tribune is quite afar from a reputed reliable source. It started as an Asia-specific daily from Thailand before suddenly choosing to heavily engage in partisan journalism along the Sri-Lankan civil conflicts. After being subject to several legal proceedings in SriLanka, it folded up it's print-business from Thailand and moved to Sweden, whereupon it was found guilty of intentionally defaming a journalist (who refused to be a part of their plans to engage in partisan journalism in lieu of money). ∯WBG^converse 18:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in GBooks or GScholar. Some mentions in passing (particularly in the niche outlet Asian Tribune) and obituaries in news, but I don't think that's sufficient. No reviews of any of his works, seems to fail NAUTHOR. I wonder if his name can spelled differently and he got some coverage in non-English Indian media? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing as to "भौ कालचरी" .... ∯WBG^converse 13:38, 10 October 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, after extended time for discussion and revision of the article as originally nominated. bd2412 T 21:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noh-Varr[edit]

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

Another character in a comic without any secondary sourcing or other indication of notability per GNG (existence does not equal notability). There is one single mention of him being, like, "sexy" on a 2013 list written up by ComicsAlliance, which does not strike me as a particularly important award, ranking, or organization. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources in the article, but failing that merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: N. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Ranked #2 on the list of the "50 Sexiest Male Characters in Comics" by a niche website is the very definition of grasping for straws. Fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current reception is fluff. It needs some actual references to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep based on this article in The New York Times. For once I found something on a comic character of value. I would appreciate comments from User:TTN, User:BOZ, User:Piotrus, User:Drmies 4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an NYT account so I can't see the full piece, but from what I could see before the filter blocked me from seeing the rest, it looks like that could easily be a key step in the right direction. BOZ (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how one newspaper article, with what is likely just a brief mention, would change things here. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only got a partial view, but there is a section of the article devoted to the character (Noh-Varr is the bolded and larger text title of that section). This is a text quote from what I could see, "Noh-Varr joined the Avengers as Captain Marvel and later became known as the Protector. As a space-faring Kree, the triple-jointed Nor-Varr has a fluid view of sexuality. “We consider these things carefully,” he once told his Young Avengers teammates. “I was aboard an exploratory vessel, after all. Exploratory does have multiple meanings. The Kree are efficient like that.” There is text after that but it's blocked from my view. It looks like the article is about the various versions of Captain Marvel. This isn't my area. I only get into Marvel at the movies. I leave it to you all to decide where this content is best housed at wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ and 4meter4: The trick with some press filters is to stop the page from loading fully (click the x button in the browser, worked for me here, Chrome, no special plugins). In either way, all this has is a single paragraph that goes as follows: (cut, I didn't realize it was already quoted above). I don't see anything more later in the article, it has just one more section about another superhero. I am afraid this doesn't go much beyond the usual in-universe character biography peppered with few quotes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only content you missed from what you quoted. It comes directly before the content you saw:

[Image]
[Caption:] It took Nor-Varr nine years to temporarily graduate from Marvel Boy to Captain Marvel. Credit Marvel Entertainment
This alien hero crash-landed on Earth in 2000 and quickly found himself at odds with Doctor Midas, who was obsessed with the energy that gave the Fantastic Four their powers, and Hexus, a corporation that became sentient (and evil).

