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 page has received very few updates within its existence on Wikipedia. It also uses unencylopedic language, and the area in question can be covered in either the Bishop's Stortford or the Takeley wikis. GammaRadiator (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - populated places are generally regarded as notable, per WP:NGEO. AFD is not cleanup. shoy (reactions) 13:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Shoy. It's a hamlet, right? There are demographic statistics about it republished at "i live here .co .uk, here. There are numerous hits for google search on "national express start hill depot". It is the location of an Audi dealership that had a 1.5m pound or Euro renovation mentioned in some newspaper. --doncram 16:37, 14 June 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.
WP:GNG One RS (which I have my doubts about as a passing mention and does NOT back all claims here) fails WP:GNG.
WP:V This is a WP:TNT as we should not be hosting WP:OR content that is not barely discernable from a WP:HOAX. The exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing, and this is drinking water, so WP:MEDRS comes to mind. Talk details the WP:SPAs and other editor's comment about advert - these are unsourced biological efficacy claims with the flavour of hoax / promo. I removed the two previous WP:COATRACKy refs.
WP:PROMOTION & copyright. Finally, there's either copyright issues or circular referencing (in adverts [1][2][3][4] ... ) and/or this article is being used to legitimise the product [5]. It also has a Google knowledgegraph entry based on this article. Promo like this is a speedy delete per WP:PROMOTION / TNT.Widefox; talk 23:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - well done Toddst1 for the rewrite, AfD is not cleanup but we're based on OK sources now. Widefox; talk 17:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no current opinion on notability, but a glance at the Google Scholar results linked above (excluding patents) shows that this is a well-established mainstream product, so there's no need for all that invective in the nomination statement and in the nominator's tagbombing of the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're here for WP:N - see WP:DISCUSSAFD. A quick look at Scholar has many patents - see WP:PATENTS. Can you provide links to actual WP:RS?, as a quick search didn't give me much. These exceptional claims from a scientific point of view require exceptional sources, currently there's none, but I welcome being proved incorrect the (currently) unsourced claims being verified in RS per policy WP:V. Widefox; talk 12:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above my comments apply to a Google Scholar search excluding patents - there's a check box on the left to do this. And I know perfectly well how to conduct an AfD discussion, which is not by making the unsupported scattergun insults that you made in your nomination statement. You are the one who needs to stick to the notability point. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's things like [6] which is an advert not an WP:RS. Do you see any discussing the topic, rather than passing mentions? (personal comments ignored thanks). The burden is on those who added these claims per WP:BURDEN. Widefox; talk 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no burden on me to do anything, as I haven't added any claims to the article. I was simply pointing out that the passing mentions in most of those sources found by a Google Scholar search amount to a refutation by reliable sources of your outlandish claims such as "not barely discernable from a WP:HOAX". As I said, I am not claiming that this topic is notable, because I haven't yet looked into that issue. You really need to calm down a bit if we are to have a civil discussion here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do concede that it appears to be a widely known about topic, but as the claims fail WP:V, and the topic (currently) GNG, this is a WP:TNT. (where does it say anyone claimed you added them anyhow? Widefox; talk 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an absurd nomination. A quick look at the ((findsources)) notice I placed on the talk page shows that KDF-55 is a widely used and well documented substance used in a number of applications including water filtration. That should have been examined WP:BEFORE nominating for AFD. I added a decent reference to the article removed a bunch of tags from the article like ((Notability)), ((COI)) and ((HOAX)). It seems those tags have been added back for reasons that escape me (nuisance comes to mind). WP:TNT is not a valid reason for AFD - it's a reason for rewriting it. Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE was done thanks. Finding an RS amongst the adverts and passing mentions is the issue (as a widely known about product). Thanks for 1 (a passing mention of a product Ovopur which contains KDF-55, and includes the price but no verification of the claims here), but that still fails WP:GNG per nom i.e. "Significant coverage" (per below). It also doesn't address the unsourced claims failing V. TNT seems the answer. There's a difference between WP:V and bad faith. When you say well documented, care to share where (then I can withdraw). Of course, you should strike accusations of bad faith which I may understand if I'd added back hoax which I have not, this article is currently a disgrace including potential copyright violation (as mentioned in TNT) and no AGF distractions change that advert consensus on the talk. Widefox; talk 14:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example, JSTOR = 0, NYT = 0, HighBeam = 6, but 0 RS (6 non-RS = brochures etc), Google Scholar = 35 (+2 citations), but has things like A Reference Guide for Dealers which is based on two sources from the manufacturer "Product Specification sheet", and [7] - they are not independent. Can you reason your Keep, given not one in-depth RS (so far)? Thanks. Widefox; talk 16:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If BEFORE was done, you did a lousy job. I just added a bunch of sources to the article that you should have easily found. I recommend you withdraw this nomination. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, well at least the article is improved by my questioning it WP:PROVEIT. Well I didn't find those RS, no! I removed the tags for COI, notability and other issues. I disagree that you demonise someone challenging an unsourced orphan article. Still, [8] is a sales solicitation page - hardly an RS, but yes you've done a better job than me finding RS amongst the sales brocures. Now the sales cruft is removed, it makes sense. Come on, though, you can hardly stand by the complete GNG failure before? It was a disgrace, now fixed. Withdrawn. Widefox; talk 17:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's no longer an orphan and product information can be used in the right context which is how I hoped I used it here. It's not a shop site, rather useful info about a productized version of this material. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see WP:SPAM and WP:V, and other editors comments on the talk page. A highly promoted product still needs assessing against the criteria of this nom (ie our WP:N guidelines i.e. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" WP:GNG). For those that did add these claims, please note that disclosure is required per Wikipedia:AVOIDCOI, and WP:PAID. It's clear that the creator is an WP:SPA, and other editors have complained about this advert (i.e. WP:CONSENSUS). We can delete articles even if they have many passing mentions in RS. Only sources will help, and a rewrite based on them.) Widefox; talk 14:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the nominator close this as withdrawn? At least, I think he withdrawn it but I found out after already starting to look into the AfD... DeVerm (talk) 18:01, 14 June 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. There is agreement that the subject is not eligible for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor. Article has many sources, but most of them are bare mentions, directory-type listings, user generated, press releases or even fail to mention the subject at all. A quick search failed to find anything better. Most of the filmography is minor unnamed roles, many of them in non-notable films. Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
