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 a target to be decided. There are two consensuses in the discussion here. The first is that there is verifiable encyclopedic information that should be preserved by merging into other articles (though it was not4ed that some article's editors have already rejected this content). The second consensus is that our guidelines do not support having that information collected into this kind of article. Some of the ways of accommodating these somewhat paradoxical consensuses (e.g. Draftify/merge and then delete) create issues with our license. The preference for continued attribution for information that has been written while also not preserving this as an article leaves the best option to keep the article history by making this into a redirect. Given the complete lack of consensus as to what a possible redirect/merge target might be I leave it to an interested editor to make a bold edit and choose a target. If there is disagreement there can be discussion on the redirect's talk page or use of Redirects for Discussion to achieve a consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With certain exceptions, "Criticism" articles generally aren't a good way to organize our content, as they are a magnet for NPOV problems. Most of the issues discussed in this article should be included in other articles instead (generally the articles about the pandemic in particular countries), and a lot of them already are. It has also been pointed out that the article is perhaps indiscriminate—it includes a wide variety of criticism of different parties for very different reasons. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Criticism article for prior discussion. —Granger (talk·contribs) 23:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Article is mainly depending on content forking and can't be written in a neutral tone. Orientls (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Create two separate articles, one on China, one on the US, and delete everything else. These two sections are well fleshed out and could stand alone as their own articles. Most of everything else is duplicated elsewhere anyway.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not everyone is perfect. Wareon (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list is entirely unnecessary, indiscriminate, and unhelpful. We don't need a criticism to a response to a fear of a sickness. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 06:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete:WP:CSECTION (essay, not policy) has been often cited in relation to this article. Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Current consensus. Skimming through the article, I see three types of content: 1) content that is already covered as part of the main subject article, 2) content that is notable/due but not covered yet in the main subject article and 3) content that was found non-notable or undue weight and made its way to this article in spite of previous objections to inclusion elsewhere. I think it would be worth if more people went through the article to try to rescue the second type and add it where appropriate. --MarioGom (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. >>BEANS X2t 10:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate Spiderone 16:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To explicitly focus on criticism is unbalanced and so contrary to core policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least until this information can be verified as properly integrated into other articles without any details "lost" in the transmission. The article is indeed indiscriminate, but this is all important information that must remain available. The person who filed this has also made the argument that individual articles should not have criticism sections. Well if articles can't have criticism sections, and we can't have this as well, how is that any different from censoring this information off of Wikipedia entirely? Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism, praise, and other evaluations and reports from reliable sources should all be integrated into articles in the relevant sections, with due weight. In general, an article with a disproportionate focus on criticism isn't following WP:NPOV. —Granger (talk·contribs) 21:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism articles can violate WP:NPOV, but it is important to note that this is not always the case: "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have to make sure that all information has been added to other articles? Information already exists in most and rest can be moved if a person requests a copy of a deleted article in good faith. There is no requirement of making sure that the information has been moved before deletion. I don't see anything that important here when it comes to retaining. Wareon (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a body of information that is not directly controlled by a government, I believe Wikipedia plays a vital role in that it hosts sensitive information that is not available in many countries. To give a major example, criticism regarding China's misinformation campaigns and/or the extent they went to cover certain things up, is of course not available in China, and it is also not available on many news outlets outside of China, because China of exerting soft power over those news organizations or the governments of the countries that host those news organizations, through financial means and otherwise. Wikipedia is the last line of defense regarding a lot of information that governments out there want wiped from the internet. If the article it is to be deleted it is important that the criticisms are preserved. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary draftify so that relevant information can be merged into the corresponding articles, then delete once that process is complete. This content is better integrated with the actual responses themselves. buidhe 05:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary draftify so that non-redundant, notable parts can be merged. Deleting destroys the edit history and attribution. Having a separate criticism page splits notable information from the place where the reader expects to find it; there are some cases where separate criticism sections make sense. Could we keep the article? This pandemic is an event in which most governments around the world ignored all the repeated warnings over the last two decades (or listened to them and decided to cancel initial preparations anyway, for "economic" reasons), and reacted slowly during late 2019/early 2020, so it may be the case that worldwide criticism of governmental authorities is in itself WP-notable. However, the sources to establish notability of the article as a separate phenomenon are not present in the lead or any obvious introductory sections/sentences, and I'm not volunteering to provide them. So temporary draftifying would be reasonable to allow people to recover/integrate the more notable material. Boud (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article is well sourced and is discussing the subject on a global level,it is encyclopedic. Alex-h (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this pandemic is the biggest thing that has happened to the world, and to Wikipedia. This is a valid, encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting too close to "those responsible for the sacking have themselves been sacked" ground. Over-boiled and hyper-detailed content that could easily be condensed and covered elsewhere. Zaathras (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entities around the world have been criticized, and those criticisms have been documented in detail. The article has over 200 sources, many by reliable sources per WP:RSP. Also, i'm pretty sure teachers and professors in a few years will start asking their students to make reports and homework related to the subject of the article. Pancho507 (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary draftify I agree with a mix of these so that relevant information can be merged into the corresponding articles, then delete once that process is complete. This content is better integrated with the actual responses themselves. Thanks user:Buidhe I believe they will also be important for historical reasons however every statement made also need a reliable verifiable source . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galendalia (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merging content from the article into country-specific articles, if the content is not already there) -- ChaTo (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To focus a whole article solely on criticism creates NPOV issues. The article refers to "lax measures", "surrounded in controversy", "controversial plan", "widespread discontent" etc. in a tone that doesn't seem neutral to me. Some of the content (but not all) would be better integrated in various articles about the responses from different countries. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnecessary and fueled by the opinions of creator/editor(s). This pandemic is virgin territory for the entire planet and, as a previous voter said, nobody's perfect. sixtynine• whaddya want? • 04:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mx. Granger, Oh, thanks for pointing that out, I can't keep all of these pages straight :) In that case, I might suggest a merge to that target. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:52, 29 April 2020 (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.
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST quite clearly. The article is full of puffery (e.g. his work has been exhibited next to Hockney - this actually means some gallery he worked with once had a Hockney; this is typical of such bios) and its references exclusively point to links for his non-notable exhibitions or others he was coincidentally involved in. The best source about him is this Verge snippet that mentions him once. The argument for WP:ARTIST can't be supported given he has a single one-paragraph Time Out review. Simply doesn't cut it with no SIGCOV or artistic work of consequence (i.e. several significant reviews by notable sources). PK650 (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without goign too deep in a search, as my suspicions are in line with the nomination, the only decent sources I see at Theverge.com and frieze.com. Since the article promotes him as a very serious and notable artist, let's go with the WP:ARTIST criteria, for which sourcing is woefully inadequate. GNG-wise this seems to be also the case. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see also that this article has been speedy deleted, perhaps because we just had an AFD that resulted clearly in delete three months ago? In that case salt is also appropriate. I've also gone through most of the sources, which are largely minor mentions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe salt, as this was just deleted, and then recreated by a SPA. I wonder about salt, because the subject is young, and thus this may be TOOSOON, and it might be appropriate in 5 years. Hard to tell.--Theredproject (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2020 (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. Clear consensus that the subject doesn't meet WP:NPROF. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I don’t think the subject of this article meets WP:NPROF. He is an Assistant Professor, Adjunct Faculty member etc. with a string of non notable awards. The only reason for uncertainty is his Google Scholar score, which looks decent and might get him over the threshold, but I doubt it. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. Humdrum (ab)use of Wikipedia as a LinkedIn substitute. No indication that WP:PROF can be passed; his h-index as calculated by Google Scholar is only 14, and one of the papers contributing to that is actually by other people and listed on his profile in error. "Best paper" awards add up to nothing, as far as evaluating notability is concerned. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the statement above about listing other people's paper on Google Scholar in error is incorrect. All of the top ten most-cited papers on his Google Scholar page were written by him. The most cited paper "Flowshop Scheduling..." was written by the author while he was a Master's student at Sharif University. Also, it should be considered that disciplines in social science tend to have much lower impact factor. For example, the impact factor of Management Science, one of the most prestigious journal in the field, is 4.2. Considering that the majority of his papers are from the INFORMS journals (the leading journals in operations research and management science), which all have relatively low impact factors, his h-index is high. For example, his first-authored paper in Operations Research "Patient Streaming as..." is cited over 132 times (the impact factor for Operations Research, one of the most respected journals in Operations Research, is 2.6). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.192.62.189 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the statement above about listing other people's paper on Google Scholar in error is incorrect. No, it's correct. "Poisson coordinates" was not written by Saghafian. All of the top ten most-cited papers on his Google Scholar page were written by him. No, "Poisson coordinates", which was not written by Saghafian, is #8. The most cited paper "Flowshop Scheduling..." was written by the author while he was a Master's student at Sharif University. The fact that it was written while he was a student, and at a very junior level in the academic system, counts against it, because it is less plausible that a master's student led the work or made the lion's share of the original contributions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the H-index above, I agree that XOReaster has pointed out an error. However, I checked his Google Scholar and it looks like his H-index is still the same 14 after removing the incorrectly included paper. So, if I'm counting correctly, that one paper doesn't inflate his number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.192.62.189 (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m not sure it is a copyvio. The article is a list of titles, awards etc. and however that might be sourced it is going to have substantially the same content as any other profile of the subject. Mccapra (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A list of (insignificant) awards is one thing, but a sentence like His current research focuses on the application and development of operations research methods in studying stochastic systems with specific applications in healthcare and operations management lifted directly from the source is definitely a copyvio. XOR'easter (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure this is copyvio, as similarities appear to be primarily names of organizations and awards. In addition to citations, I think there is reason to consider this under WP:PROF given the editorial roles described as well as the reputation of INFORMS within operations research. Clark477 (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC) — Clark477 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Being "on the editorial board" isn't enough for WP:PROF. Only editor-in-chief counts, and only for top-notch journals at that. XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being an Associated Editor at multiple INFORMS journal, the most reuptable journals in Operations Research, is significant within the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.192.62.189 (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — 211.192.62.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No, it isn't. WP:PROF requires head or chief editor specifically. Also, you've already made your "keep" statement above; you only need to say "keep" in bold once. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a point of notability in that he is the only tenure-track faculty who represents the field of Operations Research at Harvard Kennedy School. Based on his publication, it seems that he has made some significant contributions in the public sector operations research/management. It seems from the sources that he also appeared in several interviews to provide thoughts on the application of OR to public policy issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhjljh (talk • contribs) 05:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Lhjljh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Being on the tenure track is not enough for WP:PROF. Nor is merely having published or merely being interviewed on occasion. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a reasonable argument that the subject meets WP:PROF under criteria 1 based on google scholar score/citations, and criteria 2 based on editorial work/recognition received at INFORMS, the most significant international conference in his field. There is also a fair argument for WP:TOOSOON mostly based on his status as an assistant professor. However, his publication history and achievement is substantial for an assistant professor and would almost certainly place him as a tenured professor at most other universities.98.118.88.224 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — 98.118.88.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
In ~3 years of watching academics-and-educators AfD's arrive at consensuses, I've never seen "best paper" awards accepted as evidence of notability, no matter what the conference. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair enough, but perhaps those awards should carry more weight. At conferences of a large enough scale, an award such as "best paper" represents the most significant/promising research in the field for that year. It does not appear that only lifetime achievement awards are required to meet criteria 2 of the NPROF. 98.118.88.224 (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm inclined to agree with the nom and with XOR'easter - NPROF isn't met, and while the article is heavy on affiliated sources and the subject's own writing, there's nothing independent and secondary that would get him over the GNG line. GirthSummit (blether) 16:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. We rarely keep assistant professors, though his citations are close to where we might consider it. But I believe we're looking at a high-citation field (so the numbers are less impressive), and the content of the article is nothing but education, plus some early-career awards indicating more promise than impact. Looks WP:TOOSOON for now. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2020 (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 Multi: delete the divinity list, keep the doctorate list. No prejudice against re-nominating List of United States politicians with doctorates; as has been noted in the discussion, it's better suited to having its own independent rationale. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This list should be deleted as the set is a non-notable grouping of items (the group not mentioned by sources) and therefore fails WP:LISTN. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 21:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC) -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 21:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the divinity list, keep the doctorate list. Former is an unnecessarily specific cross-categorization since we don't need dozens of articles for politicians with engineering degrees, or law degrees, or business degrees or whatever, but latter is a better scope and has specific coverage. Reywas92Talk 05:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete divinity per our non-notable grouping list policy, keep the doctorates per our non-notable grouping list policy (as the latter is covered by sources.) SportingFlyerT·C 20:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete divinity article per WP:LISTN. The other article should have been nominated separately (as its criteria is more defined), so for that I'm going Weak keep. Ajf773 (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 00:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge with Ian Wright. Looking at the sources, his notability almost entirely rests on being Wright's teacher. His RAF career is mentioned, but he himself does not appear to be a notable member. Overall, there doesn't seem to be enough material to build anything more than a stub. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editing to add As an indication of the level of notability, this article has only 4 inbound links - one is Ian Wright obviously, two "notable residents" mentions and a "See also" link. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ian Wright. The RAF career as described is entirely WP:ROUTINE, there were thousands of servicemen with similar records. buidhe 09:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable apart from his connection to Ian Wright, fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To determine merge or delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda(aka DQ) 20:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think that the other page really needs any of this superfluous information. As for this article itself, Pigden simply isn't/wasn't really notable. That's that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I started this AfD as a delete or merge, but I have to agree with CoffeeWithMarkets, there's no content worth saving here. I'd even remove his mention from the Ian Wright article because it's based on one TV moment and doesn't add anything notable to that article either. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote:Ytoyoda (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above , no sign of nobility. Alex-h (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and I see no indication of meeting any SNG. Whole claim of notability seems to rest on being Ian Wright's teacher, but notability isn't inherited. Papaursa (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2020 (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.
