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The result was Withdrawn per sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barostat[edit]

Barostat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Finding lots of uses of the term, but nothing explaining what it is. Hands down WP:DICDEF, no attempt to do anything with the article since 2009. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Regular topic, that can be expanded. A book search revealed multiple sources that explain what it is, a few have been added. Meets WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am seeing a number of decent references. Sure this article could be expanded. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This should be snow closed as it seems clear that the nomination is clueless and the topic is a perfectly respectable medical instrument. Andrew D. (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jessica Sierra. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebound (album)[edit]

Rebound (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to article about singer at best editorEهեইдအ😎 01:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Jessica Sierra: I don't think this album was ever released in the end, so the article was constructed under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jessica Sierra - Article fails MUSIC & GNG & there's nothing in the article that needs merging. –Davey2010^Talk 12:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Advisory opinion.  Sandstein  12:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory jurisdiction[edit]

Advisory jurisdiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- it does not exist at the Federal level. Some states have it, like NY, but the US court system does not. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to advisory opinion. The article consists solely of false information; deleting that deletes the entire article. (I've added a ((disputed)) tag; it shouldn't be allowed to remain up without its falsity being noted during this AfD.) I would not object to an article that actually discusses advisory jurisdiction in those states or countries where it exists. TJRC (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a very quick rewrite, replacing the text with accurate information. It still does not seem to be worth retaining; and perhaps the best solution, though, is to redirect to advisory opinion, which I found while re-writing. TJRC (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2016 (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 on G12 grounds. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SapphireOne[edit]

SapphireOne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has been speedily deleted under WP:A7 and WP:G11 numerous times and it keeps being re-posted in an identical format. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt TomStar81 (Talk) 21:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Axe that, this is a copy/paste from here, and the site has a copyright tag at the bottom. Unless someone wants to prove that they have copied from us I am deleting the article for copyright infringement and salting for now. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:00, 28 July 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Biggins[edit]

Michael Biggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I frankly would've simply PRODed but it may be removed so here we are; I frankly am not considering the listed link convincing enough for his own established notability and searches aren't finding anything else actually better. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable and reads like a mini promo page; also, no RS sources to rely on. Kierzek (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I first became aware of Mr. Biggins in 2007, early in my editing career, via NPPing a page related to him, which was eventually deleted and salted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blurpinkle. From his edits then and since, the author, (ManofThoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) seemed at best to be closely associated with Mr. Biggins, or at worst a sock- or meatpuppet. Biggins had openly edited as himself as HattedOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Biggins' own account was indef-blocked in 2010 per WP:NOTHERE, while ManofThoth was indef'd in 2015 as a spam-only SPA. (Biggins' web page links to this article but claims that "WIKIPEDIA is run by NATZIS.") Another AfD related to Biggins is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys Ridgeford--another possible one may be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackout's Box, but an admin may need to check that one.

As for the article at hand, I've looked for better sources and failed to find them. I hadn't really focused on the notability of Biggins himself in the previous kerfuffle (or maybe I'd decided to save that fight for another day), but I don't see the evidence that he meets WP:GNG today. --Finngall ^talk 21:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had some quite extensive dealings with this article a few months ago but then it sort of fell off my radar. I could find nothing close to satisfying GNG then and I find nothing now. It is and always was basically self-promotion, and that applies also to many of the sources that a bunch of experienced editors removed while ManofThoth etc persisted in their socking. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable YouTube performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2016 (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 04:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worr Game Products[edit]

Worr Game Products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Renominating and I still confirm everything I said at my 1st AfD. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Minor corporation of little interest and insufficient notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports serving all inhabited continents[edit]

List of airports serving all inhabited continents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Short version: WP:OR. Long version: apart from aviation fansites/fora/blogs, I cannot find any (reliable) source that lists such airports, nor is it likely that there are serious sources for this. This seems to be a case of aviationcruft. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Because the following page is about the same subject, I am also nominating:[reply]

• List of airports with flights to all 6 inhabited continents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. There are no reliable sources that discuss airports with flights to all inhabited continents as a group (WP:LISTN). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Interesting, also in that there are so few. But every interesting fact (or handful of facts) does not deserve an article. Even if reliable sources had published this same information it would probably only rate a mention in International airport or whatever.Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's OR (no, Antarctica is NOT uninhabited...) and an unencyclopedic cross-characterization to boot. If someone wants to merge any of the content per Kitfoxxe, I would not be opposed to that, as the title isn't harmful and that would be the easiest way to comply with WP:CWW, but otherwise I don't even see a good reason for this to live on as a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is really trivia and not particularly notable. If any reliable sources mention it it might be worth an addition to the indiviudal airports but I doubt it is something that ever occured to anybody to report. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, wow!, come on coola don't be like that ... sorry i can't resist, wheres the corresponding article List of airports not serving all inhabited continents? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all suggesting its own substantial convincing as an article, there's no signs this could ever actually be sufficiently and amply improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 4 August 2016 (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. Of the only two arguments to keep, one is by the WP:SPA who created the article, and the other cites a single source of questionable value. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Netwealth[edit]

Netwealth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no claim to any notability. Fails WP:CORP. It is a start-up company without reputation or accomplishment. The references also provide no proof of anything notable other than that the company exists. Article created by SPA, likely to promote it. P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per this article in the Telegraph. There is more than enough here, in the links provided, and elsewhere in the media to write a good article. Bradv 19:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Telegraph article was published before the launch of Netwealth, which shows the article is not discussing anything notable about Netwealth. It was written because Gerard Lyons is notable, but that doesn't mean that this notability is inherited. So it is more like a simple product announcement. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This company was founded by very senior people in this space, in a moment where financial services are being disrupted by tech around the world. That's more than enough to make it relevant. The considerable number of references to the company and its founders/advisers further proves that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.142.138 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I wanted to include this article from the Times Newspaper: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-rich-and-the-march-of-the-robots-82k7wlj93, but it is behind a paywall so was not sure if it is allowed...I believe that this article points towards the notability of the company at launchLouisLuscombe (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All we have for notability is pre-launch publicity in the Telegraph. Too soon. Mcewan (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- non notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as entirely advertorial, I frankly consider this G11. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no use of sales orientated language in the text, it only states facts from the articles from reputable sources. It does not link back to the Businesses website. It is a purely factual piece based off of articles and information found on the FCA register. LouisLuscombe (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to compare to the pages of two businesses which started at nearly exactly the same time Scalable Capital and Wealthify. There is more notability than the Scalable Capital page due to the Telegraph article and the Times article linked above. In regards to it being advertorial it is entirely factual and backed up by external sources and uses no subjective language, unlike the Wealthify page. I am purely comparing to these businesses which are extremely similar so I can better understand how to write a good wikipedia entry.LouisLuscombe (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. promotional writing is one that says what the subject would like the public to know about it; an encyclopedia article provides what the general public having head of the subject is likely to want to know. There's a difference. This is promotional:it is clearly meant to indicate how good the investment firm is. It's addressed to potential investors. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closet Space the Movie[edit]