* Delete Not notable, sources were improved but career remains obviously too low. Doctorlaszlo (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining his list of works basically said it all, nothing particularly convincing and the sources are simply helping the article regarding size, but not the needed depth. SwisterTwistertalk 18:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when someone was one of 18 associate producers to a work that we don't even have an article on, and when he had bit acting parts, he is just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Actor has appeared in small roles, most un-credited. Article also appears to be a borderline case of WP:CITEKILL. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:45, 21 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fail WP:ARTIST, also the quality of the source is questionable quality WP:V, does not assert notability other than one that is a blog. Donnie Park (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please note that under the "Creative Professionals" section of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals , number 4 states the following "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." After further research into artist Jon Luvelli I have found that he does indeed have 3 works permanently inducted into the Walters Boone Historical Museum's [1] permanent art collection as historical artifacts. MarPatton (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC) — MarPatton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Is there a significance of the museum, It isn't in any shape or form like getting displayed in MoMA, the museum not having an article doesn't help either. Are you saying some art student who get their work displayed at a museum/gallery can have a Wikipedia article because of this. Donnie Park (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further research has indicated that the Walters Boone Historical Museum holds over 100 years of significant history. Here are several facts to prove the significance of this museum - 1. John William Boone aka Blind Boone's 1891 custom made grand piano is on permanent display in the Walters Boone Historical Museum. 2. 1877 historical Maplewood House can also be found on the Walters Boone Historical Museum grounds. This home was built in 1877 and is on the National Historic Register. 3. The Village of Boone Junction, which includes the Gordon-Collins Log Cabin that was built in 1822 by David Gordon. Additional details include; 5,500 square feet of museum display space and over 10,000 square feet of climate controlled vaults and storage that contain historical artifacts dating to as early as the 1800's.[1] To address your last comment, comparing an art student to Jon Luvelli is a completely invalid remark. Doing a simple Google search would show that Jon Luvelli has worked in the art and entertainment industry since he was a young child. Secondly a student or rather anyone doesn't just "get" their work displayed permanently and inducted as a historical artifact. The process is rather in depth and consists of going through a Board of Directors or as I've read in Jon Luvelli's case, he was approached by the Board of Directors and asked if he'd be willing to let the museum induct his work as permanent historical artifacts. Having works exhibited in a museum as a temporary display is completely different than a permanent induction. I would recommend doing further research on your end regarding the details of the art industry.MarPatton (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, if this was some major reliable third party source, I wouldn't had nominated this for deletion; I don't see how Streethunters are and his inclusion went unnoticed by a majority of the media. Also has any major photography magazines talked about him? Donnie Park (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparent that you have personal motives behind your acquisitions. First you question the significance of a historical institution, now you're questioning the reliability of a niche market magazine. Let's talk the topic of cars for example. There are many magazines that cover the general topic of automobiles and then it breaks down even further to more niche driven magazines that are about antique cars or trucks. Street Photography is a small market and just like Muscle Car Magazine is to antique cars, Street Hunters is one of the most popular magazines for Street Photographers/Photography. Streethunters' Alexa and Google ranks prove this, not to mention their traffic and reader interactions. Photography and arts is obviously not an industry that you are familiar with, therefore I would recommend sticking with topics that you are extremely knowledgeable on. MarPatton (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What "personal motives", I wouldn't have an issue with it if his work was displayed in a major gallery like MoMA or the National Portrait Gallery or appeared on a mainstream photography magazine but all you droned on about is the significance of a building or the artifacts, not how significant is the gallery itself compared to the scale of those I mentioned. I would had very much left it alone if he had several feature articles in magazines such as PDN, American Photo (I used to buy both magazines), Shutterbug and UK magazines like Amateur Photographer, Practical Photography and British Journal of Photography (which I subscribe to) as those I mentioned talk about street photography a lot. Plus the cars you talk about, why do they pass? Because they get coverage in mainstream print magazines even at the time and these do not have to be nichey, also they are produced by mainstream brands. There are plenty of photographers who can pass notability guidelines but self-published book and a non-notable film and music career will not help. As you insinuated street photography being a small market, there are plenty of famous street photographers as well as people running around with cameras in streets, therefore not as small as you insinuated it to be and why I don't do much articles about photographers, because most of these I wanted to do have been done already bar one that I am working on. Looking at the first three pages at Google, I can't see any source of note other than his own social media pages and if you want to save the article of your idol, why don't you go fix the article yourself. Donnie Park (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you've suggested, I've done some research and completed a few edits to Jon Luvelli's page. This includes: A new statement and 2 Wikilinks added. I've also added him to two 2 separate Wikipedia articles. My question though, is why are you reverting my edits? If you refer to the screenshot to the right Screenshot of WP:TWINKLEABUSE guidelines. of the WP:TWINKLEABUSE it clearly states that all edits using Twinkle "should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." In what way was my edit on the 2015–16 University of Missouri protests not in good-faith and you did NOT add an edit summary? The protests that took place will forever be a part of history...those pivotal moments were captured by Jon Luvelli and placed in a museum for anyone to come visit and learn about the events that took place! MarPatton (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it because I saw it as WP:SPAM as in a way of promoting your idol's work when it could had been done without. Had it had as much impact as the Tank Man or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, I wouldn't had considered my action. Also what you've said is strictly WP:SPAM how you edited is suggesting people to visit the museum in a promotional manner. Donnie Park (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is not my idol, he's an artist respected by many. Should I consider you a fanboy of every topic you edit? I decided to take on the responsibility of doing additional research about this topic because of the simple fact that your allegations and comments made you sound like a troll, not to mention the fact that your editing patterns and behavior are not what I consider to be in "good-faith". Instead of being a troll, you could've been a good editor and fixed what I wrote so it didn't come across as spam instead of accusing me of purposely making it look like so. MarPatton (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I called you that because you seemed to be defensive like if you are related to him. As with editing, I cannot do anything since the nomination is still in place and by the way, your article has a 70.7% copyvio which is not good. Donnie Park (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I nominated that for deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the nom and replaced with keep per MarPatton due to original typo. Worldnewsreport (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not that active, I am not always on the computer. The reason I posted here is due to viewing Jon Luvelli's work from 20 Most Influential Street Photographers 2016 article from Street Hunters Magazine, so I googled to see some of his new work, saw the wikipedia page, clicked it and just saw the AFD mark. I admire his work and was genuinely shocked that his credibility would even be questioned, as I am a part time photography hobbyist and have seen his work for years. Oh, and btw Street Hunters Magazine is a very popular and non bias source. So I hope that since I am a fan of street photography and Jon Luvelli's work that doesn't make my opinion any less than yours. Worldnewsreport (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then what are you, a husband and wife WP:SPA team? Also what credibility am I questioning, my point is if this article passes notability guidelines and he appears to sound like a one-notability photography like you make him out to be and you need more than that to pass notability guidelines. Donnie Park (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in independent,reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, WP:NARTIST