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draftify: I'm conflicted over this one. I don't think the subject quite meets WP:NACTOR—but he is getting close. It does seem, though, that he is very much in the public eye at the moment, with lots of "google news" hits. Here are a few articles (although I'm not sure if there is a consensus as to the reliability of International Online or Times Live):
The subject has also won a number of awards—are they notable enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO? Should the consensus be to "Delete", I would suggest "draftifying" the article, because I think it can be substantially improved. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the awars are enough for ANYBIO. Your last two sources are passing mentions, the o second is an interview and the first is imo not SIGCOV. --MrClog (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are many more articles, but I'm not sure as to the reliability of the news outlets. I'll see what other voters have to say, and, if necessary, I'll provide some more links. I do think there is enough to make out WP:SIGCOV, though. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is poorly written and needs a complete overhaul. However, this doesn't mean a deletion is warranted. In addition to the sources listed in this AFD thread, the subject has been nominated for an Africa Movie Academy Award and a DStv Mzansi Viewers' Choice Award. Some of the TV shows he has starred in appears to be notable, the likes of Umlilo, Jacob's Cross and Queen Sono. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 21:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Versace1608: The sources above are not SIGCOV and therefore do not meet GNG. The roles were not significant enough for NACTOR (Queen Sono was a guest appearance, Jacob's Cross and Umilo was not a significant role). The award nominations are not sufficient for ANYBIO. So the subjects fails to meet GNG, ANYBIO and NACTOR. --MrClog (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 19:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This passes the subject specific guideline for an actor as "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Notable enough to win the highest award for such things in their nation. DreamFocus 16:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (nomination withdrawn; cannot speedy close because someone else voted to delete). Was unaware the Golden Horn awards where the South African Film and Television Awards, which seemingly proves notability under ANYBIO. --MrClog (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The actor has won Golden Horn awards which is a very important award for South African actors. Cedix (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there's been a lot of coverage, even if only in the gossip rags. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2020 (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 deleted per G5 without prejudice for recreation by a non-banned user. Renata (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable actress who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR. Subject in general doesn’t satisfy our notability guidelines for inclusion. Article claims she won an award, but the award in itself appears to be a very non notable one. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, there are thee articles about her in other language Wikipedias that list her extensive filmography. Her bio suffers from the fact that majority of her career is pre-Internet and in non-English languages. The Award St. Clement of Ohrid Award is awarded by the state of Macedonia as the "highest recognition for long-term achievements in the field of education, culture, art, health, sports, protection and promotion of the human environment and social activity. Up to five prizes can be awarded in one year". Renata (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2020 (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.
Please don’t delete the article of Zaw Myint Oo. I wrote and based on all reliable source from Myanmar Website.He is an artist of Myanmar Singer/Composer and also journalist.I can guarantee all data sources are reliable and authentic.So, please review all refer data and facts the article of Zaw Myint Oo.
Only one of these sources is even somewhat reliable (music store links are completely useless) and even that is a single passing mention in which he is lumped in with at least 70 other reporters from Myanmar. GPL93 (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the provided sources fall short of what is need to meet Wikipedia's inclusio0n criteria for an article. I can find npothing else to support inclusion in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete spam, non notable and a tou violation. Praxidicae (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article states that he was mentioned in a newspaper story (currently footnote #4) but that story only lists him very briefly as an example of a young person in Myanmar who is stretching some social customs by going into music. No other significant and reliable coverage can be found in English. A search for his given name ဇော်မြင့်ဦး reveals some slightly more robust streaming/video entries and industry directory listings from his country, but he still falls short of WP:NMUSICBIO requirements. This WP article is surely an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is absolutely not notable. Also, all I see is one giant advert in the middle of screen instead of an actual article. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 01:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:TNT, and WP:MUSICBIO. I'm afraid this inexperienced musical artist has paid a lot of money to get this crappy page - he was ripped off. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps pointless since this article is a dead man walking, but this article is strictly promotional, not to mention horribly written. sixtynine• whaddya want? • 06:21, 28 April 2020 (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.
Keep Coverage in two separate works of biographical histories seems sufficient to me. - On an unrelated note, why has the poor woman's article been classified as "animal-related"...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have removed this article from the Animal delsort page. Not seeing a real reason why this discussion should be included there. North America1000 01:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Can't verify the coverage in the print biographical dictionaries, but they seem to be important enough to indicate a WP:GNG pass. Hog Farm (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FYI - the NTDOB is available for free online in Google somewhere. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
just google "Northern Territory dictionary of biography", 1st hit is a pdf version (thanks to NTgov and CDU). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like most similar articles, just needs some attention and there is nothing to put question as to notability or sources at all JarrahTree 03:21, 23 April 2020 (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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meets neither GNG nor our absurdly over broad football notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2020 (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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "proposed" television series. Two pilots were shot, but the series was ultimately not picked up. All references are reworded press releases, not independent of the subject, reporting verbatim casting news and attached crew. Thousands of unaired pilots exist and do not merit standalone articles- this particular one lacks significant coverage needed to establish long-term notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was no chance CBS was ever going to pick this series up; it wasn't picked up by NBC either. This should have been deleted on sight in October 2007, but we hadn't established a hard 'it goes to series and gets scheduled or it doesn't get an article here' guideline yet, as it has no cult notability which could have saved it as a pilot with some interest. Nate•(chatter) 04:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. I almost went for a keep !vote because of this line: "Babylon Fields was resurrected by NBC." Kudos to Quick and Dirty User Account, who wrote that. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2020 (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.
Neutral There's not a lot in the article, but the obituary combined with this entry in International Who's Who in Poetry 2004 might put him over the edge on WP:GNG. I wonder if he flourished at a time that would make sources harder to find in the present day. Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 17:22, 21 April 2020 (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.
non notable news outlet, no coverage and the sole independent source in the article is clearly a paid for PR piece. Praxidicae (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This outlet is a credited Google News Publication by Google. This was not a paid PR piece. There are many sole independent sources used in the article of many news publications including The Shade Room, Bossip , Black Enterprise and more. This news publication has many notable mentions and numerous stories on the web, including references on many Wikipedia pages. Marie610 (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2020
Delete Not notable. While this website may have potential, it seems to have only local notability at the moment, with only a few articles about the company and the founder. In addition, there are not sole independent sources as User:Marie610 mentioned above. I looked at the article and did some searches of my own, but there were few to no mentions of JaGurl TV on the publications listed above. The website looks to have potential, and I wish the creators luck, but I think WP:TOOSOON applies for now. Mukedits (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In respect to User:Mukilteoedits counter agreement, when I stated sole independent sources, I was stating that here on Wikipedia there are many other news publications that were created that have used their own website as a source reference including the Wikipedia pages of The Shade Room, Bossip, Black Enterprise, Hip Hop Weekly and more. I based the outline of JaGurl TV after reviewing those news publications Wikipedia pages to assure that I mentioned notable facts. The publication JaGurl TV has been around for years, and has broke news stories having been mentioned on other Wikipedia pages and websites as a source reference. When I Google search the publication, they have hundreds of articles in the Google News tab referencing to their direct website. I believe that kind of notability as a Google News Publication passes the WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie610 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot vote twice at an afd. Tknifton (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use only primary sources to support an article, there must be reliable, secondary sources as well. The fact that other pages have used their own websites to reference their own notability is irrelevant to the notability requirements. Mukedits (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After doing online research on the publication, it looks like they have a lot of news coverage. They don’t have many notable mentions, but Google does state them as a certified news publication. The page has enough sources to qualify under WP:PROVEIT.Looks like they qualify under news media. The articles on their website passes the WP:SIGCOV covering news with significant coverage. Creator User:Marie610 is disputing their blocked case stated on the user talk page, and they stated they haven’t been paid and explained. I say keep it. Looks like their adding to Wikipedia in a positive way. — Chuck99999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC).
It appears that you have misinterpreted the above policies in some way. WP:SIGCOV requires external, independent and reliable sources to clarify as significant coverage not articles created by the organisation themselves (In this case news articles they created do not contribute to SIGCOV of the organisation). WP:PROVEIT refers to article content not articles themselves the article subject still needs to pass WP:NORG. Tknifton (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of the article creator. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. This article was created by a banned user. Alexlatham96 (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2020 (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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason to have this article. It basically says that there are many different types of cassette tape, and then links out to some external pages. Either it's redundant to cassette tape (disambiguation) or the information can be added to cassette tape. ...discospinstertalk 16:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ill-considered content fork from Cassette tape or whatever it's called this week. If K-Tel sent you an album on "cassette tape", it was going to be on something compliant with the PHillips Compact Cassette standard, not some weird data storage device. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, this article is redundant. Any useful content should be sent over to 'cassette tape' with this being deleted. I also wouldn't support a redirect given the oddity of the '(obsolete)' disambiguator. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Cassette tape has the hatnote "This article is about the Compact Cassette invented by Philips. For other audio, video and data tape cassette formats, see List of cassette tape formats." which renders it unsuitable for discussion of anything other than the compact cassette. The article List of cassette tape formats and Cartridge#Media DAB between them cover most stuff. This is sufficently obscure to delete but I haven't checked if any associated references or history could be leveraged elsewhere usefully.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems the page author is well intentioned per the brief talk page discussion on this matter. However, Wikipedia is not a directory. According to the talk page discussion, this article appears to be created to direct readers via external links to various types of cassette tapes. So, in this way it is content forking of the disambiguation page. Also, the result is, this page preempts general notability criteria for articles by directing the reader to off-wiki sites to read about cassette tapes. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Perhaps the author can create pages on notable cassette types rather than creating pages like this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page serves no purpose. I think its creator would have been better off adding content - even a new section, if needs be - to Magnetic tape instead. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. Honestly, it would have been better to discuss this somewhere beforehanded, and figure out if there's a better way to handle this than creating a new article. That's why talk pages and Wiki-projects exists, so we can avoid stumbling around and creating articles haphazardly. - BilCat (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Content from Cassette tape (obsolete) has been copied/merged to Cassette and cartridge tapes by Tom94022[1] which ordinarily would leave a need to retain this in some form for attribution or require a histmerge? however if I am correct Tom94022 has copied only content originated by himself so on that basis there is not need to retain for attribution though anyone reading summary on the above diff would likely call for a restore for attribution purposes ... possibly on talk page of Cassette and cartridge tapes. Closer should note this. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most ordinary religious institutions don't merit their own page. This isn't notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourcing in this article consists of one database listing, one primary source and one dead link. As a result this fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be a notable organization. The sources included in the article do not consist of significant coverage, and I am unable to find anything else. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I initially PRODed this, but it looks like the article was already deleted once via an earlier AFD, but then recreated, which I think makes it ineligible to be PRODed. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried finding some better sources, maybe from a well-known Japanese publication, but failed in that attempt. Maybe somebody else will have better luck, otherwise I say delete. Dreamanderson (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like they did a popular wedding game, but that’s all I can find. Mccapra (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2020 (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.
Keep. WP:NBOOK says "The vast majority of books whose Wikipedia articles are nominated for deletion, and whose notability could reasonably be called into question, are contemporary. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria specified above, intended primarily for contemporary books, may be unsuitable because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, how widely the book has been cited or written about, the number of editions of the book, whether it has been reprinted, the fame that the book enjoys or enjoyed in the past, its place in the history of literature, its value as a historical source and its age.*
3. There is a modern playing edition, demonstrating that it is still relevant and in use
4. It is referred to, at least in the notes, of a number of scholarly works, 1, 2, 3, 4 and one PhD thesis. Mccapra (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all the above, and that it is indexed by major university libraries (and WorldCat) and cited by a variety of modern books on the guitar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found some discussion of Foscarini's publications in Turnbull, Harvey (1974). The Guitar from the Renaissance to the Present Day. Batsford. ISBN0713432519. pages 45-6 and plate 31. Foscarini's Primo, secondo e terzo volumes appear important in the evolution of the instrumental notation. However it's not clear whether this edition extended 10 years later had the same importance, and whether the discussion in the article on Foscarini may be all that is needed? AllyD (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 15:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author, Giovanni Paolo Foscarini. There is only one sentence of prose in this article, and the article about the author is only three paragraphs long. I'm not questioning notability, but it appears that this book included reprints of most or all of Foscarini's previous books if I understand Giovanni Paolo Foscarini#Music correctly. Hence, coverage of this book would be best suited for the article about the author, at least for now. --Metropolitan90(talk) 15:19, 21 April 2020 (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. I have to go with delete here despite little discussion, because the article is indeed completely unsourced. Sandstein 17:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that the article is not eligible for soft deletion as the last AfD resulted in "no consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 15:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is unreferenced and self-contradictory (established in 1969 or 1979?). Its claim to being "the oldest Magazine or Digest of Pakistan in continuous publication" needs a verifiable source (and a publication such as Urdu Digest appears to be older, challenging that claim). If the article is to remain, the text needs some mooring in references (and the passing mentions in lists identified in the first AfD are not enough). I'm happy to revise my view if such sources can be identified to rectify the text, but as things stand this fails WP:PRODUCT (and the publisher has no article which could serve as a redirect target) and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2020 (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 17:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is too soon for an article on this singer/actress. None of her music has charted, nor has it received any significant and reliable media coverage. All that can be found for her music are the typical streaming entries and self-promotions in social media. As an actress, she indeed has a role in the upcoming show We Are Who We Are but this is not a "major" role as the article claims, and she is only briefly listed in sources that describe that show and its cast. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either a singer or an actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2020 (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.
Fails GNG. Completely non-notable kennel club that exists for fanciers of dog breeds or types that are not recognised by the world’s largest kennel club, the American Kennel Club. I have added the sole citation in the article, the only other independent sources I could find were various breed e-books that churn out almost identical information for every breed imaginable, many of which were "cited" in the last deletion nomination. Cavalryman (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Hirshberg, Charles (July 1999). "Barking up a Different Tree: The strangest dogs you've never seen mingle at the American Rare Breed Association's Cherry Blossom Classic". Life. Vol. 22, no. 8.
Bixler, Alice (2009-09-01). "Beyond Ordinary: The American Rare Breed Association welcomes rare-breed owners seeking a casual dog-show experience". Dog World. Vol. 94, no. 9.
Bixler, Alice (2004-09-01). "The World of Rare Breeds: Discover 50 uncommon canines". Dog World. Vol. 89, no. 9.
Lyra, Ara (1996-07-01). "The registry reality". Dog World. Vol. 81, no. 7.
Sources with quotes
Hirshberg, Charles (July 1999). "Barking up a Different Tree: The strangest dogs you've never seen mingle at the American Rare Breed Association's Cherry Blossom Classic". Life. Vol. 22, no. 8.