Technically, the source doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria to determine notability. It is significant, reliable, and independent, but I think it comes in as a Primary source, not Secondary, since it just summarizes who he is and what happened in the comics. That said, GNG is a guideline and not a rule, and on a personal level I still feel that it is a worthy source to establish notability when talking fiction since by definition popular culture is only notable if people are talking about it, and the New York Times talking about a topic carries significant weight. Even if people discount it as a source to determine notability strictly adhering to WP:GNG, adding it as a reference to applicable content would go a long way in still demonstrating that significant coverage from a major, reliable outlet exists. -2pou (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Note: Late add, and this one closes soon. 2pou (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wait a second here... What do you mean "(existence does not equal notability)"? That is in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia Notability test. Just two sections below WP:GNG, WP:ARTN leads with "Article content does not determine notability" and goes on to state, "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." In essence, this is saying, especially in this case (as I will point out next), the article may just need improvement, not deletion.
I get it, and I'm in agreement that there is a lot of bad articles that shouldn't exist, but this one... Are people doing due diligence WP:BEFORE nominating or suggesting deletion? I don't know anything about this character, but the AfD autogenerated template provides all those Google search parameters, and this article title is unambiguous. I simply clicked on the "Scholar" search to "Find sources", and the first three attributable options (throw out the HTML link) are all attributable to authors, reliable publications, provide analysis as secondary sources, and have significant coverage of Noh-Varr. ([22], [23], [24] - and they're all available (or at least the content in question) for free).
Next a simple search for "Marvel Boy CBR" can get you to the tag page where these three articles can be found: CBR1, CBR2, CBR3. All three provide great breakdowns, whether on story or art. Art analysis is valid given the medium of the character.
Finally, I don't understand the attacks on the existing secondary sources... No, a sexiest character list is not exactly intellectually deep material, but it is still coverage that meets GNG as it is significant (direct), secondary, reliable, and independent. Knocking it as niche is unjustified--clicking the source's wikilink shows that the source was an Eisner Award winner for Best Comics-Related Periodical/Journalism. George Clooney has a mention of his sexiest man award on his article... Alone, does that make something notable, no, but there is a quoted review as well, also coming from an Eisner Award winner for the same journalism category. Yes, it's a little clunky since the comment is about a series, and not the character, but the series in question is directly attributable to the character, which comes back to what I said before:
The article needs improvement, not deletion. (I just wasted too much time on this character I've never read a story on...) -2pou (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2pou, the article was just expanded significantly. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: N. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and no real world notability. Even the "Sexiest" listing is a trivial listing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This can probably do with some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 2pou. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics) - Just as notable as most other comic book character articles. Just because whoever wrote it didn't bother with sourcing does not mean they do not exist. Dark Knight 2149 20:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 10 October 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. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book). Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the new creation of the article, I have added 18 more references than the previously deleted version. In my eyes, according to RS and notablity of wikipedia policy, they are reliable and notable. Lazy-restless 13:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additional RSs since the previous nomination ended in delete. There is not a deletion rationale advanced by the nominator. Wm335td (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can the nominator please say what they think is wrong with this article? Some of the references look a bit ropey but without examining each one in detail there seem to be enough to indicate general notability. Mccapra (talk) 10:59, 10 October 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 19:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hat of Casts[edit]

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

This band is only covered in primary sources and a passing mention on Last fm.com. No reliable secondary sources significantly cover this band. Fails GNG, NMUSIC, and WP:BAND. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Steve Quinn (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the nominator. This might be an attempt at advertising as well. {wp:notpromotion}. The band is new and has not gained traction as a successful band, but someone also created a page for their uncharted EP - which I believe is advertising [25] or an attempt at promotion. And, I am dealing with that article as such. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, with sources being primary except for Billboard which is behind a paywall. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Billboard reference; to get listed on "bubbling under the top 100" is not a significant achievement--it essentially acknowledges what hasn't charted. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the nominator. On the Billboard page [26], there is no listing of the band or their EP. Steve Quinn (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage per WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, song only barely charted and sources do not seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should be moved to Draft:Hat of Casts. It's certainly WP:TOO SOON. Doesn't seem like an advertising attempt, but this band is not yet notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.147.163 (talk) 02:03, 14 October 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 TNT. There is consensus among participating editors that while the article's topic (Crime in the Netherlands) is notable, this article is actually a list of non-notable crimes and thus there is a consensus to delete. This AfD does not prevent any interested editor from starting an article which gives an overview of Crime in the Netherlands. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in the Netherlands[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS #2, WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7. Page is an indiscriminate list of individually non-notable crimes which occurred in the Netherlands. No contextualisation or summary information is provided. An article on Crime in the Netherlands might be possible, but this is not it; start again per WP:TNT. Ryk72 ^talk 07:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ryk72 ^talk 07:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It are not all non-notable crimes. Should it be better to call the page: List of major crimes in the Netherlands, instead of: Crime in the Netherlands? Lukasvdb99 —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – (I'd be OK with userfy/draftify if someone wanted to work on it). Crime in the Netherlands should be a prose article, not a list, similar to Crime in France or Crime in China, or any of the other Crime in... articles. A list of major crimes in the Netherlands should start as a section of the Crime in Netherlands article, and not as a stand-alone list. See WP:LISTCRUFT. The article in its current form violates WP:NOT, and I agree with the nom that WP:TNT is necessary. The article should be removed from mainspace until it's written in prose. – Levivich 16:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, is it good when I add more info tho this page about crime in the Netherlands, like in the examples of other countries you gave, and make a separate article with the list of major crimes? But I need some time to improve this page, so don’t delete it yet.-Lukasvdb99 17:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a current day version of the The Illustrated Police News or the local crime roll in your local newspaper. This should be an examination of crime overall in the country, not a list of crimes. Nate • (chatter) 18:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I believe "Crime in -country-" articles are essentially a good idea if the articles are properly referenced, written in prose, and depict major crimes. This is however a mere listing of whatever happened in the Netherlands last month. I would vote for delete in its current form, but I still believe someone will be bold and turn this at least to a decent stub or start-class article.--Darwinek (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is an article-worthy topic, but this is simply the wrong approach and it would need to be so heavily edited to change that that it would be functionally equivalent to just deleting it and starting over. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change to overview the topic, like said above--Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs a lot of work. Oranjelo100 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an article about "Crime in the Netherlands" but a list of quite "normal" crimes. It is not a viable topic and I believe it might violate WP:BLPCRIME to name non-notable people as (even suspected) perpetrators. An article about "Crime in the Netherlands" should be started completely from scratch and I don't think this should be kept in any namespace. -kyykaarme (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of 2019 crimes in the Netherlands or something along these lines. The current name is unacceptable for reasons of recentism. Format is also a problem, as mentioned by others before me. gidonb (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I don't believ we have list of crimes by year for any other country, which we shouldn't because Wikipedia is not the newspaper. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The chronological scope is way too narrow to call this crime in the Netherlands. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we do not learn from the existence of other articles that an article should exist. Likewise, from the lack of other articles, we should not conclude that such articles shouldn't exist. Even so, there are plenty of terrorism by year articles. If I recall correctly, not only terrorism by year articles, also for distinct other crimes. WP:NOTNEWS does not prohibit such lists or summaries, including in the (for me preferred but not justified by this list) series of crime by country. Among other concerns, Not News does raise concerns of recentism, just as I did. gidonb (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