and WP:NAUTHOR. There is no significant coverage which I can locate of the subject. Simply having a piece on display in what, as near as I can ascertain, a county museum is far from being, as one editor claimed "a significant collection". The Walters Boon Historical Museum is the Boon County museum [9]. JbhTalk 13:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quote "a significant collection" you're referring to is not in the context you're mentioning. I was referring to the Boone County Historical Society having a significant collection of historical artifacts. I see that you've made some changes on this article, do you have any suggestions on further improvements? I highly disagree with Donnie Park's request, because I do find notability on this topic for an industry specific article, if I didn't I wouldn't be wasting my time. There are enough articles on this person to make him note worthy as well as contributions to history. Regardless of what museum he's in, it does NOT discredit the fact that he covered a historical moment (2015-16 University of Missouri protests) during the climax of race driven protests, unless you're saying that the protest's themselves aren't historic? You'd also be discrediting all historic artifacts of Boone County Historical Society and other important documents requested by the museum. From what I've read, his photographs were requested and added to the museum's permanent collection...The museum's website also states the following "For more than forty years the Boone County Historical Society has collected, preserved, and exhibited historic artifacts and the records of honorable, iconic, and historic individuals of Boone County, Missouri." You can read more about his induction into the museum on this link http://boonehistory.org/about/MarPatton (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried to argue about his notability without droning on about the museum, the event or that one website to death per WP:OTHERSTUFF? Also, "he covered a historical moment" - so do the plentiful of news photographers out there per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Donnie Park (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable sources to prove notability. Only his own website. Coderzombie (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even Google him? I'm doing additional research on this topic outside of web sources. I will continue to edits on this article as I find new sources.MarPatton (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just refreshed my search today and I found a newspaper article published by the Missourian on Wednesday June 22. Since this is CURRENT news coverage, by a notable and reliable source WP:RS, I have added some additional information to this article and cited the new reference. MarPatton (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's simply not enough verifiable, in-depth, third-party coverage to support him meeting WP:NARTIST. I agree with Jbhunley above, having a piece on display in a county museum does not meet WP:NARTIST criteria. The only article about him in the news with any significant coverage pertains to his piece being displayed in the county museum. ERK talk 22:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take long to read through Wikipedia and notice there are several topics with less notability than Jon Luvelli that have non-conflicted articles. Simply put, this topic is notable within his industry, regardless of small or large coverage or exhibits and recognized for what he does, Street Photography. As I stated above, I will continue to do additional research on this topic, as I do other articles I find interest in and add edits from new sources on and offline. MarPatton (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technical request@Northamerica1000: This AfD seems to have fallen through the cracks. Would you please re-list or close as you see appropriate. Thank you. JbhTalk 13:33, 24 June 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. Despite the "keep" opinions, the general consensus here is that this doesn't need its own article, although there is no consensus on what, precisely, to do with it—delete, merge, delete and redirect, or just redirect). I'm going to delete it and create a redirect to Christina Grimmie#Death. If anyone wants any of the content to merge to Grimmie's article, leave a note on my talk page, and I'll userfy the article for them to work with. (Note that any material merged will have to be credited to its original authors.) Deor (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I did like Grimmie, her death does not warrant a separate article. Any or all of this information can be merged into the Christina Grimmie#Death section. Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Christina Grimmie. As the only casualty, her article's "Death" section is sufficient to contain the relevant information. At the moment this said section is relatively small. If it grew to such large proportions as to warrant a separate article, maybe we could reconsider. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Christina Grimmie—and the death section that's there now, while brief, contains pretty much everything encyclopedic, as opposed to this "article" that reads like a news piece, trying to stuff in everything possible. 🖖ATS/Talk 23:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am torn here. I created this redirect because it is a likely search term. I think this article may be kept per WP:SIZESPLIT. It can even be argued that Grimmie gained more notability through her death than her music. SSTflyer 23:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It can even be argued that Grimmie gained more notability through her death than her music. – the main Christina Grimmie article is about her life, not her music career exclusively. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Montanabw. SSTflyer 02:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, but not delete. This article is long enough and can be a separate article. Otherwise, it can be merged into the main article Christina Grimmie and should not be deleted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This persons death is not significant. And the majority of the article is reactionary/aftermath ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, since she's apparently significant, it can go in the death section of her already existing article. Waerloeg (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, or Merge to Christina Grimmie#Death. I liked Christina Grimmie too, but this article has tons of reactions that just aren't notable, especially considering that she herself is notable enough. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Epicgenius - the majority of significant text in this article is already reflected under Christina Grimmie#Death, the remaining points of notability should be integrated into that while the wealth of relatively non-notable reactions should be carefully reconsidered for relevance. Benjitheijneb (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed that the article is long enough that a deletion or merger is not required Cased95 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's more than enough info to justify a separate article. StewdioMACK (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There will never be enough to say about it that can't be said in her own article. These should be reserved for things involving trials or mysteries. InedibleHulk(talk) 09:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the woman was as notable as Selena and the death section reached the degree of content to match Murder_of_Selena then maybe it would warrant its own page. But as it stands this is three short paragraphs about the death of a minor celebrity followed by a lot of "we're sorry she's dead" messages and duplicates of "Selena Gomez cancelled her meet and greets". Waerloeg (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here that cannot be covered adequately in the main article Christina Grimmie. WWGB (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever unique and relevant info is in this article into the Christina Grimmie article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the information into the article. This should only be a separate article IF the relevant information becomes too large to be a section in the main article. I'm not sure if that is the case for now. So keep expanding and then split off in the future if needed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say Keep. As far as I can see, this person is notable for more than being dead, but the circumstances of her death are such that to merge the content with the main article would skew that article completely. I therefore feel that it should be kept separate at least for the time being.Deb (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I already !voted to merge, but based on the dubious "Keep" !votes above, it seems that Grimmie's death has only got coverage because she was a celebrity. It isn't particularly outstanding. Someone killed a celebrity, it made news for a day, and that's it. Nothing on the scale of Death of Michael Jackson or Death of John Lennon. Long-term notability is not even demonstrated here. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone recommending merge, forgive me a short note: as I and several others here have pointed out, there is nothing to merge. Christina Grimmie#Death is pertinent, fully comprehensive, and up-to-date. 🖖ATS/Talk 03:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the 'death' section on her main article is already sufficient and well written. A lot of the information in this separate article isn't necessary and bordering on fancruft. Spiderone 17:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christina Grimmie#Death. The section on her death in the main article is good enough. Does not need a standalone article. —MRD2014TC 17:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of good sourcing, a case that has received international attention and will most likely not end reports for quite a while. I see no reason for deletion at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Very tragic event, but not notable enough for a spin-off article. Most of the reaction seems to be quotes from various outlets of social media and its users. If this death lead to a change in the law, or some other significant shift in thinking, then we could think again. This is Paul (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - Again, another tragic event, but not notable for a spin-off article. It should be noted in the original Christina's article that her death was in noway related to the mass shooting in Orlando the day after Christina's death. Dinkytowntalk 18:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with your final point: over time, no one will remember that two completely unrelated events occured about 27 hours and four miles apart. IMO, this doesn't even merit a "See also". 🖖ATS/Talk 20:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's no evidence that her death was one of those random WP:1E things. The 24-hour news cycle turned it into a flurry of articles but that in itself does not make an event notable in the long run. It also seems unlikely the article will expand as the facts other than a motive are known and there's no evidence that this incident will directly result in legislation about gun control or event security that cite Christina Grimmie in their titles. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christina Grimmie#Death. WHENSPLIT says that articles should only be split due to article size or scope. Grimmie's main article has only 10 KB of readable prose size; SIZESPLIT says that articles under 40 KB should not be split solely on the basis of size. (Not sure why several of the "keep" !voters have said it's "long enough.") This topic falls under the scope of Grimmie's biography and the content can easily be managed without lending a disproportionate amount of weight to the fallout after her death. There's just no reason for this. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an online memorial per her 'Reaction' section and that has some misc information. Her death doesn't warrant a separate article, it was just fine on her main article. Adog104Talk to me 21:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - If this article cannot be kept, it should DEFINITELY be merged, as this may be the start of changes for live music shows. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you overestimate our importance ... 🖖ATS/Talk 01:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @ATS:, honestly, no matter what happens, I believe that, at a minimum, that the history of the article should be kept in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If similar discussions I've seen previously are any indication, that history is kept, but is visible to and recoverable by sysops only. Maybe someone can chime in here to confirm ... 🖖ATS/Talk 20:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. The main article about her is not so long that her death needs to be spun out as a standalone article in its own right — if we couldn't even establish a consensus that Prince actually needed a standalone article about his death as a separate topic from his life, then I sure can't justify one for Christina Grimmie. Bearcat (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per above. This is a tragic affair and while there are many news articles about this, it's way too premature to say that the coverage is in-depth enough to show that it would merit an article akin to that of Death of John Lennon or Death of Michael Jackson. Maybe at some point in the future there might be enough coverage, but offhand this is the type of thing that could be summarized in her article. I also have to echo Bearcat's statement - Prince's death received at least 4-5 times more coverage and it was still too soon for his death to have an article, so it's absolutely too soon for Grimmie's death to have an article. I have to admit that I'm somewhat doubtful that her death will ultimately warrant an article considering how difficult it is to establish an individual's death as independently notable of the person, especially when the person in question isn't at that rare level of notability where future coverage is all but assured. If this tragic death does end up being the start of drastic changes to live music or in other avenues, this can always be recreated but for now (and likely for at least a few years in the future) this is just WP:TOOSOON. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect This page can be a section of victims page. MordeKyle (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Christina Grimmie. As this page consists mostly of reactions, it is incredibly unapt to keep this page as is. Descriptions of her untimely demise can be included into the main article; glorified memorial pages do not really belong on Wikipedia, much less in article space. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 03:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others such as Tokyogirl79 have stated above, it is too soon to say that this has the level of coverage necessary to warrant independent notability. I do not think a redirect is necessary, as simply typing Grimmie's name is the quicker and more likely search method. The main biography already has the pertinent contents of this article, so a merge doesn't seem necessary either. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect The info belongs with her article, not separate. The article regarding her death is likely not going to further grow encyclopedically beyond where it is at now, and most pertinent info is already in her main article. RIP, Christina. 207.243.3.211 (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Tokyo and Chase above. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well written and sourced. There is absolutely no reasonable reason to merge or delete this article Full House Fan (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - As the details surrounding her killer and her death continue to emerge, this page becomes less reactionary and more focused on her murder. Also, it can be argued that she unfortunately achieved far more notoriety due to her death than in her life, and due to her murder being such a sensationalized topic in conjunction to the horrific events that occured in Orlando that weekend, I believe that her murder warrants a separate article. Also, as the case continues to unfold there is the possibility that her death would dwarf all other information on her main article. If at least it cannot be a standalone article, pertinent information that is not currently present on the Christina Grimmie#Death section should be merged. 69.199.56.75 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every death deserves a standalone article; this is not one of them. Extensive media coverage, which is to be expected, does not yet make this a special death. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christina Grimmie: Preferably the death section on her article, but otherwise as per users supporting the Delete option. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major news event that had almost as much recognition as the worst gun massacre in US history. It's much too large for the body of the Christina Grimmie article to contain all these facts therein, and the person was already notable before their death. If the articles were merged, it would supplant the article on her life. No explanation for why we 'need' an article on the murder of Selena when we could just unload the pages of information on that article into the one on her life. Only one person was killed in that incident, after all. I will never understand the desire for less sources, less information, and less knowledge on Wikipedia. This article violates none of our principles, and neither has a single criteria for deletion been given by any of the delete votes above. The best they've done is the value judgement 'I don't think it's needed', and calling it (or the Omar Mateen article) a 'fork' stands in stark contrast to what a content fork actually is. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - This article is an important piece for gun violence in USA. But as suggested above, I fear an article of her death might overshadow the main Christina Grimmie article. Rohit neonerd (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can't keep an article on the basis that it "is important to gun violence in America" or "will be over shadowed" because people checking this in the future days, week and months will point out other cases much worse than this that didn't even bother having a debate on a separate Death page. DJBay123 (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth noting that since the murder occurred in such a close time frame of the Pulse shooting, it's actually being used to advocate changes in gun ownership in the US. It may be too early to tell how far that advocation may go or how big of a part her murder will play in comparison to the Pulse shootings, but it's undeniable that her murder did contribute to a change in how the US perceives the current state of gun laws. 2606:6000:E789:7300:573:E1EF:CF76:396 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be more accurate, it has contributed to a demonstrable change not in how the US perceives gun laws, but rather in how artists and venues approach security—and that's in her own article already. 🖖ATS/Talk 22:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's already in her personal article is irrelevant. This is a well documented, notable incident, Which as of this moment is still being covered, and at the hour checked had 13 new articles published. In the past 24 hours there's been 825 articles published, also according to Bing. It's not a 'one day and forgotten incident'. See my example in the comment below. Per the same line of thinking, the original characters in the Lord of the Rings movies are already mentioned in the section "Reactions to changes in the films from the books" of The Lord of the Rings (film series). To quote WP:CFork, "as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poor example; literally every news "article" that comes up in your linked search is something that's already run and is being spread by exponentially more obscure "sources". Literally everything pertinent is in Grimmie's article now, and most of it was lifted verbatim from an older version to create Death of, which is entirely filler from there (known in journalism as a "puff piece"). Entirely. This is the relevant issue, and is the only thing that is relevant—and why D&R is the only option. 🖖ATS/Talk 01:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Not deleting will keep the history of the page, and all the information can be summed up and expanded in the main article.Gatemansgc (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: The main article is long enough that this spinoff is appropriate, otherwise it will overwhelm her biography with WP:UNDUE weight on her death. Plenty of source material, appropriate to cover the murder of a public figure, regardless of proximity in time or assorted political issues. Montanabw(talk) 07:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's an article that's separate from it's main article and contains about as much text as Death of Christina Grimmie: List of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film series. I propose this doesn't need to be a separate article. Please explain why we should not merge it with Lord of the Rings or The Lord of the Rings (film series). After all, it could be summarized in a primary article as 'there were about a dozen characters original to the films'. The death of Christina Grimmie, though, has already made an impact on society in the United States. Lurtz has not. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is a start. We consider each article on its individual merits. If you think those articles should be AFDd, you are free to do so. --Izno (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewsal16 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect or merge is unnecessary--its already covered in the main article, and what anyone would be searching for would be her name. The relevant policies are both NOT TABLOID aand NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need to redirect this and there's nothing significant to merge. The death section on her page covers all of the relevant and encyclopedic information. I'm not sure she was at a point in her career to compare this to Death of John Lennon. ERK talk 08:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, worthy of its own page due to the milestones she's reached in her musical career. MikeM2011 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should be covered on her page. My best suggestions would be to merge this information into her page. MordeKyle (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artist was very significant during her time alive and her death was a major event in entertainment. It is also beginning to cause many venues to implement change in the way they carry out events in the future. That there gives her death significance within itself. The article is too lengthy and provides adequate enough deatails to remain a seperate article as opposed to just "merging" it into the death section of her main article. User:TheMann1989 (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge. Doesn't need this much detail, but it isn't necessary to throw it all out. Mannanan51 (talk) 02:03, 25 June 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 that the subject does not meet notability requirements for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD for the author of a fairly obscure book. Only other claim to fame for the article subject is that she is the great-granddaughter of a famous person (Mahatma Gandhi). As notability is not inherited, the familial claim does not provide any justification for this article. The article's sources provide only passing mentions to the article subject but lack the level of detail needed to establish WP:Notability. The article's sources even help illustrate the obscurity of its subject by including a source that provides a list of the Gandhi's descendents but which fails to mention the article subject ([10]). --Allen3talk 22:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the book had generated enough interest to have its own article here, I would have recommended a redirect to that article. But there is no such article. Either way, the subject doesn't come close to meeting WP:NAUTHOR. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all insinuating the needed independent notability and searches have found nothing better. SwisterTwistertalk 18:12, 21 June 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/speedy delete as a blatant hoax per my comments below. The claims in the article do not match up with the almost complete lack of coverage (even in non-reliable sources) on the Internet. As this appears to be a very blatant hoax, I'm also deleting the draft at Draft:Daniel Keys to prevent recreation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has not been discussed in reliable sources. In my opinion, this article qualifies for speedy deletion. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 21:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced article which makes no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. Delete; technically, in fact, I fully agree with the nominator that this qualifies for speedy deletion in this form, but listing it for AFD wasn't the way to get it speedy deleted. Bearcat (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: leaving aside the terrible writing, I note the article creator is "Iamicekid" – Ice Kid is an alias of Daniel Keys. Fails WP:MUSICBIO – this looks like a self-written promo piece, with unverified claims (lead states his most recent single reached number one on the Canadian Billboard Hot 100, which isn't true). All the blue links in the discography section link to disambiguation pages. Richard3120 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This would actually pass speedy criteria for blatant hoaxes. I searched Universal Music Canada for his name and found nothing except for one hit that had nothing to do with him. If he was signed in 2015 and had several hit songs for them, there'd be something on their website about him. I also searched Billboard and found nothing to substantiate that he was on their lists. He's not even listed as an artist on their website, something that you'd also think would be on their website if he's hit their list several times. Now when it comes to just basic Google searching, there are also no results that would back up the claims in the article. The type of performer described in this Wikipedia article would be covered somewhere if he's signed to a major recording label, has two charting singles, was nominated for an award in his home country, and is routinely played on MTV in various countries. I'm aware that news coverage in Africa and Nigeria can be spotty, but the article's claims would easily have Keys receiving coverage in Canada and North America if they were true. It also doesn't help that I can't help but get the feeling that some of this was likely copied from someone else's article. I'm going to do one last sweep, but offhand I think I'm going to speedy this as a blatant hoax. There is also a draft entry that contains the same information, which I'm also going to delete for the same reason in order to hopefully prevent recreation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The views on his VEVO YouTube channel are also incredibly low for the claims in the Wikipedia article. Even if these songs weren't on a Billboard list, they'd still pull in a substantial amount of views and none of these have cracked 2,000 views apiece - plus his channel has only 25 subscribers. Even the semi-abandoned accounts for Aqua and the Dropkick Murphys have more views and followers than that, so we can't say that the lack of subscribers and views are due to the account being semi-abandoned. His CBC.ca profile is also empty, something that again would not be likely in this scenario, given that CBC Music is part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (IE, if he hit the Billboard's Canada list, he'd have played on CBC in some form or fashion to achieve that ranking, so it stands to reason that they'd have at least two of his songs.