Closet Space the Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Straight-to-DVD film with no references and no independent coverage in reliable sources, per WP:NF and WP:GNG. Not to be confused with Closet Space, an unrelated film. Pianoman320 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. What little I can find implies that the film exists, but judging by the complete and utter lack of independent coverage of any kind, nobody seems to have actually seen it. It even lacks an IMDB rating! Kolbasz (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete for above reasons. Jergling (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under what speedy deletion criterion? WP:A7 is only for real people, individual animals, web content, or organized events. Not movies. Kolbasz (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why I nominated it instead of CSD tagging. Movies don't seem to fall under WP:A7. Pianoman320 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm wondering why A9 is specific to musical recordings. I thought it covered media in general (films, music, books, etc.) Jergling (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete for failing WP:NF through lack of coverage. I gave the stub some tweaks, and while it might be mentioned with the article on its writer/producer/star Porsha Ferguson, it does not merit a separate article. If the DVD release receives review, the topic can be reconsidered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:35, 29 July 2016 (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 . Deor (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Langmesser[edit]

Gene Langmesser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent in-depth coverage. All but one sources are related to this person Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Standing by my original prod and its rationale ([1]). Ping endorser, User:Feanor~enwiki. Prod was declined by the WP:SPA article's creator, User:789nerds, almost certainly an undisclosed paid COI editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2016 (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 due to lack of established notability. In light of the indication by the nominator, if soruces in other languages exist it may be taken to WP:DRV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor NS Bala[edit]

Editor NS Bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability. I could find no sources at all for "Marama Kadavula", and "NS Bala" yields only false positives. It may be that hindi sources could help, but I suspect not. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unsourced BLP lacking any kind of significant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A man-with-a-job. No evidence of any attained notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable film editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2016 (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  12:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment[edit]

Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article consists of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH with a generous dollop of WP:COATRACK. It has seen no substantive improvement since a previous AFD closed as "no consensus" 3 years ago. Topic is already covered at articles including Anti-Arabism, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Turkism, and Islamophobia. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti Middle Easterner sentiment. --doncram 01:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If there are other articles that technically deal with the exact same topic (like Islamophobia, for one), then this definitely should go. Very superfluous. Parsley Man (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As you may see all parts of the article are sourced[2]. Anti-Arabism and Anti Middle Easterner sentiment are different. Anti-Arabism is more focused on arabs only but anti middle east is about all the middle eastern people.[3] So why to delete to whole article? any other reason? Anti-Arabism probably is a term better reserved for racist actions targeted specifically against Arabs, which I would expect would be more common in places like the Middle East, where Arabs are part of a mixed Middle Eastern population. "don't worry about repeating information." If article have any problem OK, fix it, but there is no acceptable reason for deleting a well sourced article, which can also expanded even more. The article is not about "Anti-Arabism, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Turkism, and Islamophobia", none of these. It is about Anti-Middle Eastern evidences, some of the victims are not Arabs, Iranian, Turks or even Muslim! and they were just stereotyped as Middle Easterner.[4]. Any edit or fixation to article is totaly welcomed, but deleting this article, actually based on no true reason . Please come and edit and contribute to the article , but no reason for deleting this article and these sourced facts and evidence. The article is different from "Anti-Arabism, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Turkism, and ..." and stuff like that. It is different Topic. KhabarNegar ^Talk 08:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: User talk:KhabarNegar is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Weak Delete/Redirect to Islamophobia (maybe?) - So the first glaring problem is that the sources aren't about the concept "Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment"; they're examples of what could be described as such. Taking a bunch of articles describing specific incidents and creating a broader concept based on that is WP:OR (and/or potentially a WP:COATRACK). What we need is substantial coverage of the phenomenon. Note that number of sources about Islamophobia in the Islamophobia article, for example. If it comprised only examples of discrimination in which the writer called it Islamophobia, it wouldn't have survived the various deletion attempts. I've no strong objection to this being userfied if someone thinks sufficient sources do exist and this is usable content (I'm skeptical, though). Not entirely sure about the best target, actually -- it's possible there are too many imprecise targets to make sense of a redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but improve, perhaps cut back drastically. My first reaction was to assume this topic is Wikipedia coining a term. However, I wondered about the experience of the extended family in 2009 film Amreeka, which is about Palestinian Americans who happen to be Christians in the U.S. who face discrimination, e.g. all of a doctor or dentist's patients switching away. If not this term, what is the general term to describe the generalized dismissal of all of "them" (who look and/or sound different: darker-skinned foreigners with accents, from the Middle East and South Asia?) without making distinctions and without particularly caring about having failed to make distinctions. The Google searches give hits like this Hollywood Reporter one. I actually tend to agree with User:KhabarNegar and find their links above compelling. You can't take the view that the murder of a Sikh-American was mistaken and the perpetrator was only anti-Arab, as if there is no discriminations against Sikh-Americans (and others lumped together). Of course there is, I think. The correct term is not "Anti-Islamic", and I think not "Anti-Arab" either, it is a broader, racist thing, and "anti-Middle Eastern" as used by the Hollywood Reporter in passing seems to capture that. --doncram 02:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. To me, this looked like simple duplication of the several, admittedly not excellent, articles we already have on racism and anti various specific ethnic and religious groups. I do have a hard time seeking the Sikh argument. Sikhs have been targeted a number of times by violent ignoramuses assuming that turban = Muslim. I accept that they are discriminated against by those who dislike ethnic diversity, or dislike immigrants. And if a Sikh cuts his hair and buys all his clothes at JCrew, I assume that he will be discriminated against because he looks foreign. That undoubtedly happens to in the West to all people whose ancestors spent the Neolithic south of the Alps. (Of course, if a blue-eyed blond walks into an upscale shop where valuable items are displayed on open shelves in Tokyo, a plain clothes security guard will not-so-subtly shadow him until he leaves. A perfect mirror of what would happen in Baton Rouge. But I digress.) My point is that racism is real. As is anti-group sentiment against a literally infinite numbers of groups in an infinite number of situations. The one part of the world where I am aware that anti-Middle Eastern sentiment is a significant phenomenon separable from anti-Muslim sentiment and racism, is not covered in this article, and that is the scorn for and discrimination against Middle Easterner Muslims found in neighboring states, particularly Turkish and Persian lands where there is a record of anti-Arab pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and in places and at times a Jim Crow/glass ceiling situation. That, however, can, and IMP, should go into Anti-Arabism. Having looked at the sources, and thought this through (because I know and respect DonCram's opinions) I am still failing to see adequate sourcing for this article, which duplicates the topics covered in racism and many other articles. Or a demonstration that the examples/sources given fail to fit into Anti-Arabism, Islamophobia and racism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courtesy, and I have to grant that my argument is irregular for AFD. I won't take it personally if the AFD outcome goes differently. Responding (sorry for perhaps being too long):

I guess ignorant, uninformed racism is the main idea I am getting at. Speculation: is "anti-Middle Eastern" a catch-all or euphemism, in the U.S., for racism other than against blacks and Asians? Speculation: Is it a combination for Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Arabism, Antisemitism, Anti-Armenian, and more, which expresses a rejection for any need to be more specific? Is it a good summary term for "anti-non-Americans" / anti-Other-ness, beyond the main threads of racism, in the U.S.?