East China University of Technology[edit]

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

No citations. All links are non-third-party (official websites and ads). Apparent COI from NPOV and use of "we." From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is apparently bypassing AfC process by re-creating page rejected from draft. See Draft:East China University of Technology. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Certainly has WP:NPOV issues and is most likely COI. Ay least would need a major rewrite and more sources if it were to stay. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag the article with any concerns, e.g. primary sources. This appears to be an accredited, degree-granting university that actually exists. Did the nominator do WP:BEFORE? News and independent web site mentions (not significant coverage, but it probably adds up to something): 4icu, publications listed on ResearchGate, US News ranking, mention in a news article, mention in China Daily, mention in news article on pulse.ng (Nigeria), summary of paper by someone at ECUT. And that is just from a quick news search. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the US News ranking which linked above is for ECUST in Shanghai rather than this institution. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a verifiable accredited public university. As with many university articles, it heavily depends on primary sources. Article needs lots of improvement, but notability is beyond doubt. -Zanhe (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a verifiable accredited public university and accredited degree-awarding. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:56, 10 October 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 19:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YSN Flow[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Little biographical detail in reliable secondary sources. This article gave a brief bio, but not enough to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is probably too soon for an article on this rapper. He has a semi-hit single that has gotten a few introductory reviews in reliable publications ([27], [28], [29]), but he has not been reliably covered as an artist in his own right. Otherwise, all that can be found are the usual retail/streaming/social links. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:49, 15 October 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 WP:SNOW keep. bd2412 T 05:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Thomas Cass[edit]

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

Only one source; fails WP:GNG. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep (note: article creator). Did you even try a Google search before nominating for deletion moments after creation? I've already added enough text and sourcing to meet notability criteria. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a large number of sources that discuss the subject, although some are brief. The subject is a well known artistic object within a nationally recognized historic site. While good faith is not in doubt, the nomination appears to have been premature and done without due regard for WP:BEFORE. I would encourage the OP to withdraw their nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. WP:BEFORE does not seemed to have been followed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Coverage in the New York Times. AnUnnamedUser, please read WP:BEFORE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing in this article was, to be frank, almost as bad as on the fictional characters, no-hit wonders, and professional puffery that normally populate AfD. To be fair, the NYT article is actually fairly extensive, both describing the statue and some of the circumstances surrounding its installation, but as referenced in the article it was impossible to access. It didn't even include such helpful things as a non-hidden version of the date of publish. I have fixed that. Nevertheless, one reference notability does not confer. I have, however, found sources ranging from Boston to Columbus Nebraska (which might be a re-print of a national agency) describing the statue, the process of its commission, creation, installation, and unveiling, and public reaction to it. Considering that I had to modify the search terms to find anything useful and that the sources in the article before I messed with it were all either bad or inaccessible, I think that excoriating the nominator for a lack of WP:BEFORE is out of line. Rockphed (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has been subsequently well sourced since nomination. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There are lots of sources for this. Nom failed to do WP:BEFORE ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 14 October 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 SMW Volunteer Slam. Sandstein 19:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Slam I[edit]