The article notes:
It started eight years ago when friends John Slack, a professor, and Anita Bryant, the entertainer, weren't permitted to register their jointly owned Neapolitan Mastiff with the American Kennel Club. "There are over 400 breeds in the world, but the AKC recognizes only 148," says Slack. "We thought, Why not give everybody--even people on back porches and in the swamps--a chance to promote their dogs?"
And now, each year, so-called rare dogs (actually, any breed not recognized by the AKC, regardless of its numbers) come to Washington, D.C., to compete for Best of Breed. In April more than 600 canines turned up. Some were hairless, some too hairy, some were just plain odd. There were Norwegian Lundehunds, 13-pounders bred to hunt puffins in the rocky crevices of European islands. And Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers, with rusty water-repellent coats and tails they use to lure birds toward their masters' guns. And Canary Dogs, emigres from the Canary Islands that look like pit bulls but actually, says one enthusiast, are "terribly sweet.
The article contains photographs of and discusses a Bergamasco, a Peruvian Inca Orchid, a Coton de Tulear, a Neapolitan Mastiff, an American Bulldog, a Dogue de Bordeaux, and a Xoloitzcuintli that were at the show.
In only four years, the American Rare Breed Association has literally grown by leaps and bounds, far beyond the founders' expectations, says Anita Bryant of Washington, D.C.
Last week, the Pacific Northwest discovered why. The Salmon Run Classic dog show, one of 14 stops on a national circuit, attracted nearly 200 entries, showcasing exotics such as the Fila Brasileiro, Cane Corso, Tosa Ken, Lowchen, Karelian Bear, Beauceron, Spinone Italiano, Peruvian Inca Orchid and many more.
...
The seeds for ARBA were planted in that corn field.
In April 1991, the ARBA conducted its first event, the Cherry Blossom show in Washington, D.C., attracting 250 entries. Today it lists 270 breeds worldwide. For those recognized by the Federation Cynologique Internationale, the standard written by the kennel club of the country of origin is accepted.
Bixler, Alice (2009-09-01). "Beyond Ordinary: The American Rare Breed Association welcomes rare-breed owners seeking a casual dog-show experience". Dog World. Vol. 94, no. 9.
The article notes:
"Everyone starts somewhere," says Bob Slack, the current director and driving force behind the American Rare Breed Association. ARBA was founded to give rare-breed owners a venue ot exhibit their dogs, as well as an opportunity to sample the dog-show experience.
...
In 1991, brothers Bob and John Slack, Anita Bryant and Sheila Counts banded together to form an organization that would showcase uncommon breeds in a series of shows across the United States. This quartet of rare-breed owners founded ARBA, although Bryant and Counts later opted out.
The first show was held in April 1991, in Washington, D.C., and attracted approximately 45 breeds, from Anatolian Shepherds to Xoloitzcuintli.
...
In 2008, ARBA held 31 show weekends spread over 14 states. Entries — usually about 50 to 60 dogs per show — aren't as large as those at AKC shows, but the atmosphere is relaxed and friendly.
With dwindling entries caused by the sluggish economy, as well as more breeds gaining AKC recognition, ARBA has instituted a new program called Kennel Club USA for all breeds.
Bixler, Alice (2004-09-01). "The World of Rare Breeds: Discover 50 uncommon canines". Dog World. Vol. 89, no. 9.
The article notes:
Showcasing rare breeds has been the forte of the American Rare Breed Association, a 14-year-old organization based in Maryland, which holds shows all around the U.S. There are 31 show weekends slated for 2004, with four or five shows per weekend. For confirmation purposes, the breeds are divided into seven groups: Companion, Herding, Hounds, Spitz and Primitive, Sporting, Terrier, and Working. The Winners Dog and Winners Bitch in each breed may be awarded a CACUS (Certificate of Aptitude for Championship in the U.S.), if — and only if — the judge has rated the dog "Excellent." To earn an ARBA championship, a dog must earn nine CACUS cards under a minimum six different judges. If the breed is recognized by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale, the dogs are judged by that standard. Otherwise, either the standard of the country of origin is utilized, or ARBA accepts standards from breed clubs recognized by the organization.
Lyra, Ara (1996-07-01). "The registry reality". Dog World. Vol. 81, no. 7.
The abstract notes:
Focuses on the registries of rare dog breeds in the United States. Information services offered by breed clubs; Recognition of the breeds by the American Kennel Club; Formation of the American Rare Breed Association (ARBA) patterned after the Federation Cynologique Internationale (FCI) in Belgium; Background on the FCI; Other registries that allow rare breeds.
Comment: Austin American-Statesman (Gannett Media) Terms of Use - "THE INFORMATION, PRODUCTS AND SERVICES OFFERED ON OR THROUGH THE SITE AND ANY THIRD-PARTY SITES ARE PROVIDED “AS IS” AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED." There is nothing reliable about that source. William Harristalk 09:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Austin American-Statesman is a major reputable Texas newspaper. This is a legal statement that most websites have to avoid liability and does not affect the Austin American-Statesman's reliability. The New York Times has a similar statement on its website. From https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014893428-Terms-of-service, "NYT does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Services by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information shall be at your sole risk."
Disagree - no textbook on any subject has this provision. As for the NYT, it is in the same boat. PLOS is a major website much bigger than the NYT and it does not have that provision.William Harristalk 23:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PLOS has a similar message in their terms of use. From https://plos.org/terms-of-use/, "YOUR USE OF THE PLOS SITES, PLOS API OR ANY WEB SITE TO WHICH THEY LINK IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. THE PLOS SITES, PLOS API AND THEIR CONTENT ARE PROVIDED FOR USE ON AN “AS IS” AND “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS. PLOS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE PLOS SITES, PLOS API OR THEIR CONTENTS AND HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT RELATING TO THE PLOS SITES, THEIR CONTENT, PLOS API OR ANY WEB SITE TO WHICH THEY ARE LINKED."
weak Keep - well, Britannica mentions them, but then I saw the first red flag here, and then found more sources that satisfy verifiability and GNG, such as an The Master Plan, pg 320, Grand Strand Magazine, Dog Eat Dog, pg 81, an AP archive story and so on. Not the best sources but together they add up and corroborate the association's existence. They keep records and establish rare breeds for recognition by AKC. AtsmeTalk📧 02:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 15:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified above. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2020 (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.
This article does not appear to be notable on its own, searching on Google and Bing turns up very little, and in effect it is describing QRP or low power radio, and does not have enough information to be worth merging into Low-power broadcasting. Stickymatch 15:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I advise you to preview your AfD application and double check with the find sources links. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are scarce, but they do exist. Google scholar yield, out of 287 results, the patent and an article about Closed-circuit radios in Poland's prisons. NYT search yields an article about a radio using the electrical grid network (So it's some kind of cable radio, and not a low power emission). Last, google books yields an excerpt about its use in malls. Regards, Comte0 (talk)
Redirect and merge into Carrier current, where most of the content works and its most prominent use in the past was. Nate•(chatter) 04:54, 22 April 2020 (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.
Keep as the Chairman of the National Vocational & Technical Education Commission of Pakistan (NAVTEC) which is a major public post I believe the subject passes the criteria Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges --Cedix (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL can't be passed like that. They must be a member of the legislature. Störm(talk) 17:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that this is a national level commission in Pakistan. So being its chief, I believe he qualifies. Cedix (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The role is significant enough that he could keep a well-referenced article that properly established that he passes WP:GNG, but it is not an "inherently" notable role that automatically guarantees him an article just because he exists. NPOL serves to clarify what's accepted as a notability claim for a politician, but politicians do still have to have reliable source coverage about them before they actually get in the door — which legislators always do, even if our articles aren't always very good at actually using all of their coverage, but appointed officials may or may not. But four of the references here are just glancing namechecks of his existence in articles where he is not the subject, and one is a piece of his own bylined writing on the self-published website of his own company — which means five of the six footnotes are doing absolutely nothing at all in terms of establishing his notability. And the only reference that is actually about him is a 53-word blurb, which isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the best source he can show. So yes, this would probably be keepable if it were referenced better than this — but the role doesn't automatically exempt him from having to be referenced better than this, because no political role ever actually exempts a person from having to be well-referenced. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removed unsourced content, cleaned up the article. Fixed and updated all 7 references including 4 references from major newspapers of Pakistan. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources present in the article now aren't changing the case. Five of the seven are still the same ones I already addressed above, and the two new ones you've added are still just brief glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things. We're not looking for sources that mention him: we're looking for sources that are about him, meaning that he is their primary subject. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 14:59, 21 April 2020 (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 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi. consensus there are Pov concerns and fork so this should be covered at the redirecf. I did not close as merge as there seems more than a bit on TNT required so best start from.scratch. SpartazHumbug! 05:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Title changed to: Anti-Muslim reactions to the Coronavirus Pandemic in India
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.
Keep there is no reason to delete this article as it is cited with foreign news sources. Every time, both Pakistan and India are blaming each other. Keeping this situation in mind, i have not cited the said article with Pakistan news sources. In fact, Indian media has also reported violence-related news. 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus_hotspot in Delhi and Coronavirus pandemic anti-Muslim riots in India are two distinct articles as one covers the "virus carriers" and the nominated one covers "attacks" primarily. I've a lot of respect for India too, but here on Wikipedia, reliable sources are more useful. You may wish to see WP:BEFORE and also [this, this, this, and thisTheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
India is a democratic country. Obviously you are going to see all types of reports from just every part of the world no matter what happens in India. But the fact that you are simply cherry picking sources or hyping up the extent of the impact of a subject that already exists and is relatively small in size, is violation of WP:POVFORK. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 16:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, Wikipedia is not about our personal opinions, but it is "based on real occurrences". See Verifiability and WP:FAPO. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those essays are exactly opposite to the POV pushing you have done here since no "riots" took place. You are only justifying the nominator's reasoning that you have indeed falsified content for creating this article. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 18:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TheBirdsShedTears, PoV pushing can be clear by reading article. Your article has indiscriminate collection of informations which is against 5 pillars of Wikipedia. Are we going to create separate page to include information like Muslims attacked Indian Police and health workers? There are multiple reports regarding it. Brihaspati (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant POVFORK which is apparently misleading readers with the blatant appearance of misinformation. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 16:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The title certainly doesn't seem to match the content, but that can be fixed. The article also needs to be copy-edited for non-neutral language. However, I'm suprised anyone would argue this topic is not notable. The topic has received extensive international coverage (you can see the sources in the article) and the current one-line descriptions in some articles are not sufficient. --MrClog (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would note my disapproval of the new title, "reactions" seems a little bit odd considering we're talking about attacks here. Also, the page name capitalisation is wrong. However, let's not move the page for now. If the page survives this AfD, I'll open a move discussion. --MrClog (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd have opted for something else, but now that's it's not directly wrong and inflammatory, it's not a critical shift Nosebagbear (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The repeated allegations that this discrimination is a "hoax" is a fringe view. International coverage is cited in the article, so unless one would argue that Time, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, BBC, etc., are fake news sources (when there is consensus they are reliable), this view can be discarded. --MrClog (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The argument to merge is understandable, but I would respectfully disagree. The enormous amount of reporting gives enough information to expand this article to a size that it would be undesirable to have it in the main article. Of course, the contents of this article can be summarised in the 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi article. In addition, the argument that the part about social media is "unencyclopedic" doesn't hold true, considering this social media controversy has been covered by RS. For example, Time opened their article with a mention of the social media controversy (which they further discussed later on in the article). Other RS, like India Today, wrote entire articles on it. --MrClog (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC); edited 11:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per WP:NATURALNESS. There are multiple instances of coverage in reliable, secondary sources however the article title is somewhat confusing. -- LuK3(Talk) 18:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a follow-up comment, I think having multiple news articles from reliable international sources such as The New York Times, BBC, Time, and The Guardian shows that the article clearly passes WP:EVENTCRIT. -- LuK3(Talk) 13:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, pending k/d - I'm still considering whether it is suitable for retention, but do we have agreement to change the name while we are in process, as clearly unsupported by the sources? "COVID-19 anti-muslim violence in India" seems a reasonable option Nosebagbear (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. The article should be renamed as soon as possible to avoid misinformation. --MarioGom (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a HOAX. No "ongoing" riots in India. All Covid patients are being treated in government hospitals irrespective of religion. This is a defamation article. — Utkarshkrsh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep, I have renamed the article and removed some of the worst NPOV violations. Now that this has been done, I think the article should be kept since this is clearly is a topic that passes GNG, with it having extensive coverage in reliable international sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Devonian Wombat, shouldn't "Coronavirus Pandemic" be lowercase? All of the other titles containing the phrase have been lowercase. -- LuK3(Talk) 23:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. While the page title has been moved, the hoax still stands. There is still no evidence of "lynching", "mob attack", "violence", but the article falsely claims otherwise. Social media trolling and blame gaming - the core elements of the article - are generally non-notable and Wikpedia is not for gossiping. Wareon (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete article fails WP:GNG, WP:HOAX and looks completely like WP:POVFORK. This can be merged into article related to COVID-19 in India or in Tablighi Jamaat hotspots. --Brihaspati (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this information was hillarious. Deendayal Upadhyaya, who passed before 50 years, tweeted anti-Muslim tweets? The article is clear-cut violation of NPOV. Brihaspati (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brihaspati: large parts of the article are backed up by reliable sources. Why would it need to be deleted? MrClog (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brihaspati, please read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This article in no way matches the definition of an "indiscriminate collection of information". --MrClog (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. The article is clearly a case of WP:POVFORK as if it were made by someone who was neither happy with the AfD on the Tagleegi Jamaat hotspot nor the Deletion Review that followed it. Blaming a politician who died in 1968? Ridiculous. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - readWP:HOAX and check your votes (they should be !votes). Any mention of riots is now irrelevant as it no longer exists in the article. If that is your sole basis for an article you're going to really struggle since there is verified content. There is policy on which to !vote (both ways), use it. This is not a poll, and a worthwhile essay is Wikipedia:Shadowless Fists of Death! - read all of a policy/guideline and understand it before using. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before you use the word "Hoax", one should spare a moment to familiarize what does it actually used for and where. It might look a "factually incorrect" article to editor(s) this is because of this. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a difficult tast for me to ping everyone on my old phone. For those who tend to strive WP:POVFORK to justify their claims or opinions, i request please see WP:WIARM. It is a very helpful page. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBirdsShedTears: - why should IAR be applied here? If you're stating IAR is the applicable rule, that suggests you're conceding that it is a POVFORK. In which case, why is it so special that IAR should be used? We don't even split povforks on things like Trump's article. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The edits made by users (in favour of deletion), has alomst neglected the core elements of the Wikipedia, therefore, it may be a good idea for them to avoid making edits while providing edit summary mentioning the Wikipedia rules there. Those edits are not less than "deceptive" ones. And what does "reactions" mean in the title? Is this really a reaction? Please explain. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no riots going on in India. There is communal tension, but not to the level required to be called riots. And the tension is mutual. Looking at the recent case of Palghar Mob Lynching, Hindus are not exempt from violence. Calling it anti-muslim is clear bias. There are "anti-doctor", "anti-corono patients", "anti-delivery men" situation, but no clear "anti-muslim" or "anti-hindu" yet. Santosh L (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Santoshsatvik: I do not agree with your assessment. If there are more "anti-something" cases based on reliable sources, then why not you create an article for this or update an existed one? I note, local media is portraying the true facts in other ways contradict to WP:PG. Thank you! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not less than a "riot". How many times should i provide evidences? Consensus can not be impacted by diverting the editors from the main topic. Please look at thisTheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Current version falsely claims there is existence of "religiously motivated attacks", "mob cases", "severe attacks on the minorities" and that makes it clear that the article is still dedicated to promote misinformation. After cutting up all such disinformation we would be left with nothing but comments about Twitter trolling which are not notable since Wikipedia is not for gossiping. Wareon (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wareon:, I don't think you have visited any of the following sources:
Note: I used the "(missing)" tag here to avoid adding the source text here as it could hurt ones patriotic feelings.