First, let me say that as someone who, er, gets around, lacking sartorial, linguistic, or behavioral clues, there is no way to reliably tell a Turk from an Argentinian, an Italian from a Libyan, or to know just by looking whether the parents of a student at the University of Pennsylvania came from Persia or Sicily, or whether someone crossing the street in Dubai comes from Islamabad, Yerevan, Tehran or Seville. Sometimes you can "see" east insular south Asian , sub Saharan or Amerindian physiognomy - but by no means always. But, even setting aside the fact that an awful lot of American resentment of immigrants is directed at Hispanics, you may be onto something. However, if "Middle Eastern" is a "catch-all... for racism other than against blacks and Asians" I suspect that this would be because it is socially acceptable to speak of religio-cultural differences, but not of racial ones, in other words, I can see where "Middle Eastern" is being used as socially acceptable code for "Muslim." Which brings us back to Islamophobia, (see, for example, 2016 Minneapolis shooting ).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Americans didn't or don't distinguish between Iraqis vs. Iranians (and there are numerous pre-2011 "anti-Middle Eastern sentiment" hits that seem to follow from Iran hostage crisis, and there is Anti-Iranian sentiment article), between Shiites vs. Sunnis vs. other Islamic schools and branches, between different kinds of Palestinians, and don't distinguish any specific borders for the Middle East (maybe it includes Turkey, and all of North Africa, and Afghanistan and Pakistan and India and Bangladesh). "Anti-Middle Eastern", which doesn't distinguish between Jewish Israelis vs. very different other peoples, is kind of infuriatingly in-your-face ignorant and maybe proud of it.

Dunno if folks are proud about this, but it is universal, and it works like adjusting a telescope. Someone standing in Damascus any time in the last thousand years would say, with dismissive scorn, something like: Well, what would you expect of a foreigner; of a Frank, a Greek, and finally, Well, what would can you expect of an idiot from Aleppo? This sort of thing reverses: an individual leaving home for distant parts will speak of or be described as being from: a specific village, then a specific district, then Fujian province, then south China, and, but by the time he gets all the way to San Francisco, he has become Chinese for probably the first time in his life. This is amusing, but because it is the way of the world, it is irrelevant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have good sources defining it, but what about the number of news hits, and the 6-10 Google Scholar hits on exactly the term "anti-Middle Eastern sentiment"? How many more hits if we look for "anti-Middle Eastern discrimination" or other variations. One hit with a variation in its title, so perhaps including a definition within (but whose full version I have not obtained), is: "An Investigation of African American College Students' Beliefs about Anti-Middle Eastern Hate Crime and Victims in the Wake of September 11th", by Craig-Henderson, Kellina; Brown-Sims, Melissa. Western Journal of Black Studies28.4 (Winter 2004): 511-517. Maybe a few of these do make a stab at a definition.

There is this passage in Wikipedia's islamophobia: "In some societies, Islamophobia has materialized due to the portrayal of Islam and Muslims as the national "Other", where exclusion and discrimination occurs on the basis of their religion and civilization which differs with national tradition and identity. Examples include Pakistani and Algerian migrants in Britain and France respectively.[64][65] This sentiment, according to Malcolm Brown and Robert Miles, significantly interacts with racism, although Islamophobia itself is not racism.[66]" It seems to me that Islamophobia is defined to be against Muslims, while the current-in-the-U.S. uninformed/ignorant generalization is broader, and needs to be discussed somewhere more prominently, as its own topic.

And the term is in fact being used. Can't we have a stub article that notes that it is being used, with some examples of usage, and with any definitions that have been put forward, though noting it is not well-defined? I would be inclined to toss almost the entire existing article, which I gather was formed as a fork of the Anti-Arabism article, to just provide a place-holder type article on the term and its apparent usage. With emphasis on what it seems to go beyond, i.e. going beyond recognized Islamophobia. I think it is an emerging term, and there should be a Wikipedia article monitoring it and providing some perspective. Its Talk page then provides a forum for continued intelligent discussion of what this is and is not. --doncram 18:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a little time to look carefully at this part of your argument (aside: it is a pleasure to engage with you in this civilized discussion,) because I was almost persuaded at first read of this section. And yet I cannot help but see that although this term/concept has been around for quite a few years, it has gained neither wide, popular currency or significant attention from scholars and pundits. As you point out, we don't have definitions by scholars. I will not repeat here arguments I have made above, except to say that if usage and scholarly attention emerge, the article can be recreated, but, lacking such sources, I continue to think it should be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be better covered (or what isn't covered might better fit) at the more specific See Alsos. I get that this one's a bit different, in that it deals with percieved Middle Easterness (Easternism?), but it fails to define what's perceived as Middle Eastern appearance or culture. There are a bunch of each. The cases here seem to mostly involve perceived Arabs, and even Arabs have a fair mix of styles and traditions. If a standard Middle Eastern vibe that applies to all these cases can be summarized (and doesn't simply describe a stereotypical Jew, Turk, Arab or Persian), I'll change my mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article provides sources making the case that this is a real and notable thing.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sources has been provided that show that this is indeed real and in my opinion notable.BabbaQ (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It does seem to have been used to a significant extent as a term for the generalconcept, and that's sufficient for an article. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2016 (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. Summing it up, if the size and area of control of a sheriff's office is large enough, it warrants an article of its own. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee County Sheriff's Office (Florida)[edit]

Lee County Sheriff's Office (Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG like most police agencies. Sure you will find stuff about crime that involved them, you may find some things about personal changes and the like. What you won't find is detailed discussion of the agency in multiple geographically disperse reliable sources. John from Idegon (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject is notable enough. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on past precedent, for example, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genesee_County,_New_York_Sheriff's_Office. The office of sheriff of a single county is far from automatically notable, but we have tended to keep those of larger counties. Fort Myers, Florida is a fairly large city, so its chief law enforcement office would be notable. Note however that its individual office holder is not necessarily notable. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The above is a pretty poor example to cite as precedent setting. There is not a single arguement in the AfD based in policy (except the delete arguement); it is 8 years old and community feelings about WP:N and WP:V have shifted. It was non administratively closed by a now indeffed editor. The article today still does not meet WP:ORG. If you wish to propose some sort of notability exemption for police agencies feel free, however this is not the forum for that. I am tempted to re-nominate GCSO for deletion again. John from Idegon (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The size and scope of the department within its county merit an article based on strong past precedent. As always, there is no time limit, and the article should be expanded with additional sourcing and material. I'm further disturbed that this appears to be part of a pattern of other edits by the nominator to turn other police / sheriff department articles into redirects, without any effort to shift the material into the target articles per WP:PRESERVE. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - Keep after adding additional references, or merge to Lee County, Florida. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have, like Alansohn, also noticed that the nominator has a history of attempting to delete the work of other contributors. If the nominator is so adamant to delete these articles and contributions that people have dedicated their personal time to, then I would suggest the nominator puts in the effort (as those who have created the article have) to shift and merge the existing material into the target articles, per WP:PRESERVE. In reference to this article, in its current state, this article is in compliance with ORG. The Sheriff's Office in question has been subject to widespread media coverage before, typical for a large county Sheriff's Office in the State of Florida. I have referenced a few international news articles related to the Lee County Sheriff's Office. ^{[1] [2]} Nicjec (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please keep your opinions of my motivations to yourself. If you feel you can substantiate a case for bad faith take it to a noticeboard. It has no place here. The stories you cite are about crime that happened to occur in this agency's jurisdiction. None of them speak in detail about the agency. Almost all the arguments proffered here assume some level of presumed notability, something that is neither entrenched in policy guideline or precident. The arguements seem to hinge on the size of the county, again presuming notability based on some sort of presumption of same. I agree that a larger County is more likely to be able to generate the coverage required to show notability. But can we please see it? Assuming it exists is a fallacy. John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A large enough agency for its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2016 (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. sufficient consensus after 2 relistings DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Vaccari[edit]