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just sort of piling stuff on here. Now he does have MTV profiles under Ice Kid and Daniel Keys, however the issue here is that the artists (or their reps) can write these profiles themselves without any editorial oversight. Both claim that he won an AE Award, however a search for his name and the award brings up nothing. The award isn't publicized like the Grammys, but they're reasonably covered enough to where there'd be some record of him winning when specifically searching. The only thing I could find was this dodgy blog source. Also of note is that although he claims that his songs have received plays on MTV, specifically Beautiful Dreams, I can find no listing or mention of that song on MTV and they're fairly good about listing the songs they play. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:10, 15 June 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. Myriad diverse opinions and outcomes for this article have been presented and discussed herein. Ultimately, no consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. Various aspects of this article and its content, including the notion of a potential merge, which has been a significant aspect of this discussion, can continue to be discussed on its talk page. North America1000 21:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
As with nearly all "Reactions to FOOBAR" articles, this article is WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not a memorial or a place for a collection of quotes (wikiquote is for that) (WP:QUOTEFARM). It is also WP:NOTNEWS, specifically "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."
We have no indication that (1) immediate reactions have lasting notability and (2) any notable actions or comments cannot be included on 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. General reactions such as lighting buildings in rainbow colors can be summarized on the event's article (and already is at 2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Reactions). Specific extremely notable quotes that have enduring notability can also be included there. Should there be enough enduring notable reactions (e.g. memorial scholarships, museums, stamps, holidays, events, etc.), this article would be appropriate. Until then, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Leave the quotes and reactions for Wikiquote and Wikinews for now.
Keep These articles, whilst contentious, have majority community support, as evidenced by being routinely kept at AfD. There is no reason this incident is different. This is the deadliest terrorist incident in the US since 2001, deadliest mass-shooting on record and the deadliest attack on LGBT people in modern times The reactions are notable. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. It states "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events"AusLondonder (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That ended as a dead end no consensus argument. Every article is different, this one has the potential given the size of the scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EvergreenFir To suggest the death of a popstar and the worst violence perpetrated against LGBT people in modern times is in any way comparable is grossly offensive and wholly misleading. Very few reaction articles relating to major terrorist attacks have been deleted. That proposal you talk of is archived and went nowhere as you well know. AusLondonder (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: No offense intended of course. Perhaps I'm too jaded and see the platitudes given by politicians in both cases as having the same root intention? The discussion was archived, but the closing summary indicates general(ish) support for the idea that many are TOOSOON. I don't wish to bludgeon and I respect your opinion on the matter. I just feel differently and wished to initiate discussion to see if others agreed or not. EvergreenFir(talk) Please ((re)) 21:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions to an attack in which a large number of people were killed - and which is historically noteworthy for other reasons - are not fully comparable to reactions to the death of an individual person. So I don't think the Prince comparison is a good one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A fair enough point, FreeKnowledgeCreator. AusLondonder commented just a moment ago about perceptions and motive. I want to make it clear I think 90% of reactions to mass killings pages should be similarly deleted, but at this point it would be disruptive, POINTy, and down-right asshole-ish of me to go nominate them. Sandy Hook and Columbine would be some of the exceptions as the reactions to them have had lasting notability. As for how others will see this, I count myself in the LGBTQ community and if the insinuation is that this AfD is motivated by anti-queer animus, that is entirely incorrect. I'm trying to assume the best faith in Aus' comment, and perhaps they are right that some will vote on this differently because of the context of the event... but I want to may my position clear. Again, I do not begrudge anyone who disagrees with me on this; we all have different orientations toward what should and should not be on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir(talk) Please ((re)) 00:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge as proposed For all the reasons expressed by the nominator. General IzationTalk 21:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge if warranted Agree with others above. This article should be deleted and anything pertinent (i.e. beyond organization/person X issued statement) be merged with 2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Reactions - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the reactions to the shooting are an important key to understand which countries fully ignored the tragic event! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.56.205.237 (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So this is a name em and if they can't be named shame em tool? Drmies (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, impact to reputation has long been disregarded when considering inclusion of material on Wikipedia. Sumstream (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given past precedent on how reactions to events were handled on Wikipedia in the past. (Iuio (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep There is nothing stopping ANYONE from broadening the scope of the article. How many AfDs have we had so far with the same reasoning for deletion put forward but it be kept due to notability in the end? The reactions meet WP:GNG, and thus this is a valid stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally keep hoping people will wisen up and that any consensus in favor of these articles will change when people realize that the boilerplate statements that make up the majority of these articles aren't encyclopedic, and that only the reactions of true significance matter, and those all fit in the main article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but do not merge - Technically, the subject is notable, but it's not really encyclopedic content per WP:NOT. If the article is deleted, it will be because it's undesirable material, not because it's not notable. For that reason, a merge would be inappropriate. - MrX 21:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete the important ones can be in the parent article. The unimportant ones are WP:NOT going to pass the WP:10YTGaijin42 (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is largely people talking about their own feelings in a way that's not vetted by an editorial process. It is a strange kin to advertising, actually, not quite advertising, but not actually informing the readers of anything of value. I find this to be a valid argument for exclusion under WP:NOTPROMO #4. (No objection, however, to a summary at the main article, nor to the sorts of counterexamples mentioned by the nominator. It's the "Hey, I want to get my name in the paper as saying shooting 50 people is bad." ticklist that I find non-encyclopedic.) Also, this doesn't appear to meet WP:LISTN. --joe deckertalk 22:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. All the important ones can stay in the main article, while the