1). "governing party officials spoke of “human bombs” and “corona jihad” — a spree of anti-Muslim attacks has broken out across the country - assaulted with cricket bats, beaten up etc." source nytimes
2). "The pandemic has provided fresh opportunity for (missing) to beat down an already disadvantaged minority group." Source foreign policy.
3). "Outrage over a Muslim congregation that has sparked a new wave of Covid-19 cases in India has taken an Islamophobic turn." Source bbc
4). "anti-Muslim attacks has broken out across India" source nytimes.
5). "The hijacking of coronavirus as an excuse for discrimination comes after a growing state-sponsored campaign to turn minorities into second-class citizens in India, as part of the (missing) agenda of (missing)" Source the guardian.
6). "Panic and chaos have already set in across the country. A man hospitalized in New Delhi with COVID-19 symptoms committed suicide. A mob beat up another man in the western state of Maharashstra for sneezing in public." Source foreign affairs.
7). "The country’s Muslim minority population has since witnessed a string of attacks by (missing), accusing the (missing) of “corona jihad.” source VOA.
In fact, the current version is awaiting restoration to its previous version. One of the editors has removed the cited content and then ran away. They removed content from their talk page too. In case they do not reply to the request for comment, the edits may be reverted without notifying them upon community's approval. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Islamophobic reactions to the coronavirus pandemic in India have received widespread coverage. I found these with less than a minute of searching; Time magazine, BBC, Foreign Policy magazine, The Telegraph, Washington Post (an Op-Ed, but by a well-known enough journalist that it carries weight), Newsweek, Haaretz, New York Times. I would recommend retitling the article to "Islamophobic responses to the coronavirus pandemic in India", as that is the language most sources use. The closer ought to ignore the vast majority of !votes above, which have no basis in policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be okay with a merge, given that the length of both articles permits it; but it would have to be an actual merger, not a deletion by another name. The sources do seem to explore islamophobia as a reaction to the Tablighi Jamat mess. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Op-ed by Rana Ayyub carries weight? She's well known for her anti-Hindu and pro-Islamist stance and that's the only weight carried by her. Her reportings of 2002 Gujarat Riots (culminated in a book 'The Gujarat Files') were rejected by the Supreme Court of India as a work of fiction. Since when op-eds became reliable, neutral and unbiased news source? Hemant DabralTalk 18:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who Ms. Ayyub is but even if her op-ed carries no weight, there are still 7 pieces of int'l coverage. --MrClog (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single Indian news media covered the alleged "riots and lynchings"? Not even the media outlets likes of NDTV, Scroll.in, The Hindu, The Print, The Wire etc.? All of them are well known for being staunch critics of current ruling party and their political ideology. Why not cite them too in the references? Hemant DabralTalk 06:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what you are trying to say. --MrClog (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Azuredivay: I'm baffled by your comment, to put it a little bit blunt. You say being covered by reliable sources is not enough, and that instead it should abide by GNG. But GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." WP:ITSNOTABLE says that assertions that an article is notable must be backed by RS, which the article and keep !votes consist of. And you cited the "Arguments to avoid" essay, yet your comment consists of an argument to aviod listed there. The argument that we do not have pages on other instances of discrimination is an argument to avoid. Also, almost all of the RS are not opinion pieces, so that part of your argument holds no merit. Then you say it's a POVFORK. Despite the fact that this argument brought forth by you and other delete !voters is so far merely an assertion not backed up by evidence, it would, even if true, also be an argument to avoid. And the couple of sentences in the main article are not sufficient considering the size of international and broad coverage of the subject. MrClog (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In your world WP:GNG must be limited to such a small single sentence but reality differs your misleading observation. What matters is that GNG does not endorse POVFORKs. I never said all sources are opinion pieces but that they only share views about something which we have already covered. Your claim that delete !voters haven't cited the evidence of it being POVFORK reflects your poor understanding of the subject and you have to re-read the nomination which adds that "WP:POVFORK of 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi (already covered here)". To say that these arguments should be avoided on AfD simply shows your own ignorance of AfD. Knowing that you registered your account in 2019 you must gain some experience of policies instead of bludgeoning AfD with your misleading observations. Azuredivay (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Azuredivay: The fact that you have to resort to mentioning when I was registered to make your argument is sad. I have not and would never say that my edit count is ten times greater than yours in order to discredit your POV. The quoted text simply asserts it's a POVFORK but it's only example is the mention of "riots", which has since been removed. I also never said that GNG "endorses" POVFORKs; I simply said that independent RS proof that an article, regardless of the quality of its content, is notable under GNG. And don't mention WP:BLUD when I've responded to two arguments and both of these arguments were unique, so I wasn't simply repeating the same opinion. MrClog (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure there are POV issues, and the title was iffy, but deletion is not cleanup. It may need work, but it is notable, as evidenced by coverage in the NYTimes, Quartz, The Gaurdian, oh the NYTimes again, Time magazine, even Buzzfeed. Overwhelmingly notable. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've got your message, I've read your message and I deleted it which I reserve the right to do on my user talk page.
Now coming to the editing part, I've edited the controversial WP:POV parts of the article that's full of biases and personal views sourced from op-eds, targetting a particular community. Go ahead and make the change you desire as you've been talking for the last couple of days. Have I stopped you from reverting my edits? So go ahead and don't troll me about it on my talk page or in here. Hemant DabralTalk 06:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Explain in detail who is funding me. Is it minorities or any other people, government or organization? or restrain from using such a blunt accusations. See WP:PATheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Popele distributing food", and "People across country with no connection to the gathering attacked" source CNN. This source covers both missionary members as well as those people who are not linked to the organization. Following the violence, "farmers driven out of villages" (not linked to organization) source BloombergQuint (a news outlet based in India). Therefore, merging it to the 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi sound clueless. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi. This is obviously a reaction to the Tablighi Jamaat event, and belongs there. I am not sure why this has been brought to AfD at all. If it is a "POVFORK", as the nom sees it, it should have been handled by WP:RM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everyone (delete and keep !voters alike) agrees that the article was rife with POV issues, half truths and distortions of sources. Hell, the original title itself was deceptive and misleading falsehood insofar as the page had to be moved to a new title in the midst of this AfD. Notwithstanding the page move and the drastic changes which followed, the article still contained instances of blatant source falsifications (1, 2, 3, 4) left, right and centre.Now, coming to the subject itself, sources that have been provided to claim notability and importance of the topic at issue, discuss the subject in the context of the Tablighi Jamaat incident, making it clear that the supposed Islamphobia was in reaction to the foregoing incident.Anti-Muslim reactions to the Coronavirus Pandemic in India#Social_media_controversies is hardly encyclopedic content, and once we get rid of it, there is hardly left anything that's not, or cannot be covered in the above-mentioned article on 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi, which is precisely where this stuff needs to be, for, as I mentioned above, reliable sources deem this to be a reaction to the Jamaat incident. Perhaps, a reading of WP:NOPAGE #1 might be in order here. Regards, MBlaze Lightning 11:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors have shown nothing, but a series of comments citing to 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi. The Jamaat is only about Jamaat and not about attacks against minorities that covers "villagers", "farmers" and the victims who are not linked to the missionary. As a matter of fact, they have undermined the notable sources that covers the subject straightforward. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:GNG as mentioned above. Better to be covered elsewhere. Not only is this article unconstructive but also the information has not been fully sourced as well as distorting and stirring the truth. It is an obvious POV issue with some hidden agenda by certain individuals who do not agree with a neutral discussion. Hari147 (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note, falsified and same comment as widely posted above. Upon observing the whole discussion, i came to know that it is a case of WP:JDLI. The facts is that; citing to WP:POVFORK in discussion doesn't support one's claims as well. Furthermore, if you have find any unsourced content in the article, you can remove this. Thank you and happy editing. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You simply have your own point of view, hence you cant agree upon most of the users here. Just because people do not agree with you does not necessarily mean WP:JDLI. If that is the case there wouldnt be a space for discussion on any topics. Furthermore, not only is this Wikipedia:Tendentious editing but also misaligned with the actual reports. The articles you added all point to only sentiments, but not actual riots which is Wikipedia:No original research. If needed, this article can instead be referenced in 2-3 lines, which actually has been referenced here: Coronavirus in India. Hence, it is needless to say that this article should be deleted instead. --Hari147 (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as we do with many such articles. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This is a clear case of WP:POVFORK. There is no ongoing riot in India, and a minor (300k) Twitter trend doesn't advocate a riot. Most politically-motivated trends on Twitter are either done by netbots or are manipulated.([9]) The other sources used in the formation of this article are much more relevant to 2020 Delhi riots or List of Islamophobic incidents. Considering the article's basic premise is wrong, it should be deleted immediately. - TheodoreIndiana (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfortunate that editors who have been registered with Wikipedia since years do not make a balanced contribution to AfD. One should note that personal taste is not applicable to AfD. It is surprising your one of articles exists on non-notable sources, but you never regret for this, while the articles that are supported by notable sources are WP:POVFORK for you. In fact, you should improve your article creation for now before making false claims. Thank you and happy editing. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article I wrote was on a billion dollar company that is publicly listed on multiple stock exchanges. If you want to dispute the sources then feel free to do so in that article's talk page, not here. The discussion here is regarding the one you wrote. And please don't take this as a personal attack but fallacies should be the last thing hosted on this platform. Don't drag WP:JDL here, that's a poor response to a claim that your whole article was written on imaginary narrative building. - TheodoreIndiana (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G1 and WP:G3 I advocate for the deletion of this page. These "Theories" are all based on 17th-19th century books. Most of these "Theories" are easily refuted by Modern science (Genetics, see Pashtuns#Genetics). We all rely on reliable modern science on Genetics and ethnic origins. So this page is just for creating propaganda and hoaxes. No other ethnic group on Wikipedia has such a "Theory of origin page" dedicated to them like For example the Germans, Uzbeks, Italians, etc, etc. do not have it So why for this ethnic group solely? While we have modern science + All these theories are already mentioned in the lead of the main page Pashtuns#History_and_origins and that is good to mention because it should have attention but not that much (giving a whole page to it while no other ethnic group has such an hoax page)..... It is just giving space for hoaxes WP:DONTHOAX. The whole page is based on unrealiable old sources that spreads hoaxes (looking like it is true). Casperti (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is obviously notable, but if there are concerns that WP:TNT might apply, then the article should be redirected to Pashtuns#History and origins rather than deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no issue with the article and the subject is very notable. Nomination is a clear cut WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Zindagi713 (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete or Redirect, Zindagi1713 and Harmanprtjhj can you please provide any evidence why these 16th-19th century "Theories" are affirmed and are true instead of modern science? If you think they are not creating hoaxes and are reliable please the sources as for now it looks like it is more WP:NPOV opinion of you. Mather of fact, like Uanfala proposed Pashtuns#History and origins is already mentioning the old theories of origin. Uanfala's idea seems a good idea. I do not have a problem of them to be mentioned, I said it is good to mention them but giving them a whole wiki page will fuel it and seem to be true. Casperti (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't vote more than 1 time. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Pashtuns#History and origins. Due to the reliance on non-reliable sources, there is apparently no content which needs be merged. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds absurd because there are many recent reliable sources backing up this subject:
Reinterpreting Indian Ocean Worlds. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 2011. p. 45. suggestion that the Pathans are of Jewish origin may have had had some impact on recent events.