Piero Vaccari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deleted 2 years ago by Italian Wiki, thus I'm taking it here for attention, and I'm simply not seeing any actual permanent museum collections to suggest it's notable for us English Wikipedia. The article also seems as if it may have been roughly translated perhaps by either someone from Italy Wiki or someone with non-fluent English. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Page includes poor sources and reads like a puff piece. Not much else out there covering the subject. Meatsgains (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Bad sources and promotional.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tri (card game)[edit]

Tri (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can find no sources for this, searching for the designers' names. It's not listed on BoardGameGeek, and sounds like an unreleased WP:MADEUP card game using the cards from a different game. McGeddon (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's a homebrew ruleset for Instinct, so WP:MADEUP applies (and the "Olivia Gaming Systems" in the earliest version appears to push it into WP:HOAX territory). Unreferenced, with no independent references found in a brief look. Arguably a candidate for a tortoise-like SPEEDY WP:A11. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable outside possible local trivia interest at best and uncited, as well. Kierzek (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sounds like an interesting card game, but it needs significant coverage to have its own Wikipedia article editorEهեইдအ😎 00:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2016 (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  12:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy of Gordan-i Shwan[edit]

Tragedy of Gordan-i Shwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability. Pahlevun (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as not shown to be notable and uncited to any RS sources, at this time. Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I cannot believe that a platoon attack (if that is a correct translation) was notable, quite apart from the complete lack of sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability and verifiability. Article has no sources. I found no sources. Gab4gab (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: doesn't seem to satisfy the WP:GNG. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that notability is not established here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoke Xerabadi[edit]

Shoke Xerabadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability. Pahlevun (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A Google search gives mostly mirrors and forks of Wikipedia. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only a paramilitary unknown.--Samək^Talk 09:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing actually suggestive of establishing the necessary substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- does not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searches found no sources. Article has no sources. Gab4gab (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2016 (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. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Maei[edit]

Mohammed Maei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability. Pahlevun (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - claims are over the top at best. Unsourced. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I myself had reviewed this and would've PRODed sooner if not for the chances of it being drive-by removed, my own searches now are still not finding anything else better. I waited also because of the subject state, considering this would need better attention, but considering there's simply nothing else better, delete. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- nothing suggests notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- if he was the commander of a rising, he might just about be notable. Is it the appropriate solution, to merge it to an article on the rising? I have recently been reading something about the Iranians suppressing a Kurdish rebellion, not long after the revolution. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that notability is not established here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jafar Shafiyi[edit]

Jafar Shafiyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability. Pahlevun (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - another unsourced bio of a past leader of some Kurdish group, without any good explanation of why he is notable. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as easily nothing at all convincing including for applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PrimaveraReader (software)[edit]

PrimaveraReader (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable software with insufficient sources. A Google search did not reveal any independent in-depth coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review: Current sources are a press release, 2 listings, and 2 reviews which both fail Wikipedia's criteria for independent reliable third-party sources. Ref #4 is a typical advertorial with lots of generalized praise, PR-speak and a convenient "Buy now" link, but little professional in-depth analysis of the tool. Roughly 6 of the "review"'s 7 paragraphs do not contain any objective factual information. Ref #5 takes a more critical look, but receives sales commissions for some of their reviews (kudos for the site's open and transparent disclosure). Such a source fails to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional info: The article is part of a SPA-created series on Seavus products. Two previous attempts to speedy-delete it have been removed by a new account. GermanJoe (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Promotional article that lets the reader know all about the product's features without ever establishing (or even asserting) notability. References are self-published or commercial. ubiquity (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: In a discussion on the talk page, creator rejected adding a few words about related third-party software to Primavera (software) and redirecting there. Attempted speedy reverted by Single-purpose account Dwamk (talk · contribs) with no reason given. ubiquity (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only available sources are press releases and other low quality sources. Fails WP:GNG.- MrX 11:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't have the reliable, independent sourcing it would need to meet WP:GNG. - MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Not notable and promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus indicates that notability is not demonstrated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shailesh Gupta[edit]

Shailesh Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What a mess. The only reliable source is not available to the public (requires a subscription). The other sources seem to be lists or are merely featured surveys. Even if he co-founded a notable company, notability is not inherited. The article is written in Hinglish and would require extensive editing into standard English. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearian, Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nominator, Fails WP:GNG. Notability isn't proved Uncletomwood (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by all means, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 2 August 2016 (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 previous deleted G11. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toddler House[edit]

Toddler House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Claimed to be an A7 article, but as I recall educational institutions are not eligible under the criteria and this is an educational institution (albeit for the small ones). Seeking community input for the article's fate. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Secondary schools are not eligible for A7, but this is a kindergarten. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Any school is eligible under WP:CSD#G11: spam. --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Crown Resorts. NativeForeigner ^Talk 04:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CrownBet[edit]

CrownBet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

CrownBet is a JV of Crown Resorts. Crown Resorts may be notable but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. This article should be deleted because it lacks notability, WP:CORPDEPTH. The references hardly satisfy WP:GNG as they are about routine matters / announcements of the company, PR, offers and a legal issue about advertising which does not make the company notable enough either.

I suspect the page may be an attempt to promote the company's new venture.

• Delete" Therefore, I nominate this article to be deleted. Drewziii (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Crown Resorts, since the 67% ownership stake makes Crown Resorts, for all intents and purposes, the parent company of CrownBet. Altamel (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge. Everything about Crown Resorts is there in Crown Resorts including ownership of CrownBet and controversy. In this case even redirect constitutes promotion of the new brand. It should be deleted until the article can be created independently. The redirect contains only trivial history so not useful by any means. --Drewziii (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the content is already covered in Crown Resorts. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Since it is "the only 100% Australian owned and operated online bookmaker" (there's 14 separate references which confirm that statement, so it must be true), I think it is a likely search term. Since there is nothing to merge, keeping it as a redirect makes sense to me. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in the BioShock series. Maybe not a consensus, per-se, to redirect, but certainly a plurality, and a reasonable middle ground. I also went ahead and created List of bioshock characters as a redirect to the same place, since that seems like a more likely thing somebody might type into a search box. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sander Cohen[edit]

Sander Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are exceedingly few elements within the fictional Bioshock universe that are notable enough for their own articles (which is not to say that the games themselves are not notable); Sander Cohen is not one of them.

Furthermore, many of the sources have either link rotted away or he is only mentioned tangentially in some other context (i.e. one of them is an interview with a game designer where he briefly mentions Sander Cohen in a single question about which character he enjoyed designing the most, another is a discussion about choosing voice actors for the game).