rest are simply superfluous. Parsley Man (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think many people watching this will be concerned as to why this particular reactions article is being treated differently at AfD than other articles which have been kept (and no, I don't mean the celebrity death articles). People will make their own judgements about why that is. AusLondonder (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder, if you really believed that editors are capable of making their own assessment as to whether, and why this incident is being treated any differently, you wouldn't have felt the need to leave that snide comment (twice).Pincrete (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the precedence has been set, why do we have to go over this again and again? Whether you think that this page is notable enough or not; the absolute number of times this has been debated on similar pages clearly states that the community feel these pages are notable. I myself incline slightly to the keep side; although I do feel these pages only just meet the criteria for keeping. Either way it has been decided and while I don't in any way want to stifle this debate it should be had at a broader level rather than posting deletion proposals on every page simply to have the status quo reinstated. If this page isn't noteworthy neither are many others; it seems obvious to me that debating this each time in such isolation is (to coin a rather colourful idiom) pissing in the wind. Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Mtaylor848's position. Let's just establish a consistent standard for these types of articles and then work from there. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Per nom. This kind of article is already bloating into a list of miscellaneous reactions which are best put into the main article. Unless it gains sudden notability - eg starts a geopolitical spat between russia and britain (of course not), I see no reason to give an entire article to the reactions. user:BrxBrx(user talk:BrxBrx)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx))) 00:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These quote farms are a bad idea, and they break policy. From WP:NOTQUOTE: If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Create the page on Wikiquote, and link it from the main article. Wikiquote isn't just for film or television quotations. If there are other articles like this one, nominate them for deletion, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jujutsuan: You should read my comment below about WP:POTENTIAL. The article can be expanded, please do not just focus on the current state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively to the main article. There's really no reason to keep a standalone article that is just a list of the usual political platitudes, almost none of which have any significance of their own. Come on, some of them are reports of tweets. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is in keeping with Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks. We'll always have the wall of platitudes, and Twitter is as good a medium as any other. I attended the second vigil yesterday at the Idaho capital; some 200 people showed up. Should we consign all such vigils to oblivion? kencf0618 (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request if this really gets deleted, please move a copy to my namespace, thx. --SI 01:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by Kencf0618. Inevitably, a potentially merged list will get large enough again, and someone will move it into a new article again. -Mardus /talk 01:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What appears to be sorely missing, is criticism towards U.S. Republican legislators who expressed condolences, while their numerous efforts have been to restrict (or slow the expansion of) LGBT rights. -Mardus /talk 01:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bull Seeking to protect a baker's right not to participate in an event that violates their conscience is not in the same plane of existence as mass murder. Get real. Jujutsuan (Please notify with ((re)) | talk | contribs) 01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jujutsuan If you think that is the extent of Republican hatred for gay people (including defending prison sentences as late as 2003) you need a serious reality check. You also need a reality check if you think baking a cake could ever "violate a conscience". It's not about conscience. People in the UK, France, Germany, Ireland have consciences and these disputes only ever happen in the US. It's about conservative politics. AusLondonder (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not about to get into a comment argument like this is FB or something. Enjoy your delusions. Jujutsuan (Please notify with ((re)) | talk | contribs) 02:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jujutsuan If you don't want to be challenged then don't get on your soapbox with your hateful and fanatical views in the first place. Your comments are trolling and deliberately provocative and have no place at this AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA. You don't know what my views are besides the tiniest shred that you can glean from my comments. You don't know the difference between my political ideology and my morality. So stop the personal attacks on me. The shooter was hateful and fanatical. Bakers with a conscience formed contrary to yours regarding cakes isn't. Grow up. Jujutsuan (Please notify with ((re)) | talk | contribs) 03:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Republican politicians have been called out for their hypocrisy both for their 'thoughts and prayers' to the victims, whose everyday lives the said legislators have continually been making difficult; and for the fact, that lawmakers from that party have blocked legislation that would have curtailed the sales of assault weapons (especially AR-15). This doesn't mean, as if the Republicans should not have expressed support for the victims; it's that there is a deficiency of forward-looking statements on their part about improving LGBT rights, or at the very least making gun laws stricter. Therefore, the criticism of Republicans is rightful, since their condolences are thought not to be heartfelt in the way they have reacted. btw, "Grow up" right above could also be interpreted as a personal attack. I think this discussion should be in the actual talk page of the article. -Mardus /talk 14:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The actions of people with authority in the disaster management (local, state and federal government) are in the main article's reactions section. This has become a bad trend that we have all of these articles with lists of copy/pasted one-size-fits-all condolences written on Twitter by Foreign Secretaries of unrelated countries. As I've said in a million such deletion discussions, reactions should preferably be limited things with a real-world impact. Has any foreign country taken emergency security measures? Is any country offering aid? '''tAD''' (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those who cite WP:QUOTE correct me if im wrong but isn't this article called "Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting"? As in where is the Islamic response? Where is the public response? Where are the first responders/police reactions? Why aren't some of the more lengthy details out there being put into prose? Is there a reason to believe that this article cant expand its way like this article had Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks? Yes other stuff exists, but some of you are thinking so narrow minded its just ridiculous. I encourage some here to read WP:POTENTIAL, when it comes to articles in their current state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep: Attack is unique as largest shooting in United States history. The reactions article is essential to maintaining the main article about the shooting at a reasonable length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfish118 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 June 2016