This took me only a few minutes to find. The subject meets WP:GNG and the article (as verified by other editor) has no problem either, this is why I am not intending to cite WP:NOTCLEANUP. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User Harmanprtjhj, I handled by the rules Please read WP:CANVAS, what the rules are and when it is appropriate and inappropriate: Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification. For the deletion discussions your are allowed to notify the authors and author admins. Just like I did. You can notify the authors please read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Casperti (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back on topic, I am not saying I do not accept/believe that there were historical claims but only that dedicating a whole page to it is unnecessary and fuels the old hoaxes looking like It is true. They are unreliable now in the 21th century and are already debunked + All of them are already mentioned on the main page. Casperti (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if your words have been taken at face value (which would be disastrous) still you make no sense as articles about hoaxes can g created if they pass GNG. Azuredivay (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and is backed with relevant WP:HISTRS. I agree that the nomination is mere display of WP:JDL. Azuredivay (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet there are no sources that you provide why you think it passes "Reliable". WP:JDL is more an accusation than a fact. I am an advocate that these theories are indeed WP:HISTRS and it is indeed worth it to be mentioned like it already is on the main page Pashtuns#History and origins. All of these historic (now non-reliable and debunked) theories are mentioned there, along with the reliable modern science. Btw there is no Ethnic group on WP that has such a dedicated specific page. It is good to read WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. So please do not make comments that are WP:BATTLEGROUND. Maybe this is a clear case of WP:ILIKEIT.Casperti (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2020 (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. G6 deletion due to abusive sockpuppetry, emerging consensus is for deletion in any case. I'm happy to WP:REFUND if the sockpuppetry case results in the master being unblocked. Nick (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2020 (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 subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. None of the sources in the article are reliable. A Google search of the subject does not show coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 14:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. This seems like a simple case. The artist just isn't notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale provided by Versace1608. Subject of article fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sadly, as more & more of the world population begin to gain the knowledge that anyone with an internet connection can edit Wikipedia more & more B.S like this would occur exponentially. Celestina007 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and the content cite unreliable sources. I am quite sure the article creator Graimmythesoh when he created this article in 2017 has a WP:COI with the subject. Abishe (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2020 (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. Apart from the first, "weak" opinion, the "keep" side does not address the sourcing problems, which in light of the core policy WP:V trump most other arguments if, as here, they are not convincingly addressed. Sandstein 17:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Not well sourced, but some sources for how the term is applied in animals can be found: for dogs, for sheep. Some authoritative overview and definition would be nice, naturally. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second source you have provided is likely reliable, the first not so, the website’s own terms and conditions states “we do not warrant its [website contents] completeness or accuracy...” Cavalryman (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Strangely, it would be relatively easy to write an article on "Genetic basis of self colour in sheep" - there must be a dozen studies on that [12]. But nothing that just gives an overview of the concept :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge into Animal coat. There are several studies and secondary sources that use the term self-coat, but GNG requires significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". William Harristalk 09:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Animal coat, as this is a term that should be explained somewhere.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. AtsmeTalk📧 02:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if closed as merge what could be merged? There are no sources at hand that provide the broader colouration definition. Cavalryman (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merger into animal coat would be too restrictive because the concept originally arose in the study of flowers and it is now used in coating technology, e.g. Self-colour anodizing of titanium. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - do you have a reference for flowers? One odd title for a titanium article does not make usage wide-spread in that industry. William Harristalk 08:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--this is exactly the sort of technical information people read WP to learn. Don't dumb down the website even more by deleting this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given a number of non-policy based reasons, and under discussion points, an additional relist seems warranted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is basically a single term in animal-keeping jargon, and Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's not really anything here to merge that's appropriate and sourced properly. As stated above, this is just a bit of jargon and nothing more. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:NBOOK. The three sources cited above do not have the significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. Miniapolis 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Not every house ever built needs its own article. Likewise, not every book ever written needs one. Dreamanderson (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Miniapolis - promotional, doesn't meet NBOOK. GirthSummit (blether) 17:06, 28 April 2020 (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.
I am not fully convinced her career in film adds up to "multiple significant roles in notable productions". Remember these are silent film roles, so we need to look at significant. That said, this article lacks any reliable sourced. IMDB is not a reliable source. Appearing in all films in one year does not seem to indivcate true notability, and some of these roles were uncredited. My attempt to find additional sources came up with nothing. The closest I found was a Find a Grave for the same name, but the person was 16 years older so all I can find at all is IMDb, that is not enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2020 (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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH, All I found was press-releases and product reviews. Tagged as promotional January last year, it got worse since then. Kleuske (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if they’re relying on a list of award wins it’s because there’s no better properly-sourced material to add to the article. Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yuck - promo spam. Fails NCORP, and should be a TNT even if it was notable. GirthSummit (blether) 17:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a very vague description of what this is, followed by two self-promotional lists. Alan Islas (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2020 (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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources show it exists with clips but nothing suggesting notability. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time we remove all unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2020 (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.
Minor bombing during the Troubles, regrettably there were lots of these. Fails virtually every single part of WP:EVENT. No lasting effects, limited geographical score, no in-depth coverage, little continued coverage. The majority of the article isn't even about this bombing and, probably understandably, the majority of the references don't mention this bombing either. The ones that do mention this bombing are CAIN (who are attempting to produce a chronology of every single incident during the Troubles, so inclusion on their list doesn't make the bombing notable), the totality of their coverage being The IRA also exploded a bomb in Manchester which injured 26 people, Hansard, which contains a table giving an injury total of 14 for the bombing, The Road to Balcombe Street: The IRA Reign of Terror in London, which says In a parallel attack in Manchester, in the North of England, a bomb attack on the Lewis department store injured nineteen people, raising the total number of casualties for the evening to twenty-six, and lastly GMP Museum which says Less than a year after the bombing at the courts, Manchester suffered a three week spate of IRA bombings, including an incendiary device in the basement of Lewis’s department store that injured 19 people. Despite the rather limited information available the references don't even agree how many people were injured, giving totals of 14, 19 and 26. FDW777 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of maximum transparency I have just removed the Moysey book reference from the article, as it was referencing a sentence implying a named individual had some organisational involvement in this bombing attack. The reference says At the beginning of February, the IRA rotated Brendan Dowd out of London, sending him back to Dublin for reassignment to head up a new ASU, intended to be based in the North of England., and the sentences prior make it obvious that February is referring to 1975, which is after this bombing had taken place. FDW777 (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IRA attacks on the mainland had heavy media coverage and most of them should be regarded as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it's almost WP:MILL but I think we should keep it because it's a historic account of a specific bombing that received good coverage at the time. Dreamanderson (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where is this "heavy" or "good" media coverage? The New York Times says The 19 were Injured, none seriously, authorities said, in Lewis's, a popular department store in Manchester. Two were admitted to hospitals, that's 21 words. The Provisional IRA in England: the bombing campaign, 1973-1997 by Gary McGladdery says on page 100 On 27 January devices exploded at a number of stores across England, including Lewis's Department Store in Manchester where fourteen people were injured, and Ratners jewellers in Kensington High Street in London where four people were injured, that's 23 words and he doesn't even give the incident a full sentence of its own. CAIN have 11 words on the incident, Moysey 21 words and again not a full sentence. So that's two authors years after the event who don't even give the incident a full sentence of its own. A similar book about IRA's campaign in England, 25 Years of Terror: The IRA's war against the British by Martin Dillon, doesn't even mention this bombing at all. WP:EVENTCRITERIA says Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Where's the enduring significance? Books about the IRA's campaign in England give it less than a sentence of coverage, if they even mention it at all.
Based on the references provided so far (either ones in the article or ones provided by me, none by people asserting this incident deserves an article of its own) what encyclopedia article could be written? "An IRA bomb exploded in Manchester on 27 January 1975, 14/19/26 people were injured". That's not an article, and it can be covered just as well at Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (1970–79) and List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain. FDW777 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for evidence this "heavy" or "good" media coverage exists? FDW777 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is continuining coverage decades later, such as this. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's trivial coverage in an article about an incident on July 1st 1975, which is a different subject entirely. FDW777 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - This has only received a small amount of attention and is best described in context over at 'Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (1970–79)'. As stated above, we only have a few sentences worth of material that can be properly cited, which isn't enough to build a page out of. As well, there's that frustrating variation in terms of how many were injured. I know that it's horrifying to think of a terrorist attack as being "routine", but in context our rules about "routine" events seem to apply. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would appear to be the most sensible approach. This discussion was never intended to remove all mention of this incident from Wikipedia. It can be quite easily covered in that article and List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain as I've already stated. To date the total additional information supplied amounts to an additional sentence-worth of material about the warning received before the bombing and the evacuation, to add to the existing one sentence. Those two sentences can be covered perfectly well in other articles, no information will be lost. FDW777 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2020 (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.
Delete a totally unsourced article. That this article has survived 16 years may make it an even bigger scandal than Barahir. My understanding is that notability guidelines were not even begun until 2006. We still are plagued by the early uncontrolled years of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page survived 16 years as a redirect (with various targets), not this biography of a musician. The musician was only added to this page a few hours ago. --Metropolitan90(talk) 14:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability. All that a bit of searching can confirm is essentially that this obscure artist really exists and has continued to release material. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Turning this into a redirect after the deletion makes sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article was a reasonable redirect for most of its life, no reason not to reinstate that. It's had a few different targets in its lifetime, B52 (disambiguation) seems like the most reasonable one to me. If this is done as an administrative action, in line with the consensus here, anyone attempting to revert back to the article about the musician could expect to have their account blocked. (Deletion wouldn't be much of a barrier to anyone anyway, it's literally one sentence that someone could easily type again to recreate the page.) GirthSummit (blether) 13:00, 28 April 2020 (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. The "delete" side says that "first x to do y" does not amount to notability and that this article is merely a memorial. The "keep" side points to substantial coverage in reliable sources. These are all defensible arguments, and we have no consensus about whether the nature and quality of the sources merit an article, so the article is kept by default for lack of consensus to delete. Sandstein 17:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all notable. Page acts as a memorial. In fact, the user who set it up even posted a message on Twitter saying he established the page as a "tribute" (here). Whilst his death may be sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list is only supposed to cover notable people with their own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would be opposed to a merge as that list should only be for people who are notable enough for their own articles. Delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIALSpiderone
Keep Notability is confirmed by the subject being the the first Sikh to be appointed as an emergency medicine consultant in the United Kingdom and the first Sikh to head up an A&E unit in the United Kingdom. The claim that the page "acts as a memorial" is utterly bogus, as is the egregious misquote of the tweet I made, which predates the creation of the article, and makes absolutely no reference to it - as if my motivation were a valid deletion rationale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – being "the first" in something does not merit automatic notability. The United Kingdom had Sikh police officers 7–8 decades ago. It had Indian parliamentarians as long ago as the 1800s (e.g. Dadabhai Naoroji). Being the "first African-American to graduate with a degree in the U.S." or "the first Indian judge in the UK" are notable because they could be regarded as breaking significant barriers, particularly during the time that they happened. Being the "first emergency care consultant of Sikh heritage" is really scraping the barrel as it is so trivial. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First x person to do y is stretched to an level of absurdity if the claim of that for this person is treated as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, notability is not determined by current content of an article on the English Wikipedia. MarioGom (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blumhofer also died recently and the sources in that case are inferior. JPL's position is inconsistent or absurd. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant because WP:OSE states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". See also WP:SAUCE. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everybody. Please don't quote essays as reason for anything: WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP: OSE, WP:SAUCE Essays are just formalized opinion and do not have community consensus so cannot be used as if policy or guideline. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage in respectable sources such as the BBC and Guardian means that the subject passes WP:GNG. The nomination's reference to Twitter is a violation of WP:DOX. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in sources. Notability is not an evenly calibrated bar. Some subjects/topics are more or less notable. This subject is notable enough given the sources. add: Subject is notable WP: Academic Further, why an editor creates a notable article is not significant. We all create articles for personal reasons; reasons for creation have nothing to do with the quality or notability of the article. (And it looks as if the tweet was posted before the article was created.) Littleolive oil (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If someone can provide significant coverage in reliable sources beyond obituaries, ping me and I'll gladly change my !vote. In the future the topic might still gain notability if this is retrospectively found to have historical significance, but it is too soon to see that. --MarioGom (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC) Edited: striked out WP:NOTMEMORIAL after reading the rest of the discussion. --MarioGom (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which one event do you think this article relies on? And which part of NOTMEMORIAL says that obituaries cannot be cited as evidence of more general notability? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing: The WP:BLP1E event is his death. Obituaries can be cited, obviously, and they can be deep. It was the case with Francisco Hernando Contreras, where WP:GNG would have been met in any case without counting any obituary, but obituaries provided good reference material for the articles and good overview of all events. However, when discussing notability, obituaries are problematic, as they exist for many subjects for whom notability couldn't be established otherwise. For example, obituaries published by institutions that the subject had connection with (e.g. [13]) are very common, and not independent. In the context of COVID-19, where there is pressure to publish about anything that is related to the pandemic, obituaries for healthcare workers have become a non significant event (in my opinion, anyway). Note that I did not consider the tweet and I think it should not be considered at all for the purpose of the AfD. --MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The WP:BLP1E event is his death" But Riyat's notability is not predicated on his death - indeed, as a proportion of the content of the article, it is barely mentioned. I note that you cannot show any part of NOTMEMORIAL - on which, with BLP1E, your delete !vote relies - that says we cannot cite obituaries, nor indeed that mitigates against this article in any sense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing: The article lists facts and I do not dispute them. As with most obituaries, they cite all accomplishments that are significant (in the context of an individual) and it is hard to see how these personal accomplishments contribute to notability. Did these accomplishments receive significant coverage in reliable sources outside of the context of his death? If not, then I don't think they contribute to notability. I just don't know which notability criteria this article does pass:
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. Maybe. It could be argued that notability is presumed at this point, but I'm not sure.
There are two specific points that I think this topic lacks:
WP:SUSTAINED: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events.