This article has been deleted once before for failing to meet Wikipedia's notability policy, so I am relisting it for deletion since I feel that it still doesn't meet inclusion guidelines. GSMR (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I recently replayed this classic game and, in-game, Sander Cohen is a moderately important boss/questmaster who you meet around half-way mark. Not worthwhile dedicating an entire article to, not without a large amount of compelling sourcing. And I am not seeing that here. Reyk _YO! 11:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of characters in the BioShock series. While there certainly is some coverage, I rather see one decent section on a character, than a mediocre article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as a worthwhile search term, and merge as necessary. This is actually a great example of a character mentioned in multiple "top lists" and even called out by name in reviews, but altogether that isn't the sourcing that proves independent notability. czar 00:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 20:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep References 6,7,8,10,11 in the current article demonstrate multiple instances of significant, independent, RS coverage. Czar's characterization of these sources is accurate, but his conclusion is not. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens. I also note that there are a few potentially useful hits on Google Scholar. His part in the game may be small (I played it, and he isn't really ringing a bell with me...) but he's clearly attracted some critical and academic attention. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as I'm still not seeing enough, even despite the listed sources, to suggest comfortably better thus I go with this. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of characters in the BioShock series. While a popular character, there is not enough independent notability which makes this good for a redirect.ZettaComposer (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm surprised more people aren't supporting keeping the article; can I suggest that, if we're not going to keep a separate article on the character, we at least merge some of the content here to the list? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of characters in the BioShock series. Not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lower Woodward Avenue Historic District. Being a contributing building, I think it's worth mentioning about this building in a paragraph in the target article, especially given the current state of the target article. Regards (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Building[edit]

Elliott Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable subject. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unreferenced article about an unremarkable building. I can't find anything relating to it which suggests notability. The article is mainly a list of the various tenants of the building over the years, the sort of thing which could be written about countless buildings around the world. Neiltonks (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, leaving a redirect behind. It's promotional, but there is valid info in the article. The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing building in the Lower Woodward Avenue Historic District, and we could allow an article for it, as there are many other articles in wikipedia about individual contributing buildings in historic districts. An URL for a source in the article is no longer valid, and the NRHP nomination document seems not to be available on-line (but can be obtained from the National Register by request, or from elsewhere). But I found "Lower Woodward Avenue Historic District / Final Report" which seems to be the basis for the NRHP nomination, and I would expect that it is entirely included in the NRHP nomination. It is PDF file "Lower+Woodward+Avenue+HD+Final+Report.pdf" at [5] (hope that works). The building is at 1401 Woodward.

I think we don't need a separate article about this building, because it can be covered in a paragraph or section in the historic district article. Many historic district articles have sections on each of their significant contributing resources. In the future it can possibly be restored as a separate article if more sourced info becomes available. --doncram 20:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lower Woodward Avenue Historic District, a functional WP:ATD that will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lower Woodward Avenue Historic District as per DonCram. There probably is enough on this building for an independent article some day (full disclosure: I'm a fan of the neighborhood and loving the revival that is going on there.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus after relistings DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supertalent[edit]

Miss Supertalent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

None of the article's citations show any evidence of notability Aust331 (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. Not a notable pageant.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable, outside trivia, at this time and as noted citation issues. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At this time, fails WP:EVENT. I am unable to find the significant coverage about the even and I am not sure how popular it is. From the looks of it, the pilot for this pageant was held in 2014 and the first edition was held in 2015. This may be just too soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2016 (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. Also, the article has been rewritten as a disambiguation page on 3 August, apparently without opposition. Any new nomination would have to take his change in circumstances into account.  Sandstein  20:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purely functional[edit]

Purely functional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

People asked for deletion in 2009 and 2013 in the discussion page, but, as far as I know, nerev did a deletion request. Here I do.

The arguments are mainly that there is no clear or standard definition of what «Purely functional» means. Purely functional seems to refer to functional programming, which is «pure». That is, using only this kind of program and no imperative programming. But it is not clear why a page is needed to state that some programs mixe two kind of programming and some programs use only one kind.

The article «Purely functional» mostly considers «Purely functional data structures», that is, data structures which can be used in functional programming. There is certainly the need for article about those structures, (and I intend to edit the dequeue article to add more informations about the functional implementation of efficient dequeue). But I think that having an article about «Purely functional data structures» is a bad idea. Note that even Okasaki, who wrote the reference book about Purely functional data structure did not give a precise definition of what it means by «purely functional data structures», apart that they are data structure which can be coded in functional languages.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are indeed a few problems with this page:

• The first is the name, which should either be "Pure functional programming" (or possibly "Purely functional programming") or "Purely functional data structure" to know if we are talking about the programming paradigm or a class of data structures. (The current article seems to be mostly about the former at the moment.) Of course, purely functional data structures are one aspect of purely functional programming.
• Both would seem like valid topics for an article to me. Pure function programming does have a lot of different idioms compared to impure functional programming. Purely functional data structures do use some interesting tricks beyond those of traditional persistent data structures (e.g. using thunks/closures to both amortize and share the cost of operations, without having to explicitly deal with mutable state).
• That said, "pure" vs. "impure" functional programming may be better discussed in a section of the Functional programming article itself. Purely functional data structures could possibly be discussed in section of the Persistent data structure article. (Although, in both cases they're fairly long articles already.)

So I think some heavy refactoring, renaming and merging is in order here, but an outright deletion is not. At the very least a redirect or disambiguation page should be left in place under this title. —Ruud 16:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. I largely agree with all of Ruud's points. This is a notable concept that is a defining feature of some languages (like Haskell [6]) and data structures [7]. A GScholar search nets over 30,000 hits and most of the first two pages hits concern this topic. So this seems highly notable. It may be better to split into purely functional language and purely functional data structure articles or sections, but I don't see any policy-based reason for outright deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Referential transparency (P.S. or to Pure function) per WP:PAGEDECIDE. While there may be some nuances making them separate concepts, developers interested in the subject will be best served by reading about both concepts in the same page, as referential transparency is the primary benefit of using purely functional languages; and there's simply not enough context in this stub to properly explain the concept. Diego (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging/redirecting it to Referential transparency would create unnecessary confusion. Purely functional programming is about more than just referential transparency, and referential transparency applies in more contexts than just in purely functional programming. Merging it into Functional programming would make more sense. There the connection to referential transparency can be discussed. —Ruud 14:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I do agree with Mark viking in the importance of a purely functional data structure article. I wrote Purely_functional_datastructures. It reuse some of the introduction of the «Purely functional» page. If you agree, I suggest that the «purely functional» page be either deleted, or renamed into «Purely_functional_data_structures» and we use the page I wrote for purely functional data structures. I don't think there is much in the «Purely functional» article to start a «Purely functional language» article, but it certainly may be an interesting article. I agree with Ruud Koot: it should not be merged/redirected to Referential transparency. But I don't see the point of merging this page into functional programming, because the page functional programming already consider purely functional programming. In particular, it already speaks of «referential transparency». Finally, as noted in the discussion, the examples of the purely functional page, is a bad/artificial example. And the «Benefits and applications» part of this page consider mostly the benefits of persistency and of referential transparency, therefore, I don't think we lose anything if this part is deleted. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with disambiguation page After looking over the article once more, I agree that there isn't anything in there that isn't already discussed in either Functional programming or Draft:Purely functional data structures, so there is no need to merge anything. —Ruud 20:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the advent of Arthur's Draft:Purely_functional_data_structures (nice work), I'd support conversion to a disambiguation page. --Mark viking (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a disambiguation page seems a good option too. Diego (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not at present an appropriate disambiguation page. The entries are at best WP:Partial title matches. It might be possible to craft a WP:Broad concept article, but the disambiguation tag should be removed. older ≠ wiser 11:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. A key reason for this deletion request is that having a "broad concept article" under this title is not useful. This is not a "partial title match" in the sense of WP:PTM. People say something is "purely functional" when that actually mean that something is a purely functional programming language, or a purely functional data structure, or a pure function. We need to disambiguate between those various meanings. Hence the disambiguation page. —Ruud 12:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree. It is an adjective phrase which are inherently problematic for disambiguation because in general things are referred to by the adjectival phrase alone only in very casual circumstances or where the context has already been clearly established to allow an elliptical reference. None of the entries for the proposed disambiguation page clearly establish that the subjects are commonly known by the phrase "purely functional" alone. The article at present only indicate that this phrase is used in partial title matches as an adjectival modifier. older ≠ wiser 12:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Being used in partial title matches as a modifier" seems a very good reason to disambiguate the term in this case. The primary function of disambiguation pages is for navigation purposes, leading readers to the article they intend to read.