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

Impressive article, but in the end this seems to be a non-notable event. More than 25 years afterwards, it seems that it hasn't been mentioned in any books, hasn't received attention in newspapers, ... All we have are a few pro-wrestling websites writing at length about it, but such fan sites, even semi-professional ones, are normally not considered sufficient to establish notability. SMW is described as a "minor regional promotion" in the "Historical Dictionary of Wrestling"[30], which doesn't give confidence that a single event from that promotion could be notable barring special circumstances. The "Encyclopedia of Professional Wrestling" doesn't mention the "Volunteer Slam" either.[31] Fram (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree this event is not major, but I think it could be merged into SMW Volunteer Slam and be included with the other events. I would suggest the creation of a List of Smoky Mountain Wrestling events similar to List of House of Hardcore events, and include details from all of their events there rather than forking them off into individual articles. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SMW Volunteer Slam. Seems the most logical choice given how little after-the-fact coverage it got. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:55, 10 October 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 List of Autobots. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 16:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mudflap (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots where there is a mention of the character. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 10 October 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. Mere existence is no longer accepted as justification for keeping articles about high schools, and the consensus of other comments is that there are not sources to support notability under the usual standards. RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Bharati Public School[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per time-honoured precedent. Most high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists, as evidenced by thousands of AfD closures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either it meets WP:NORG or it doesn't. We can't start making exceptions for high schools, but not colleges, or public colleges but not private colleges. Alternate proposal might be to add WP:Notability and WP:Primary tags to the article and re-submit to AfD in 6-12 months. If it's a keep, it's the softest of all possible keeps. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there are any WP:42 available (at least I can't find any). The only mentions in secondary sources I am seeing are about crimes that faculty and staff were accused of. Rockphed (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the Feb 2017 RfC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. There are no reliable independent sources. SD0001 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SD0001, Can you wikilink-ify the Feb 2017 RfC, if possible, as this would be helpful for the future? Thanks. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLRFC. SD0001 (talk) 14:51, 11 October 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 19:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Neighbourhood Credit Union[edit]

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

Another provincially-limited, local credit union which is an ultra stub-class article that relies entirely on primary sources, and which press coverage is limited to non-existent. A Google web search for the company revealed that all results were either directories, the company's own website, government regulator listings, and news coverage, to the extent it exists, is limited to product announcements, senior executive hires, or small credit union mergers. In short, trivial matters. Thus, it fails WP:NCORP, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH, and is another textbook example of WP:CORPSPAM despite however many assets it may hold. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP; there are no secondary reliable sources available. The only source provided is from their own website, and most results online are just passing mentions, or their own website. Obvious WP:CORPSPAM. Luke ^Talk 19:20, 10 October 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 19:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TCU Financial Group[edit]

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

Another provincially-limited, local credit union which is an ultra stub-class article that relies entirely on primary sources, and which press coverage is limited to non-existent. A Google web search for the company revealed that all results were either directories, the company's own website, government regulator listings, and news coverage, to the extent it exists, is limited to product announcements or senior executive hires. In short, trivial matters. Thus, it fails WP:NCORP, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH, and is another textbook example of WP:CORPSPAM despite however many assets it may hold. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP, as you mentioned. Hasn't been covered by any secondary sources, and has no press coverage. Luke ^Talk 05:17, 10 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ShareTheMusic[edit]

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

Non-notable website. Somewhat promotional/"about us" tone, was clearly created by a COI editor (named "stm team"), no significant coverage in external sources (references are Alexa rankings, a blog-like "startup review" which doesn't actually say much about the company, and a bunch of press releases). Fails WP:NWEBSITE because of the lack of sgnificant independent coverage. The mechanism that is used here might actually be notable if it had external coverage (particularly of the legality), but no such coverage appears to exist. creffett (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from Alexa and 2 press releases, there are hardly any sources cited, none of which are RS. Also, there is even a section titled "Legality" which just seems like it is arguing on enwiki that it is legal; hardly encyclopedic. Given that it is currently #4.2 million on Alexa, and has very little to no coverage by RS is pretty convincing that it is not WP:NOTABLE. Mgasparin (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N; there are almost no reliable sources, and, aside from social media and their website, there are no relevant sources online. Luke ^Talk 00:52, 11 October 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.