WP:BLP1E: Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: [...] I think all of the three listed conditions are met here. But as I said, I can change my mind if there are sources that show that it is not the case or if I got something wrong. --MarioGom (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if being the first Sikh in the role was notable there would have been media coverage when he was assigned that position. All the coverage is because he died of COVID19, therefore WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Weburbia (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being first X to do Y is notable. (Gabinho>:) 17:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Please tell me which policy supports this Spiderone 11:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article can be notable and a memorial. Memorializing does not exclude notability nor does notability exclude that an article can also memorialize. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and fails WP:GNG. A consultant in a medical field isn't something that is rare, and saying he was the first X to be Y is strectching notability the same. Also getting tedious, as a radiographer myself, I work alongside doctors and see the effects of COVID, but every time a doctor with a fairly routine medical career tragically dies, it isn't an excuse to create a memorial page. Think of their wider career and the notability guidelines of parent projects. StickyWicket (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
StickyWicket has created thousands of stubs about cricketers such as this – someone who played one match in 1860 and scored 4 runs. The readership for such an article is tiny but that's not a problem because it's our policy that there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover. StickyWicket fails to provide a sensible rationale for deleting doctors but keeping cricketers. It's blatant bias contrary to WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Andrew Davidson thanks for stalking my contributions, although Henry Majendie isn't the subject of this AfD - and if you read my comment about consulting parent projects about notability, you might discover he passes the cricket project notability guidelines. The rationale for deleting this doctor is sound, he's a consultant - one of thousands, what makes him unique? Shall I create a page for the 8 consultant radiologists I work under who are no more notable than this chap? StickyWicket (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"he passes the cricket project notability guidelines" I see my mistake, I should have started WikiProject A&E consultants from Derby. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability per GNG is established via the Guardian obit. We often have used the fact that historic figures had obituaries of major newspapers as prima facie evidence of notability. The article would benefit from some WP:HEY expansion to show more about his groundbreaking status, but notability is quite clear as it sits. Montanabw(talk) 20:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he had not have died, then we would not be having this discussion, because there would be no article. Brycehughes (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Being dead" is not a valid reason for deletion. If the material published in obituaries had been published when he was still alive, the same article could have been written; the deletion rationale above could not. There is, as pointed out above no prohibition on citing obituaries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"If only the car hadn't broken down" - Janet Weiss. But the car did break down, and Manjeet Singh Riyat did die, and we do have this article. --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, we do have an article, however his manner of death was not notable, nor was he notable prior to his death, so I'm not seeing how or where the article gains its notability. Brycehughes (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His manner of death was certainly notable, as there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources discussing it. GNG. The biography gains its notability by having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources discussing his life and career. GNG. --RexxS (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obituaries. Long obituaries, I'll grant you, but obituaries nonetheless. This is not sustained coverage, but rather a cluster of obits appearing at once, relating a sad end to an accomplished individual. But there have been many sad ends to accomplished individuals, and many obituaries relating them, and those alone do not confer notability. Brycehughes (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets GNG: "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources":
That's more than enough. For those arguing WP:BLP1E, let me remind you what BLP1E states: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: ... Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. That shows that BLP1E is never a reason for deletion. It is only a reason to merge from a biography into an article about an event. In this case, are you really arguing to merge the present biography into the event Death of Manjeet Singh Riyat? How pointless would that be? --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, As far as I can remember, WP:BLP1E is often part of deletion resolutions when that single event does not meet notability criteria. Specially in combination with absence of WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. MarioGom (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: You don't have to remember, you can read the policy: WP:BLP1E. Does it or does it not state that each of three conditions is met and In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article? The policy clearly states that a BLP that fits all three BLP1E conditions should be merged into the article about the event. The notability criteria are GNG - period, and both the BLP and the event have more than enough significant coverage to meet GNG. There is no policy for deleting a BLP that passes GNG without merging it under BLP1E. Do you really believe that the coverage I've listed above is insufficient to meet SIGCOV? You must be making a joke. Now, SUSTAINED is a reasonable consideration, but we won't know if the coverage is fleeting for a while. But SIGCOV says "topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." Nobody has shown it does not meet all of those conditions, so the presumption remains that the article may exist. If you want to bring a deletion request based on SUSTAINED, you need to show that the sourcing is ephemeral, and you have no way of doing that right now. --RexxS (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, that's not how I would interpret the text of WP:BLP1E: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. This clarification says "usually" and it is part of bullet point 2, not the introduction, which says Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: [...]. This interpretation is not something unseen. See two very recent examples: Peg Broadbent and Sérgio Trindade. Regarding WP:SUSTAINED, my understanding is that the nature of obituaries is ephemeral (not sure if that would be the right term though). I think given the amount and frequency of obituaries, they are a poor signal for notability. They all look like routine coverage to me. I think there may be exceptions, of course, where a particular death produces unusually high coverage for some reason. MarioGom (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: The quote is part of one of the three conditions, and the introduction is clear that each of those conditions must be met for BLP1E to apply. That much is plain English, and I don't see what room you have to "interpret it". If an article meets BLP1E, then it clearly meets the policy to merge it into the event article. Every article that meets BLP1E should be merged. That's what the policy says. If you want to claim an exemption on "it is usually better to merge ... " (i.e. not always), then I'll remind you that the introduction states "We generally should avoid ..." (i.e. not always). Those sort of indicators that exceptions may apply are quite normal in our policies, but the onus is always on whoever tries to create an exemption to justify it. What is your justification for going against policy and not merging? Those examples are worthless because our policy cannot be overriden by anecdotes. Nobody can say whether the present coverage will not continue and spawn further coverage; we have no way of knowing, so SUSTAINED cannot be a viable reason for deletion until the coverage has clearly ceased. It's too soon to determine that, so having passed GNG, the presumption remains that the subject merits an article. --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He - and not only his death - were covered by BBC, Independent and many other papers. I would have supplied links but see that others found the same, above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has long been consensus that if the major national newspapers and the BBC etc all see fit to publish detailed obituaries, then that person is notable.----Pontificalibus 08:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we just create an article for every British doctor that dies during this pandemic then? Spiderone 11:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with significant coverage is notable Dr or otherwise. The test is not that Singh (or anyone else died) but that the person is notable given the significance of the sources. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spiderone is quite willing to create an article about every footballer that dies during this pandemic – see Zaccaria Cometti; Luciano Federici; Innocenzo Donina, for example. Again we see the proposition that sportsmen matter and doctors don't. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those footballers would have been notable even if they hadn't died as they had appearances in a fully professional league. If we keep this article, we will be potentially seeing a rise in articles being created for non-notable doctors who are famous for nothing more than dying during the pandemic. Spiderone 15:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those footballers met the ridiculously low standard of NFOOTY, but there could not have been an article (and there wasn't) because there was a lack of reliable sources discussing them until they died. We will see a rise in articles being created for footballers who are famous for nothing more than dying during the pandemic. That's just how GNG works. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson: Stalking contributions to single out editors who vote delete and try to disqualify the !vote based on a supposed lack of consistency... I don't think that's acceptable. --MarioGom (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"If we keep this article, we will be potentially seeing a rise in articles being created for non-notable doctors"*Bogosity klaxon!*Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing Spiderone's response to my !vote: yes, let's do that - as long as they meet WP:BASIC.----Pontificalibus
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is one burst of coverage, but we need sustained coverage over a period of time to gauge his notability. Störm(talk) 11:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. [WP:NTEMP] "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." We cannot and do not try to tell the future and must deal in the present and the sources we have now which is this case are enough to establish notability. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a few people seem to re-parroting 'NOTMEMORIAL' because someone looked off-wiki and brought back an innocent Twitter comment which is now being presented as grounds for deletion. I feel WP:NBIO has been met through a number of respected national media outlets publishing quite detailed obituaries of Singh which have focussed on this individual's achievement as the first Sikh Accident & Emergency Consultant to be employed anywhere within the UK's National Health Service, as well as reporting his contribution to academic emergency care. I note this Punjabi site also writes about him. It's a reality that we often only manage to get enough good sources to write about people after they have died. (see Andy Nisbet for one such example I created). Nobody with an ounce of sensitivity goes on Twitter and says, "hey, I'm so pleased person xxxx has died - now I can write about them on Wikipedia". But that's often how we get enough sources to jump over the bar of demonstrating notability (i.e. the world's mainstream media have taken note of them), as here. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Nick Moyes, regardless of the validity of WP:NOTMEMORIAL in AfD, note that is has been mentioned in every similar article listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/COVID-19. So I would not assume that other editors meant it as a response to the mentioned tweet, except for those who explicitly said so. --MarioGom (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: well, as that was the basis for this particular deletion proposal, I can only assume that every commenter here will have seen that suggestion and been influenced by it in one way or another. What has or has not been said in other deletion discussions is not relevant here, in my view. Thanks though, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that WP:NOTMEMORIAL actually states: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements [of WP:BIO]". Where is the suggestion that this page was created by a friend, relative or coworker of this person? Or done out of sentimentality? Notability has clearly been met by the broad national and international media coverage they have received, so NOTMEMORIAL is well and truly trumped. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes, re deletion proposal, fair enough. I thought it was worth mentioning, as it is recently a common place for COVID-19-related AfDs. After reading all feedback here, I agree that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is generally a clumsy argument for these cases. Although WP:BLP1E/WP:SUSTAINED still may apply (I know, I know, several editors here argue that is does not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioGom (talk • contribs) 00:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this man has achieved a great deal; notability is confirmed by the subject being the the first Sikh to be appointed as an emergency medicine consultant in the United Kingdom and the first Sikh to head up an A&E unit in the United Kingdom. That is very great achievement in itself. I wonder if Florence Nightingale had just died whether someone would want her article deleted too. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we draw the line here? Shall we also give an article to the first Sikh to eat a packet of Maltesers? Spiderone 13:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, eating a packet of Malteasers is hardly a comparison to being the manager of A&E unit (or in American speak: Emergency Room). It seems to me that footballers can achieve notability far easier than medical professionals. Perhaps we rate sport higher than people trying to save people's lives (perhaps that is an indictment on today's society). Are we to have an article on EVERY footballer that ever existed? It seems to me that people are rating medical professionals who fall ill with this virus to be worth less because they are doing it as part of their job. To achieve the status of managing an A&E unit is no easy task, especially for BAME people. If this article is deleted, we should also delete most of the footballer articles that have been created in deaths for this year. What is notability? Where are the names of eminent doctors to be recorded? or are they to be forgotten? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice straw man. Just for the record I do believe that we are too lenient on footballers as well but that's for another AfD. Spiderone 15:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support Merge if an article was created to remember all those medical professionals who lost their lives during this pandemic trying to save the lives of others. Otherwise their voices, their contributions to society will be erased as if they never exisited. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough good sources to satisfy GNG. NOTMEMORIAL does not apply. Agathoclea (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see quite a few users on here simply saying "yes I think he passes, keep". Where's the evidence of notability? There is A SINGLE source on the article that pre-dates his death – it's a medical journal. Anyone can be noted in a medical journal, it doesn't merit notability. I've just done a Google search on him between March 2000 and March 2020 (one month before his death). Guess what? Nothing comes up. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the misapprehension that sources, or indeed notability, must be pre-mortem. That is not the case; though if you believe it is, you are welcome to cite a policy saying so. Also, no-one is "saying 'yes I think he passes, keep'", "simply" or otherwise. Again, feel free to cite a diff, if you think you can prove me wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 29 April 2020 (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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD: Non-notable primary and secondary school with no significant coverage in independent sources. Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The user who created this article was socking to continue editing the article, and the creator of this article got indeffed for that. Also, this subject clearly is not notable.Alexlatham96 (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2020 (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. Yunshui雲水 10:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of any notability. The first two refs are not RSs and the third attests to the fact that one musician had had the benefit of the article subject as an accompanist. Has been previously nominated for speedy deletion and ten PRODed. On both occasions that rationale for retaining the article was a wish to see notability discussed at AfD. I don't believe that the subject of the article is notable and fails WP:GNG which is my reason for initiating this AfD VelellaVelella Talk 03:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I ran a Google search and couldn't find any coverage of him in reliable sources. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 18:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be that the subject is not notable, but the description given by the nominator of the third source in the article is incorrect. It does not just attest to the fact that Kunte was an accompanist, but concentrates on analysing his role as an accompanist. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 10:14, 21 April 2020 (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. There is no consensus on the question of notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not keep? She won Mrs. World in 2006, is covered for years for her relationship with Sergey Veremeenko for example [14]. She has coverage for acting: [15]. Must be even more coverage in Russian.--KasiaNL (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep film list looks notable to me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unconvinced any of her roles were in actual notable productions. Not every film that is commercially released is actually notable. Wikipedia has a lot of articles on films that are not notable, and at least one of her roles seems to have been in such a film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:NACTOR criterion 1, and per KasiaNL's point. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a bit perplexed by those saying her filmography is notable. Only 2 of the 15 films listed even have their own Wikipedia pages, and her only other credit is a one-off CSI:NY episode. The article seems to be written as a self-promotion, with claims that she is a Hollywood actress, and I cannot find sources for her career as a ballerina being notable either. Coverage of her relationship with Sergey Veremeenko seems irrelevant as being the GF/wife of someone notable does not merit her own Wikipedia article. 5 of the 9 sources used in her entire article are YouTube videos, with the other 4 sources being websites which are also not relevant enough for their own Wikipedia pages (mainlinemedianews.com, martialartsentertainment.com, btvnovinite.bg, meetforcharity.today). How is she notable? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the answer to Abbyjjjj96's quesiton just previous is WP:ENT, which basically says if you get enough significant roles you are notable. She co-starred in a film with Christian Slater, among several other film roles. I trimmed the article of some unnecessary or uncited material.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly my point though. What significant role has she had in a notable project? The Christian Slater film is not even notable enough for its own Wiki page, so that's not one. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only The Tomb seems to be a notable film with her having a significant role. However is that really a notable film? We have one other article on a film she appeared in, but she was not in as significant a role there. We really in most cases should interpret multiple as 3 or more, which she clearly does not have as of yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 10:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think this is a borderline case: the subject has had a lot of main roles in films, but only some of the films are moderately notable; the Mainline source (a media outlet I'm not familiar with) is quite in-depth, but there doesn't seem to be much more significant coverage available (in English sources, anyway). All in all, though, I think there is enough for a weak WP:NACTOR argument, and a weak WP:GNG argument—so I'd let the article stand. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original article about an Oregon company was created by a connected contributor in 2012, then WP:PRODded and deleted within a month as non-notable. A new article was created by another editor in 2018; article refers to one award, but still does not demonstrate notability. Article should be deleted and the page redirected again to periscope, which is the topic of incoming links using that adjective. – FayenaticLondon 22:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll see if I can address notability with the topic/article within the timeframe of this AFD. Jessamyn (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Periscopic clearly meets the notability guidelines for corporations and organizations. There are many examples of significant coverage of their work in independent, reliable, secondary sources. I just added some more references to journalistic and academic sources. --AmeliaMN (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: based on these sources, it passes WP:SIGCOV: the Wired and Fast Company; the Times link leads to a blank page. I would support keeping it, but the page has far too much unreliable information in it. Once trimmed down, I would !vote to keep, but right now, it's a candidate for WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I trimmed it down, I think most of what is there is ok and I think this company is much more than just accolades for their onebig dataviz piece. I support the suggestion to rename the article Periscopic (company).Jessamyn (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I see citations that might support notability for an article on its best-known work US Gun Deaths (visualization), rather than confirming notability of the company itself. If better citations for the company are added, may I suggest that the page be moved to Periscopic (company) as not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? – FayenaticLondon 15:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are now 28 references in the article. Most of the references merely discuss an infographic produced by the company. Their "U.S. Gun Deaths" infographic has been published and written about in lots of publications - but notability isn't inherited and none of the references discuss *the company* in depth (or at all). Having looked at all the references, none meet the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any that do. I've provided a quick analysis of the references below:
This Google Books reference is a book written by one of the co-founders of the company, it mentions the company in passing, contains no in-depth information on the company and is not significant coverage of the company, fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. This next book reference is a chapter written by officers of the company, also fails for the same reasons. This book reference highlights a cool infographic produced by the company but fails for the same reasons as the others.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the person who created the most recent version of the article so won't speak to whether it should be deleted (I obviously think it's okay) but would suggest itf it's slated for deletion perhaps collating the information in it, trimmed down if needed, into the Kim Rees article? Jessamyn (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the company is quoted in verbatim a lot in the wired article and there's not multiple, significant, reliable, independent, wide audience coverage to assert WP:NORG level of notability. I liken cobbling together a ton of snippet coverage to rounding up pieces of broken glass and trying to add up the area. You can't substitute them for a large single sheet no matter how many pieces you collect. Graywalls (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 10:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Graywalls, some of it might be incorporated into Kim Rees, but it's not really a merge. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:20, 28 April 2020 (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. Yunshui雲水 10:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is highly promotional, and is likely an autobio. He is closely associated with a cultural wing of a state-funded organization, (J&K academy of art,culture and Languages).Based on the article, it seems he is a leading cultural promoter of the Gujari langauge and culture. But the lack of notable awards and independent news sources make it seem he is not notable. Daiyusha (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 10:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a promotional article, sourced to primary sources, passing mentions in unreliable secondary sources, and one dead link. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 03:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The label's roster suggests it meets WP:MUSIC's sense of "one of the more important indie labels", and the Norwegian article on the label includes a couple of Norwegian-language sources. Referencing using Norwegian (and maybe German) sources is likely to be more fruitful than looking for English-language sources. Chubbles (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Web searching can return results in multiple languages and everything I've located (and there are mostly PRIMARY sources) shows that the references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 10:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Chubbles erroneously cites WP:MUSIC which applies to musicians and not record labels. Record labels are subject to WP:NCORP which requires WP:SIGCOV in multiple sources and there is none. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2020 (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 Nom Withdrawn. Coming to same search bubble conclusion as Elmidae. I'm not finding the sources, but they're clearly out there. StarM 15:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding a single band review (already used as ref), but that's it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Keep Eh, there you go. Still don't turn up in my searches, BTW. I'm starting to doubt the consistency of my search bubble. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has a staff written biography at AllMusic here, and two staff album reviews here, and here, as well as an album review at Tiny Mixed Tapes here, and an article at Skyscraper (magazine) [here. There could be more more as haven't completed a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 10:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306's work. Article's a mess, but sources exist. Caro7200 (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 00:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NF. Trivial coverage in secondary sources, which mostly focuses on Drake (musician), who appeared in this short YouTube documentary produced by a non-notable filmmaker (Mustafa the Poet is a redirect). Magnolia677 (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be creating his page soon, don't worry. But anyways all the sources mentioned meet WP:NFSOURCES and I've included more of these into the article, Drake, Baka Not Nice, Jay Whiss, all notable people have also starred in the film too which is of course giving it more notability right? TwinTurbo (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works, no. I strongly recommend you use your sandbox to create drafts which you then get reviewed by more experienced users, otherwise you risk having your other articles deleted too. DS (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mustafa the Poet (which is no longer a redirect) is a notable songwriter and filmmaker, he was a songwriter on a grammy award winning album and also wrote poems for a fashion show for Valentino. TwinTurbo (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-03 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 10:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources appear to be of questionable quality, and the thing still is, as stated above, that commentary focuses on Drake's participation. The film itself seems overshadowed by the routine-ish coverage of what the artist says and does. I'm inclined to think that the movie isn't notable and doesn't merit its own page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from the press release sources available online and in the article, the documentary has not been critically reviewed. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 14:13, 26 April 2020 (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. Sockpuppetry, falsification of sources and copyright violations all increase the likelihood that this is a COI/UPE creation. As such, I am taking the additional step of salting the article for the foreseeable future. Yunshui雲水 10:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not yet pass WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. It was previously deleted after an AfD for that same reason. G8 was declined as it incorporates some new sources, but are not enough to meet notability. Of the three sources that postdate the previous AfD, one promotes a software product developed by the subject and adds very little coverage on the person. another is an interview published by a blog, so most of its content, except for a introduction sentence, is not independent. The third is a source presented by the author as a new article from an official news agency, but CSEC.news is a self-published site that looks like a news site, but was just created and has very little additional content besides the article about the subject. Yesterday the about us section still showed the "Lorem impsum" place holder text and the wordpress news template. It was build using the WPBakery drag and drop Wordpress page builder. Today, after commenting yesterday to the author that the site was an auto-publication, the about us section was removed and a footer has been added claiming to be written by a "team consisting of cyber security professionals" the read more on that at the time of this writing is a non functioning link. The author may have a direct relation to the subject, as he claims that both of the pictures published in the article are his own work. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystallizedcarbon: Hi, I hope you are well, I have added other sources, these sources are from the Iranian IT weekly, and the official Iranian news agencies Mehr News Agency,Student News Agency, which are two news related to 2018 and the news. Not new, in terms of uploaded images, I just uploaded those images--BenYaamin (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @BenYaamin: Please confirm if you are the author of the two pictures you uploaded or if you have a direct relationship with Behzad Qasemi. If you do, it must be disclosed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystallizedcarbon: Hi my friend and guide, I just uploaded the images, I downloaded and uploaded the first image from this address File:Behzad Ghasemi.jpgBehzad Ghasemi and I downloaded and uploaded the second image from the news sites, and I have no connection with this person, I am Iranian and this person It is Iranian, and in Iran Behzad Qasemi's scientific theories are very important. I have helped Wikipedia to complete it and explain Behzad Qasemi --BenYaamin (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @BenYaamin: Thank you for clarifying. I am sorry to inform you that if you are not the author of the images and they have not been released by their authors under a free license, they can't be used and you must remove them from commons as it is considered a copyright violation. When you uploaded them, you marked them as your own work. You can only upload pictures you take yourself or those that have compatible licenses and if that is the case you must clearly show which license is covering them (with a link to the license). You can request for them to be deleted in commons using this template {{Copyvio |1=The image does not have a free license I uploaded by mistake |source= }} changing the reason as you see fit and including the URL after source= of the site from where you downloaded the image. If you don't know how, please let me know and I will take care of it. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC) @Crystallizedcarbon: Hi my good friend, I didn't know this and thank you for telling me.[reply]
Thank you, just for the one you uploaded, I took care of the other one which I just noticed was uploaded by a different user. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC) @Crystallizedcarbon: Hi my cyber friend, I hope you have a good time, I deleted duplicate sources and added a new source to the article with a new image (of course I published the image according to the rules, thank you for teaching me to upload the images correctly),Regarding the first, second and third sources, because the news mentions Behzad Qasemi age, place of birth and specialization, I used them for explanations. It may seem repetitive, but the articles are different and only the picture They are one--BenYaamin (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article was deleted 2 years ago. Nothing has changed in a significant way to justify having the article now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystallizedcarbon: Hello dear friend, I have completely removed the sources that were not valid (CSEC.news) and added credible sources from the official news agencies of the Islamic Republic News Agency,Iranian Labour News Agency,Student News Agency,Mehr News Agency to the article.
In connection with WP:NBIO, the text of the article and the biography in this article are written using the text of the published news.
There are many articles on Wikipedia that do not have half the resources for this article, but they remain.
Please review the sources again, and *do not delete this article if it complies with the rules of Wikipedia rules. BenYaamin (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @BenYaamin: Thank you for removing the invalid source. As far as the ones you added, the first source does not link to an article on the subject, the next 2 duplicate the press release about the software product developed by the subject and include the same small amount of coverage as cited before. the other two added also duplicate exiting content from 2016 before the previous AfD and without in-depth coverage. Please review WP:WHATABOUTX. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If the article gets deleted but the subject receives enough in depth coverage from independent reliable sources in the future to meet WP:GNG it could be recreated. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystallizedcarbon:Thank you for guiding me and teaching me,I will find new and more authoritative sources and add them to the article, depending on the rules and training you have taught me.
I will also delete duplicate resources, thanks for taking the time to respond and teach--BenYaamin (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. If you want to create an article that was deleted before you should contact the admin who deleted that or in this case start as a draft and provide new reliable sources that can assert notability. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystallizedcarbon:Hi my friend, I uploaded new images and when I uploaded I mentioned that these images are not for me and I just upload them, and I also mentioned the source of the images in the description section, but again the nominated images have been removed, if You may want to protect the images from being deleted and teach me how to upload images so that they are not deleted and remain. Thank you very much (File:Qasemi.jpg)(Behzad Qasemi.jpg)(File:ًQasemi is presenting the theory of Corona cyber virus.jpg)--BenYaamin (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am completing articles and resources, I have found new sources and I am reviewing them. If they are correct, I will include them in the article. BenYaamin (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BenYaamin is a SPA account that has been indefinitely blocked for abusively using multiple accounts (see WP:SOCK). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2020 (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.
This article should be deleted because it is not a significantly covered place. I could not find any reliable sources. Article has been unsourced since November 2006, meaning that it is likely that nobody else found any sources either. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 01:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I struggled to find any decent sources as well, and couldn't find any which would help expand the article. Allenthalben (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a distinct neighborhood with even its own post office and train station.[16][17]Oakshade (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, there really aren't any other reliable sources for that either. Also, just because it has a post office doesn't mean it's automatically notable. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 05:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND: a populated place that is legally-recognized by the Government of India ([19]). North America1000 01:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NGEO as provided above, a thanks to Northamerica1000 for referencing the article, has anyone else noticed there appears to have been an increase in the number of afd nominations of articles unreferenced from 2006? to all the editors looking at these articles, keep up the good work! Coolabahapple (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2020 (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.
Delete per nom, also fails WP:GNG as neither references are solely focused on Manoj (one of which I wasn't even able to find a single mention of) dibbydib (T ･ C) 05:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. ST47 (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: This seems like a pretty clear case for deletion, but, because I can't read the Indian sources, I am qualifying my vote as a "weak" delete. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot read the sources either, but GTranslate makes it possible to get some idea of what they say. One of them mentions a person called Manoj Jat (who was a guest at some school function) without saying who that person was, the other one doesn't seem to mention Manoj Jaat all as far as I can see (it is an overview of the cinema industry in Meerut). I cannot find any other coverage of him. --bonadeacontributionstalk 12:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator. ƏXPLICIT 05:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable actor. The only current external link is IMDb. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of substantial sources that could help to improve the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, only one "source" which fails WP:CITEIMDB. dibbydib (T ･ C) 05:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some content and references and I think she meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tacyarg wow, brilliant work with the Newspaper Archives! Withdrawing my nominationCardiffbear88 (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 03:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test for a mayor is the ability to write and source a substantive article that clearly demonstrates that he's significantly more notable than the norm for smalltown mayors. But other than a single deadlinked hit of election-related coverage, the remaining four sources here are otherwise covering him entirely in the context of having once competed on a television game show rather than anything related to politics -- but that just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of broad or enduring interest who would pass the ten year test on that basis. And that's before you even consider that fully half of the game show coverage is still unreliable sources that wouldn't constitute support for notability even if competing on a game show were a valid notability claim in and of itself. Nothing here, either in the substance or the sourcing, is enough to get a smalltown mayor over the notability bar. Bearcat (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL - The office is too insignificant. Additionally, the game show is BLP1EVENT at best, and pointless trivia at worst. Hog Farm (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable mayor of a place that is not large enough to make the mayor default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL as he was the mayor of a small town. Local politicians of small towns are generally not accepted. LefcentrerightTalk(plz ping) 16:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep small town mayors can be notable under certain circumstances, and his appearance on the game show/the live coverage of it in his hometown push him just over the edge imo. WP:NPOLEpluribusunumyall (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The game show just makes him a WP:BLP1E. If the most substantive thing that can be said about him is that he once appeared on a game show, rather than anything politically significant, then that's not how you make a smalltown mayor special enough to clear the bar in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appearing on a game show does not make one notable, being a small town mayor does not make one (automatically) notable, combining the two doesn't make one notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. SportingFlyerT·C 20:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appearing as a one time guest on a game show is so far from being even remotely close to making someone notable that even if there were grounds to keep the article, we should probably remove the whole game show appearance part as unneeded trivia. This article is 12 years old, back before 2011 we had crazy, wild west level over creation of articles in Wikipedia. I have been trying to do something about many of the IMDb only sourced articles from that time frame. What I have come to realize is that many of those articles are on people who are notable, although often more notable for acting in venues that IMDb does not cover like stage or radio than TV and film. It is often not easy to find that potential articles, but I guess I will have to up my game. I still am not sure why I get told I should start by "asking for help with sources" when some of these articles have sat with a request for better sourcing for 11 months and remained just IMDb sourced. The same thing happens with Proposed deletions. The article is prodded as just having IMDb as asource, the prod is rmoved but no additional sources are found. The whole thing indicates to me that if I do not want people to throw false claims like I lack historical thinking, I guess because I do not accept that every person who had a billed role in a Hollywood Film is notable, I should just not even try. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:43, 21 April 2020 (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.