  If there is some wiki rule that "disambiguation pages can't possibly exist unless all their entries are fully referred by the string that serves as the DAB title", I say here we have a good case to ignore that rule; it is not serving its purpose.

  The links included in the proposed page are not an arbitrary compilation, they are related by some common meaning that may produce ambiguity in the mind of the uninformed reader, but one which do not constitute a notable topic on itself. Any item in the list may be what the reader had in mind when they though of a "purely functional something", so they satisfy the criteria for inclusion under WP:PTM. Diego (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a long history of such adjectival PTM disambiguation pages being routinely deleted at AfD. The basic rule of thumb is that the purportedly ambiguous articles must establish that they are known by the adjectival phrase alone. If not, there is no need for a disambiguation page. However, these uses are all very clearly closely related to one another and I think could be treated as a WP:broad concept article. older ≠ wiser 14:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Being known by, or being referred at? There is no shortage of references where they explain that "language X is purely functional" when describing a programming language, or "this expression is purely functional" when describing this or that subroutine. In my mind that's enough to have the disambiguation page, but it doesn't qualify for a broad concept article. I would agree to leave out articles like the Starship's bot or augmented reality, though. Common sense says that the term used as a search query refers to the programming context. Diego (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Disambiguation pages were never meant to replace Google or other web searches. You can put in many such adjectival phrases and return results that are partial title matches. Consider this another way--could an article on any of these topics ever be titled as simply "Purely functional"? If not, then we have partial title matches. The phrase itself may be ambiguous, but as there is no potential title conflict there is no need for a disambiguation page. IMO, either a broad concept article or a simple search is preferable. I don't understand why it would not qualify for treatment as a broad concept article--all of the subjects are clearly closely related. older ≠ wiser 15:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  What you are claiming WP:PTM states is not what WP:PTM actually states. The purportedly ambiguous articles are known by the adjectival phrase alone. Those here that know what "purely functional" means are in agreement that having a "broad concept article" is a bad idea. —Ruud 19:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The purportedly ambiguous articles are known by the adjectival phrase alone. citation needed - none of the articles explicitly support this claim at present. Until evidence is provided to contrary, these are nothing more than PTMs. Perhaps "those who know" might bother to explain why a broad concept article is a bad idea. older ≠ wiser 22:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Because, how would you write such article, and what would you put in it that was not original research? I'm not aware of any sources that cover those words as a single, separate topic. From my programming knowledge I know that what those topics have in common are the two properties described in the lead of Pure function, that's why I suggest below thia article as the primary target.

  The point of this Dab would be to enable navigating to the specific content that we have. A Google search would provide results for all those pages with pure things that have some functionality due to their combined dictionary meanings. The Wikipedia articles that describe programming without side effects, which is what someone looking for this term will want, are all at that Dab page.

  An abstract guideline that was developed for names and doesn't even mention adjectives isn't good advice here. This case is more "Mississippi River" than "Louisville Zoo", if we follow the guidelines examples.Diego (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what abstract guideline you're referring to. WP:DAB has proven to be very effective, and really does not seem particularly abstract. I fail to see how either "Mississippi River" than "Louisville Zoo" are relevant comparisons here. The point is that there is at present no indication that any of these are known as "purely functional" as a name rather than as a attribute or adjectival description. older ≠ wiser 22:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I meant "general" more than "abstract". Guidelines in general and the WP:PTM section in particular are written in general terms to handle a large number of situations; it seems clear to me that the guideline was not written with adjective phrases in mind, so it doesn't necessarily provide good advice.

  no indication that any of these are known as "purely functional" as a name And here is the failure in your reasoning. The term is used as an adjective, so guidelines written with the assumption that the title term needs to work as a name are not applicable. My Google search above provides evidence that "functional programming" and "functional languages" are regularly referred to as "purely functional" as an adjective, so the ambiguity of the term exists. Diego (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Except adjective phrases as disambiguation pages have come up many times before at Afd and are routinely deleted as PTMs. Your Google search does not show that these subjects could be titled as simply "pury functional", which is the entry threshold for disambiguation on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 09:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That's an WP:other stuff argument. Were those DABs deleted because their content didn't describe a similar content, but a miscellany of unrelated terms? Are all adjective phrases deleted, no exceptions? Adjective phrases are not addressed by the WP:Disambiguation policy, nor they appear at WP:Outcomes, so I don't see why a particularly restrictive interpretation of WP:PTM should be the only reason to delete the page if the other criteria for a DAB page are met (i.e. "resolving the conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia").

  Your Google search does not show that these subjects could be titled as simply "pury functional" You're still making the same mistake, that the topics need to be titled with the term. They are referred to by the term, which makes it a likely search term. Diego (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a mistake, that is a fundamental criteria for WP:Disambiguation. Disambiguation pages do not attempt to resolve any potential ambiguity--the starting point is where more than one article might have the same title. If none of these topics could be titled as "purely functional" there is nothing to disambiguate within Wikipedia. Also, if as you now suggest, these terms are in fact related, then why is a broad concept article not appropriate here. It seems far more appropriate than a disambiguation page where none of the titles are actually ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 11:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that in PTM, the instructions "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title" are qualified with "where there is no significant risk of confusion", but here we have a case where there is significant risk of confusion. It also says "Add a link only if the article's subject ... could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name". It doesn't say that the subject needs to be titled that way, it says that it is referred to, which we also have. PTM definitely doesn't say what you think it says.

  A broad concept article is not appropriate because we can't write it; if we could, it would be a valid solution, but it simply doesn't have the notability as a stand-alone topic, that's why it has been nominated for deletion to begin with. Diego (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I've yet to see convincing evidence there is significant risk of confusion. And while I understand the current article is a sort of attempt at a broad concept article, I do not understand what is so bad about it. It seems a fine basic overview. older ≠ wiser 11:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You can take a look at the discussion page of the article, it gives you a good idea of what is so bad about the article when I proposed it for deletion. The example is artificial and bad. The article mainly consider data structures, which is a very specific topic, and mostly ignores languages and programming. Finally, in my opinion, the «see also» part is nonsens. VList, for example, is a data structure, which is not purely functional. The creator of VList argues that it should be a basic component added to purely functional language, but it has not be done, and since VList are more than a decade old, there is no reason to think that it will ever change. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A significant number of articles link to this page directly. I wonder if we should make Pure function the primary topic instead, with the DAB page linked from the hat note, or alternatively merging the links into that article? Otherwise, this decision will need some cleanup work. Diego (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These links should all be disambiguated and I think in many cases not to Pure function. Disambiguating would be easier to do if Purely functional is actually tagged as a disambiguation page. —Ruud 12:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The way the discussion is going at present, I'm inclined to Delete this page. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but with the current state of the articles, a disambiguation page is inappropriate and the others here seem to have some issue with either creating a new broad concept article or utilizing the current article as such. older ≠ wiser 22:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be the worst of all the possible options. At least the current situation(*) provides the most information to the readers and allows them to find their way to the information sought. Diego (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  (*)(A broad concept article is what we have now, although it's a poorly sourced one, that was nominated for deletion).

  • (ec)Sigh, OK, I wrote that in a bit of exasperation at the rather confoundling way the discussion was progressing. To be clear, this is an unacceptable disambiguation page consisting of nothing but unambiguous partial title matches. This version doesn't appear to be that bad (though I'm not a SME). Perhaps that non-dab version can be enhanced to function as a broad concept introduction to the topic and perhaps better highlight the various meanings listed on the faulty disambiguation page. If the only option is between deleting this page or converting it into a bad disambiguation page, then I would rather delete this page. Readers would be better served by directing the to the search function. older ≠ wiser 11:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you have ideas on how to improve the current article, we're all ears. The article has been under discussion for some time. It would help a source directly addressing the meaning of the term; that would be enough to have a stand-alone article. Diego (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe a blind search is better than an editor-crafted navigation page. For a start, readers would miss the highly relevant link to Referential transparency, which in the DAB page can be placed in a See also section. Diego (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • And on a disambiguation page, such an entry would be uninterpretable without any context. Such context could better be provided on a broad concept article. Also the fundamental problem with a disambiguation page is that none of the articles describe the topic as being known by that phrase alone. In a way, it is the flip side of a problem with making this into a broad concept article --there need to be reliable sources regarding the use of the phrase as a potential name for the topic. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't need sources using the phrase as a potential name for the topic, we have references where the topics are referred to with the phrase, which is the criterion specified by WP:PTM. (Thus ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using that particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily).
          • If there are such references, they are not in the articles at present. And a reference of a PTM such as "purely functional X" does not count. older ≠ wiser 13:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I think you are still misrepresenting WP:PTM. Earlier you had mentioned This case is more "Mississippi River" than "Louisville Zoo". Can any of these topics meet the guidance there that you did not mention--i.e., can any of these topics ever be referenced as "the purely functional" similarly to how the Mississippi River is commonly known as "the Mississippi"? older ≠ wiser 13:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, you are misrepresenting WP:PTM. It only states that one should not include "Louisville Zoo" in "Zoo (disambiguation)" because it is referred to by some as "the Zoo". Sensible policy. The situation here is different and WP:PTM does not apply. Instead you are making up some ad hoc rule that one is only allowed to include items on a disambiguation page if they are referred to by "the X". This rule is not supported by policy. This rule is not supported by practice: none of the entries under Convex or Continuous are ever referred to as "the convex" or "the continuous". —Ruud 13:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have ideas on how to build a better broad concept article, or not? Diego (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already said I'm not an SME. To my eye the present article appears to be adequate. older ≠ wiser 13:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  And to the eyes of the four SMEs here it does not. Stop arguing from ignorance. There is no difference between having a disambiguation page at Purely functional versus one at Convex or Continuous. Neither policy nor practice supports your position. —Ruud 13:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Three cheers for civil discourse. older ≠ wiser 13:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree that Continuous and Convex have some examples that are very similar to what a dab page for this term would look like, but the problem is that quite frankly those are examples of bad disambiguation. For Convex in particular I plan on replacing the whole Mathematics section with an entry for Convexity (mathematics) because every other entry there is just a specific application of convex sets. So again, the proposal is very similar to those examples, but it's a matter of the examples being incorrect, not the proposal being correct. I've made my own proposal at the bottom that I think is more appropriate. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  There are dozens, if not hundreds, of such disambiguation pages on mathematical terminology. (Just to start with properties named after mathematicians: Abelian, Noetherian, Archimedean, ...) And it is certainly not the case that all the entries listed will always be a special case of one of them. Quite frankly, it's a bit odd to start arguing that they are all "incorrect", somehow. You may want to confer with the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics before going on a Quixotic quest to "correct" all those pages. —Ruud 21:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please fix all incoming links before undertaking any disambiguation of this page. In so doing, you may discover patterns lending to a primary topic. Also, while we are on the topic of functionality, it is fairly common for things to be referred to as "purely functional" when invoking the Functionality doctrine in intellectual property law. That is what came to mind when I saw the phrase. bd2412 T 13:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's good to know. I think that merits a hatnote in the current article. Diego (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All incoming links are fixed. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For later reference: I had to disambiguate some links to purely functional programming and some to pure function. I don't believe there is a primary topic here. Or if there would be one, then we'd end up with such an unwieldy collection of hatnotes on the target article, that we'd have to create a "Purely functional (disambiguation)"... —Ruud 22:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Functional programming for reasons that are pretty much all outlined by the original poster. "Purely functional" as a general programming concept is exactly what's explained in Functional programming with more-or-less the common definition of "pure" attached. Purely functional data structures are, as defined by the OP, "data structures which can be used in functional programming" and would clearly be appropriate to discuss briefly within the context of that article. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a meaningless proposal. Exactly what content from the article Purely functional do you propose merging to the article Functional programming and in what manner? Be more concrete. As you should have been able to deduce from the discussions above, the opinion of the SMEs here (those who will invariably be tasked with performing any merge outcome of this AfD) is that there is no such content left that should merged. What do you propose doing with the article Purely functional after this "merge" has be performed? Delete it, redirect it somewhere, leave a disambiguation page behind? Be more concrete. —Ruud 21:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A merge implies a redirect to the merge target. bd2412 T 21:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • And such a redirect would not be a good idea, as discussed above. Anyway, this whole AfD is moot. The consensus seems to be that something should remain under this title. What exactly, is out of scope for the AfD and can be discussed on the talk page. —Ruud 21:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ruud, rather than addressing each of your attempted jabs I'll just say that if you've grown impatient with this discussion you can simply step back and take a break instead of lashing out at anyone that offers a differing opinion. Having a discussion is the whole purpose of this, so try to stay civil. To the point, it's perfectly meaningful to suggest a merge without detailing exactly which bits would go where. That can be determined if and when the merge is agreed upon. If you disagree with the reasoning that I included above, please state exactly why you feel the information can't be merged completely. -- Fyrael (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, there are no more incoming links to the purely functional article, apart from the purely-functional article which is a redirection to purely functional and should probably remains so. Thanks to Ruud Koot who probably did a part of it, since I ran in a modification conflict while editing a page myself. I guess and hope it answers one request of bd2412 and of Diego I also created an article Purely functional programming in order to clearly emphasize what is meant by the adjective pure when speaking of functional programming. It was mandatory in order to edit all incoming link. I guess that, if we ever choose the disambiguation page, it will also be needed anyway. Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Arthur and Tobias. —Ruud 21:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I see enough to suggest likeliness as an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Conwell Welsh[edit]

James Conwell Welsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article asserts hardly any credible claims of significance, much less notability. There is sparse coverage of the subject and I cannot see any evidence of notability. Being one of the board of directors of a bank is not notable. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no claims of notability met. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -based on what I read in the obit, he fails my standards of notability for lawyers. If a source could be found that he did more for the bar or local governance, I'd change my !vote. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject doesn't meet either of the criteria set forth in WP:ANYBIO. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2016 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analytical Graphics[edit]

Analytical Graphics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Renominating and I still confirm everything I said at the 1st AfD. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for corporate advertising. Sources inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC).
• Delete - No evidence of notability in sources. Aust331 (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a promo article about a non-notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable per WP:COMPANY. I found no secondary coverage aside from a boilerplate description of what the company does here, but that's a largely indiscriminate source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States)[edit]