Despite passing WP:NFOOTY a WP:BEFORE check sees that their is only really one result for the UAE footballer [20] and that is from a match which is routine. Other than that I can't see how this player passes WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already passes NFOOTY, and he's just too young to dismiss him for only having 2 senior caps. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes NFOOTBALL and is notable - a 21 year old international player. Needs improving with Arabic-language sources. GiantSnowman 11:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NFOOTY as brought out above, nominator could have used alternatives such as expressing any concerns on article/footy project talkpages before bringing this to afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination is false, a quick Google search finds other recent articles mentioning him, such as this. Easily meets NFOOTY, young and active player on a major team. Nfitz (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2020 (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 subject of this article does not meet the guidelines for notability and the article content shows bias to the subject matter being described. The person being described in this article does not qualify as notable in the Wikipedia sense. Thank you.NameShiba (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (Noting for full transparency that I created this article, and have continued to be involved in editing this article.) There is an ongoing campaign, coordinated offwiki, to whitewash Epik (domain registrar) (the company of which Rob Monster is CEO). That has been unsuccessful, and so the nominator has now nominated both that article (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epik (domain registrar)) and this one for deletion. Monster has not become less notable since the last time the article was nominated for deletion, though I will say he doesn't seem to have gained any further coverage in any kind of sourcing we could use, either. But he's pretty clearly (in my opinion) notable in his own right—while he is known for his work as the CEO of Epik, he has also made a name for himself through his commentary on various political topics. In the first deletion nomination there was some talk of merging/redirecting his article to the article on Epik, but that content could not reasonably be merged to the Epik article without making it a WP:COATRACK. GorillaWarfare(talk) 01:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Britishfinance. Nominator is a brand new accound and seems to be a WP:SPA... ♟♙ (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a band, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim even being attempted here is that the band members were previously associated with other bands -- but under NMUSIC #6, that only gets you anywhere if at least two band members have standalone notability as individuals, which isn't what's on offer here. And the sourcing isn't cutting it, either: three of the six footnotes are to streaming platforms (YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music); two are Q&A interviews with Erin Bennett in which she's talking about herself in the first person; one is a deadlinked blog entry that's been cybersquatted by an advertorial reviewer of random gadgets; and then there's a contextless separate linkfarm of "press" that adds no actual media coverage, just repeating one of the Q&A interviews and adding three more blog entries. So that's ten links, of which exactly zero are notability-assisting reliable source coverage in real media, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to entitle them to keep an article that's sourced like this. Also some conflict of interest issues, as the article has been heavily edited by a person whose username directly matches the name of one of the band members — and even the page's creator is a literal WP:SPA for Erin Bennett's musical projects, with a username less definitively but still circumstantially suggestive of Erin Bennett herself. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, the group simply isn't notable. We just don't have the coverage that we need to build a proper article with. Deletion is totally the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no RS, nothing for Erin Bennett Band as well. Caro7200 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2020 (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. Early WP:SNOW close, based on voluminous keep and speedy keep votes, and no opposition. Consensus is that it easily passes WP:GNG, and concerns were raised that the nominator is an SPA who should not have been tinkering around in this area. (non-admin closure)CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with [Articles of Deletion Policy (Reasons of Deletion)]: this AFD page cites #3 reason of deletion for ( pages that exist only to disparage their subject ). And AFD page # 8 reason of deletion for ( Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline ). In accordance with ( Wikipedia:CORP )" coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies (see also #Audience below), ". The articles presented with WIRED and HUFFPO have described only the controversies of the corporation involved. This is directly noted against ( Wikipedia:CORP ) guidelines for controversies making a corporation or organization notable only by their controversial status. This article fails to be notable enough to warrant a position in the encyclopedia of companies involved or listed. In accordance with the following articles above -- I reccomend this article to be listed under Articles of Deletion and to be deleted with respect to the references above. Thank you.NameShiba (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. (Noting for full transparency that I created this article, and have continued to be involved in editing this article.) For those who are not aware of the history at Talk:Epik (domain registrar), this article has been the focus of an off-wiki campaign by Epik to have their article whitewashed. It appears that now that whitewashing the article has been unsuccessful (see the talk page, where the suggested changes have been pretty unanimously rejected), Epik supporters are trying to have it erased (as well as the article about the company's CEO, which has also just been nominated for deletion by this same user: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Monster (2nd nomination)). Epik is easily notable, though for different reasons than most companies—they probably would not be notable if it was not for the significant coverage the company received in 2018–2019 when they decided to provide services to controversial websites like Gab (social network) and 8chan. This notability is easy to verify with just a quick glance at Epik (domain registrar)#References, which includes detailed coverage in Wired, The Associated Press, Vice, and other quality publications. The arguments provided by the nominator frankly don't hold water—the article is not "disparaging", it factually and neutrally reflects the reporting about Epik. The reporting about Epik has largely been critical, but criticism is not disparagement. I don't understand at all the nominator's claim that this article is covering local events—the only mention of a locale in the article is a brief mention that the company is based in Sammamish, WA. The rest of the events are not tied to any location (well, Gab and Epik are both US-based, but I believe 8chan is run out of the Philippines these days). GorillaWarfare(talk) 01:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, does seem factually based, also (easily) passes WP:GNG. Also passes WP:CORP as article is not solely based on a controversy or local incident. OP's contributions also seem a little suspicious, I might add — from the account creation (17 April) to now, almost all of them seem to revolve around Epik? Call me a conspiracy theorist but I think something fishy's going on. dibbydib (T ･ C) 01:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fishy Glub Glub Right, I was originally a SPA who created an account because of a disagreement I had over the Epik registrar's Wikipedia account. After looking into the subject more and other subjects involving the company I had initiated a request for deletion. Cheers. NameShiba (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can not speak over any other accounts except my own. I still feel like the lack of source material online that is not enveloped by niche journalism makes the company and it's contributions at this time not notable for a Wikipedia article.NameShiba (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing things up dibbydib (T ･ C) 06:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) - I'm seeing a lot of substantial coverage in national media outlets. In addition, WP:AUD states evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. I think coverage in Vice, Associated Press, Seattle Times, among other publications, shows that this article clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT, along with WP:AUD. -- LuK3(Talk) 02:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage in the article currently demonstrates a strong passage of WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- plenty of WP:RS in the article to justify WP:GNG. As to the claim "page[s] that exist only to disparage their subject", it does appear that the article is almost entirely negative. However, that may be because all the coverage in WP:RS is negative--I have not checked. If it is claimed that the article is not neutral and does not accurately report what is in the WP:RS, the remedy is not to delete the article, but to put in the WP:RS that balances out the article--if it exists. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - WP:GNG is satisfied, with reliable sources provided. MiasmaEternalTALK 05:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Refs clearly meet GNG, and Epik is the main subject with WP:SIGCOV in several national and international RS, some of which are WP:RS/P. WP:NCORP does not prohibit articles on controversial companies (the opposite in fact), but does guide against using trivial coverage from local controversies, which is definitely not the case here. Britishfinance (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the OP has also put the Epik CEO, Rob Monster's BLP up for AfD as well. Britishfinance (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in Seattle Times, HuffPost, Wired, Vice, SPLC, New York Times, Associated Press, Ars Technica, The Verge. These sources are not "niche journalism" and this is not trivial, local coverage. It's unfortunate that there is an absence of positive significant coverage, but I've been unable to locate any. Schazjmd(talk) 14:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's easily enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy notability requirements. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obviously notable per the extensive coverage in independent reliable sources as explained above. I must once again ask the question that I asked on the article talk page: if it is right to provide services to websites that host far-right, Neo-Nazi, and other extremist content as well as those that sell illegal drugs and counterfeit medications then why do the nominator and this company think that this fact is disparaging and should be suppressed? Surely they should be proud of it? The article simply states the facts weighted by their occurrence in independent reliable sources, and doesn't make any value judgments about such activity. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there everyone, thank you for all your input comments and attention to the AFD page. Cheers. NameShiba (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page is extremely incomplete, ambiguous in scope and very broad. I'm proposing it for deletion because I think it should be either deleted or redirected to a more appropriate such as Innate immune system (which I think the majority of the topic relates to). Alternatively, if there is a consensus to keep, we can de orphan this page by linking in relevant locations. I look forward to hearing what other editors think. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What is or is not "protective" as well as what is or is not a "feature" has little clarity. The extreme ambiguity makes me think that deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced since 2003 (!) and poorly defined: one could argue—with sources, even—that pretty much any organ or tissue serves a protective function. The article should not be redirected as the title is not a plausible search term for innate immune system. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (and my instinct) dibbydib (T ･ C) 05:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm trying to think of how this article could be improved, or what possibly a better title would be, but I'm coming up empty. This is not a well-defined topic or idea. I can't think of a good redirect target either. Natureium (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Be careful not to confuse this article as falling under WP:A&P. ClaudeDavid(talk) 01:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pleasant Point is a community of summer cottages, and once had a large hotel as well; this article from the 1960s explains its history up until that point. The hotel has a bit of history of its own, as this book explains its establishment, and it was part of an incident in 1923 in which Jewish customers were allegedly told they were not welcome, which the owner then denied. This record from 1993 shows that it was still an inhabited and named community at the time. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 20:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a neighborhood that fails GEOLAND2, being part of the Green Lake community? There are summer cottages surrounding the entire shoreline of the lake. Perhaps this history can be elaborated on what's already mentioned of hotels burning down in Green Lake (Wisconsin). Reywas92Talk 21:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Green Lake (Wisconsin) where the Pleasant Point hotel is already mentioned. Lakes often have named points, coves, bays, beaches, etc. that serve as local landmarks but are not distinct communities, and these are best covered as part of the overall area. –dlthewave☎ 00:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 23:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it is notable (in the GNG sense) as an actual "point" on Green Lake rather than as a community. Here is a historical reference, page 5, from the county website. Here is another historical reference, using the term as you would any other point on a shore rather than as a neighborhood, or even the resort that was located at the point. If you look on the map, you will see a slight outward bend to the lakeshore. This is what is meant by "point." It is still there no matter what you call the neighborhood. In other words, one should expect the name to persist as it is a feature on the lakeshore. Here is a postcard depicting the point, from wisconsinhistory.org. Many other historical postcards can be found on Google Images by searching for "Pleasant Point."--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it exists on the map. People can make a postcard of literally anything, I'm not denying it doesn't exist. But which of these are significant coverage, and which precludes putting this minor feature of the lake in the article about the lake per GEOLAND#4? Reywas92Talk 01:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The postcard I linked to from the historical society website and the entry in the historical book on the county website are significant coverage. books.google.com/books?id=AmxIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2 considered alone is deficient, so this Chicago Tribune article, this book on page 382-383, this book, this book, and this book makes up for it in that they discuss the resort named after and located on the point.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mention of the hotel, passing mention of the hotel, short history of the hotel, passing mention of the hotel, and passing mention of the hotel. WTF are you saying is notable and should be the article's topic? The hotel, the geographic point, or the present residential area? Separate topics sharing the name does not make them all into one notable article, nor does this justify the page's current duplicative status. Reywas92Talk 21:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Begging the question is a logical fallacy. These sources are more than just passing mention, and notability in the past is good enough for our current policies.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please specify what exactly satisfies GNG for you and should be a (redundant) article? The generic former hotel already discussed at Green Lake (Wisconsin), the geographic point that's part of Green Lake, or the section of the Town of Brooklyn, and which of these sources precludes covering the topic in one of those articles as they already are? Reywas92Talk 21:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit, at first look the sources looked like they met GNG, but upon closer inspection all but one, I beleive, are moslty passing mentions. However, I'm staying keep for the time being because per this government website, it is classified as a populated place. Per GEOLAND#1, isn't this a legally recognized, populated place? Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a lot of US geography deletions recently because the GNIS classification of "populated place" isn't actually a reliable one for the purposes of determining whether something passes GEOLAND, and many of these articles were mass-produced stubs based on this database. It's no longer really considered a reliable source for basing an article on. SportingFlyerT·C 23:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I only watch a few delsort categories so I was unaware. It would be nice if there was a provision on the page excluding that particular site. I'll hold off on my vote for a little longer to further evaluate. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a very technical delete. Based on my research, Pleasant Point is a subdivision which gets its name from a hotel which burned down during the depression (and the first article I found noted it did not "solicit Jews," sighhh.) The hotel probably got its name from a physical point on the lake called Pleasant Point. The point on the lake itself, like many small physical features, isn't notable enough for its own article and could probably be merged to whatever article we have on the Green Lake lake. "pleasant%2Bpoint" This article clearly shows Pleasant Point is not considered a separate community, but is understood to be within the town of Green Lake. You could write an article about the hotel, but most importantly, this isn't that article. This is an article about a subdivision which clearly fails WP:GEOLAND (or GEOFEAT, whichever it is.) SportingFlyerT·C 22:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not uncommon for resorts to sell off some or all of their land for development. I'm assuming this happened here. So it comes down to whether one can equivocate between the point, (which was named prior to the resort / hotel as best as I can tell) the later resort, and now several subdivisions or developments on the site which use the name Pleasant Point. This area appears to have also been a development even during the resort era: [22].--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but when that happens it's typically considered a subdivision and not a community. That's why I'm a technical delete - this really is not a community, the GNIS is not reliable for determining whether something is a community, and it does not serve our readers to imply that it is - but the information found here, if put into a coherent article, should be kept in some form. However it's almost all about the resort - after the resort burned down, the land was subdeveloped. (I'm not a merge because there's nothing in the article to merge.) SportingFlyerT·C 21:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative to a "technical delete" would be to move this to Pleasant Point (Green Lake). The article could encompass whatever happened at Pleasant Point (shallowest water on the shore of Green Lake, resort, cottages, and presently two subdivisions). I agree that Pleasant Point is not an unincorporated community, or at the very least has not been an unincorporated community for decades.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just start a new article in that case, as there's nothing correct in this article to move anywhere. I'm not sure the geographic feature, the point, is notable on its own. The hotel might be. That's why I think this one's difficult - the article's clearly not notable, but there's something here that is place-orientated and notable. I'd personally start by adding to one of the Green Lake articles and splitting if it becomes unwieldy. SportingFlyerT·C 20:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL that's a huge promontory designated a nature preserve and state historic landmark, while this is merely a small area of this lake's shore that this rounded inward instead of outward. This lake alone also has a Swan Point, Blackbird Point, Sugarloaf Point, Lone Tree Point, and Oakwood Point. Sources discuss there being several hotels on the lake at that time; none are individually notable and as SF stated may be mentioned in the general article. Reywas92Talk 21:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History of Lake Wawasee is a good model for this type of topic. Historic resort areas often have various business establishments and named places that receive moderate amounts of coverage, but they rarely stand on their own and are best covered as part of the overall history of the area. –dlthewave☎ 01:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The history of the place seems reasonably clear now. WP:GEOLAND states "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." That would be Brooklyn, Green Lake County, Wisconsin. One might instead merge to the lake, Green Lake (Wisconsin), but, either way, this is not a matter of deletion. The policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're really suggesting a merge. SportingFlyerT·C 13:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson.4meter4 (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2020 (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.
Delete Agree with nominator. Additionally, there is no precedent for creating these kinds of Articles -- ie there is not "List of Canadian disasters 2019" page, etc. ClaudeDavid (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed. A better version already exists, as stated above, and there isn't really anything worth merging. We shouldn't keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list can be incorporated into List of disasters in Canada. Keeping it would beg the question of why there’s no article for 2019, 2018, 1977, etc. Woerich(talk) 06:34, 21 April 2020 (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.
— Duplicate vote: Ytoyoda (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
talk