List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Since I removed the inline external links to the parties' websites (per WP:ELLIST), all that remains of this article are internal links to the 53 state/territorial Democratic parties' (plus Democrats Abroad) articles, all of which are already in the ((Democratic Party (United States))) navbox. I don't believe the article is in violation of WP:NOTDIR (which was all that was discussed the first time the article was nominated for deletion); however, I don't think the article adds anything by merely repeating the navbox. Graham (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No valid reason to delete has been given. Lists are not navboxes, and categories are not lists. We have various ways of organizing and categorizing information, and there is no reason to delete a legitimate list just because the material is also organized into a category or a navbox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (EC) It is a reasonable list. It can/should be developed to include some information about them, perhaps in a tabular format. Sorry to be simply contrary, but for example, one reasonable version would be to have a column of the names, and to have a second column of external links to the state websites, or for the second column to be a list of factoids of some type taken from the state websites (like year the state party was founded) with references to the state websites (so pretty much restoring the state websites, either way). A list-article can include photos and maps and red-links and diverse facts and references. See wp:CLT for an explanation how Categories / Lists / navigation templates are complementary. --doncram 06:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The editing stripping down the list and then this AFD is poor timing, right when the various state parties might be taking different positions in the Democratic national convention, and right when it might be relevant for readers to be able to look up stuff and see patterns across states, from info that could be arrayed here. (I wonder offhand what's different about Utah in the corresponding Republican list, is it just that the state has a lot of Mormons, or is the state party organized differently than other ones? A state list can array relevant info showing it is the same as most others or very different in some way.) Is the List of state parties of the Republican Party (United States) magically okay because it put the website links into references that list out below? If one is gutted the other should be gutted... or better not to gut either. I think the previous version of this article should be restored right now, with just the addition of the AFD tag for the moment, until this gets cleared up. It is not okay to selectively gut all of one party's stuff, right in the middle of the news going on. --doncram 07:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: I don't think it's fair to describe the edits as "stripping down". All that was removed was:

• The inline external links: The first sentence of WP:EL provides that external links "should not normally be placed in the body of an article" and the guideline goes on to say, "Exceptions are rare."
• The infobox: WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that "the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". Given that the removed infobox template is designed for an article about a political party (rather than a list such as this one), it's no surprise that the infobox in no way summarized the contents of the article – in fact, nearly all the information in the infobox was not in the article body and nor would it be suitable for it to be. I'll reply to your comment on the article talk page regarding this.

It is not okay to selectively gut all of one party's stuff, right in the middle of the news going on.

I do hope that you're assuming good faith when you use the word "selectively". (Not that it should matter, but my doing this certainly wasn't an anti-Democratic thing. I'm not American, but I'm certainly hoping the Democrats do well this November – God help your country if Trump were to gain power.) The fact that there is an ongoing convention shouldn't mean that inappropriate content cannot be removed asymmetrically as other stuff exists.

I recognize that categories, lists, and navigation templates serve distinct yet complementary functions; however, I did not see what value was added in this particular case by having a list in addition to a category and a navbox with no differences in their content. You have demonstrated that the article could become valuable with the addition of more information (which I had not contemplated). You're right that the article is worth keeping, so I withdraw my nomination. Thanks for your work on this, Doncram. Graham (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eshal Fayyaz[edit]

Eshal Fayyaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was a mess of WP:FANCRUFT. I trimmed it down to actual cited information related to the article subject, but the problem that remains is that every single reference is a blog that fails WP:RS. It's entirely possible that it's a question of source language, but whoever started the article didn't even provide her name in Urdu. Other than that, one TV show doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. So no RS, and doesn't seem to meet any notability guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable living actress. The sources in the article do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I have talked to MSJapan who has nominated it for deletion, I have also made some neutral contributions with some reliable Fashion, Modeling, TV industry websites. I think MSJapan did well by cleaning it, by nominating it for deletion would be unjust. As I am a native University Lecturer I know she is well known and now on anyone who is voting for this page first should do some work, and see the references. I don't have an army who would vote for keep, neither I am paid one. But I really think it would be illogical to delete this page, if you want to know more about her popularity you should invite some native editors from Pakistan they would be able to tell you whether is important or not. Sir MSJapan, please do consider these suggestions. Then you would know the exact position of her. The Reader Ahmed (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC) — The Reader Ahmed (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Awais Azad (talk • contribs). –  Note: Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

• We need reliable sources and I don't see any at the moment. An example of reliable source would be coverage in Dawn or the Express Tribune. I searched but couldn't find anything except for this which is a list (and a bit of description) of 6 upcoming models. I couldn't find a single other reliable source for the subject. Also, there is a difference between notability and popularity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was "spoken with" insofar as a message full of template boxes was left on my page and my edit to the article was reverted to add back in all the "she works very hard" fancruft. The editor does not understand what is required of an article here at WP, interestingly enough is not the creator of the article, and is nonetheless being disruptive. I'm AGFing insofar as I see SPAs already, but that is wearing thin. MSJapan (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd believe the above statement if this wasn't after the user posted another response on my talk page and reverted the article again. Since this behavior is apparently not going to stop until these "sources" are addressed, I'll do that, although I'm not entirely sure the behavior is going to stop at all. So here we go:

1. http://fashion360.pk/striped-snl-stylish-paris-shoot-in-she-magazine-2013/ - nothing but pictures, talks about Sofia Naveed the designer. Fayyaz is listed as the model. So the article is not about Fayyaz. Also, the byline says "posted by admin", which is a good indicator of a blog, whereas a magazine would have a writer.
2. http://fashion360.pk/contrast-fall-winter-collection-2013-for-girls/ - nothing but pictures, talks about the brand. Fayyaz is only named as the model, and also "posted by admin" as above.
3. http://www.dawn.com/news/1158018 - Fayyaz is mentioned once, along with three other models in the same sentence. That's all.
4. http://images.dawn.com/news/1174324 - "Behind the scenes" Q&A with 7 models. Fayyaz is the last. This isn't significantly about her, nor is it really about her as a person, it's about her beauty care. That is trivia and one of the reasons there are major problems with notability of models, because nobody asks questions that give insight into the person; they ask "how do you do your hair?"
5. http://tribune.com.pk/story/406734/the-sizzling-six/ - Another "bulk article" where there's a brief profile (somewhere on the page) along with five other people. Her fitness regime, favorite models, best feature, all that is again, trivia. We can use this for birthdate and location, and that's about it. The rest of it simply isn't useful.
6. https://www.ebuzztoday.com/tdaps-game-of-trends-tones-this-expo-2015/ - Her name is mentioned once in a list of models. That's trivial coverage.
7. http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/50-top-shining-and-emerging-female-models-of-pakistan-india-and-bangladesh - 50 people, each with three lines apiece and a bunch of photos. This is everything it says: "This young and enthusiastic Pakistani fashion model is becoming popular in shoots, ramps and walks quickly. Eshal Fayyaz was born on October 21, 1993. She is also regularly appearing in television commercials for different brands." Not only is the writing poor, all that's here is her birthday and that she does commercials. We already know that from other sources.

There is nothing here that establishes notability. Of the seven sources given, 6 do not even mention her or are trivial coverage, and the seventh doesn't have any material of value that we don't already have from some other source, and that's only her birthdate and place. MSJapan (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Coordinated paid-editing to promote a model with no evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and is not notable for inclusion under WP:NACTOR/WP:NMODEL. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:22, 4 August 2016 (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.