Delete – No idea what makes all these endless reactions notable. Reactions should be held to just a few key people and entities. What is to be gained by having this whole page of useless quotes? This "flag-collecting" (as others have called it) is getting way out of hand. United States Man (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, lean towards keep and trim down. There needs to be some overflow for content that doesn't fit in the main article. -- Callinus (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. "Wikipedia is not an online memorial" and WP:QUOTEFARM. Adog104Talk to me 05:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and selective merge. Relevant, encyclopedic material may go in the main article (and I have no objection to a fairly lengthy "reactions" section, if well-cited and comprehensive). What shouldn't go in the main article is a lengthy list of quotes from foreign ministers, etc., which constitutes a QUOTEFARM. Neutralitytalk 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reactions are already in the main article, and a separate article with more of them does not warrant keeping. TJD2 (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything worthwhile that's not already in the main article. I haven't even read the page because the title shows it's just the latest in a pointless series of "Reactions to ..." every western tragedy of recent times. Full of pretty little flags and totally predictable condolences/condemnation. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best start to a deletion rationale "I haven't even read it" AusLondonder (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have skimmed it now, and it's exactly as I feared. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and very selectively merge any notable, useful, and appropriate content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete These "reactions to" articles are always full of cruft boiler plate statements of "thoughts and prayers" that are not encyclopedic. They have been farmed off of the main page of the event but editors create a WP:CONTENTFORK to keep the content on Wikipedia due to WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why does Paris, Madrid, London, Brussels, and even the 4 death March 2016 Istanbul bombing get one but not Orlando? This article like the others mentioned are meant to be more specific in their content and prevent the main page of the attack from becoming bloated.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per AusLondonder and ShadowDragon343.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are plenty other articles with the same topic of reaction to major terrorist event and this one is one of the most major in the last decades. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to the page thinking delete, but was persuaded. Partly because the scale and dual nature (anti-gay & Islamist) nature of the attack makes the reaction both larger and more complex than many otherwise similar events. And partly because we already have secondary sourcing, for example, here: [11] an article comparing the responses of various comedians/news commentators and awarding the palm to Samantha Bee, and in multiple media outlets today comparing the Trump and Clinton responses.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even the nominator thinks that some of the material should be merged. Fine, so do that, and redirect the title, maintaining the article history as with any normal merge. This is a content dispute and should be resolved through normal editing actions and talk page discussion. There's no need to bring it to AfD. Cmeiqnj (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete opening with "Muslim reactions" gives value-bias to notions of collective responsibility and makes the entire article unsalvageable LavaBaron (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge it if you want, but reactions to the largest mass shooting in US history are clearly notable, given the sources provided. Steven Walling • talk 02:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the statement of the prime minister of Andorra (and dozens of others) "clearly notable"? How? Please explain. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Serious issue: Some users have repeatedly manipulated this article to keep it in bad condition, to keep it in a state that is criticised as quotefarm, news, toosoon etc. They have removed relevant informations and improvements from the article and hindered it to be expanded. They're editing on a mission to have this article deleted. This is inacceptable and against the policies. I request that this has to be taken into account by an admin who wants to decide here. --SI 02:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it Because this has gone on long enough. Reactions from global leaders just seems trashy, Wikipedia is not a tabloid ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Reactions from world leaders and political leaders are very notable in these major events. The article in question is not overly lengthy by itself, but would make the "main" article too long. Balance is called for here, which requires too different articles.Juneau Mike (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The main reason for having this article is to give us a place to shove all this stuff. If people are willing to collect this data, it's our job to preserve it. I'll admit it's boring, but "boring" is not a good reason to delete an article. And in truth, there are many political tie-ins that will be of long term importance that we should track back to here (think of how many articles about truly awful pieces of legislation should have links to this article!). The quibbling about how many quotes to include is a content matter that has zero relevance to notability guidelines. Wnt (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying this article is just a dumping ground for all the junk that we "can't" delete? Well, it shouldn't be. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Anything which appears to be of long-term importance is notable enough to be in the main article; the rest does not belong anywhere. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It helps if you don't look at just the quoted information. The main article is approaching 90k so per WP:SIZE it is perfectly reasonable to have sub articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You really think an encyclopedia can have four million articles and none of them be dull to most of us? It's an encyclopedia. Obviously somebody cares deeply what various sources say about the attack, or the information would never have been added. So good for them! What significance the information has is enduring - at some point ten years from now, are people going to remember whether Putin expressed sympathy or gloated over the dead gays? Will people remember if the Pope gave a statement condemning anti-gay hatred or merely said that murder is wrong? So if they care, they'll come to Wikipedia and look it up. Wnt (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the simple practical reason that it helps focus the main page and does no harm as a record of significant reactions. Pincrete (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've read through this discussion and the archived one at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks, I encourage any participating here who haven't to do so. I can't see any reason how or why this article's discussion would or should end up differently. Information being boring, or repetitive, does not reduce its notability, and there is a well established routine in these reaction pages that have survived, such as in the terrorist attack reaction category, or isolated examples like with Charlie Hebdo. In the same way where in the Paris attack discussion there was commentary along the lines of "Of course this gets less attention and respect, it happened outside of the US!" I would similarly lament people here feeling justified in statements like "This is being judged more harshly because it's about Gays, or because Orlando is not a big city like New York or the many national capitals that allow for their attack reaction articles to survive, Moscow, Madrid, London, Brussels, Istanbul, Paris, despite many of them having far fewer lives lost." Finally, I can easily imagine the academic and scholastic value in being able to compare, "How did Country X respond to these dozen very different attacks? What characteristics bring about what nature of reactions internationally?" and with those kinds of topics of research I wouldn't imagine a better initial resource than Wikipedia. Sumstream (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I believe this has been discussed countless times before. Wikipedia has reactions to notable events. Some people clearly dont like it, and they keep trying to get rid off it, citing some absurd reason or the other. Sorry, but I have yet to hear a valid reason that doesnt amount to "I don't like it". The opponents tend to describe the section/article as "junk", "garbage", "collection of trash", repetitive, none of which are reasons to remove content from WP. Someone even nominated the reactions to 9/11 article for deletion claiming that the reactions to 9/11 were not notable. Talk about a major understatement! In my opinion, there is no doubt that the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history should have a reactions article. Quite simply, the reaction to an event is important to fully understand the importance and consequence of an event. If 50 people were shot dead in Somalia, the reactions would have been far fewer. FlickrWarrior (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Merge isn't feasible due to the large amount of content, and there is significant precedent for having articles of this nature. It's an event of significant magnitude. And stop with the WP:POINT editing SI mentioned above. If the article needs improving, improve it. Don't willfully stop improvement so it can fulfill your goal of deletion. In any event, AFD is not cleanup so if the article has potential, which it does, it should stay. Smartyllama (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the reactions have generated sufficient coverage in secondary sources to meet WP:GNG, with sources such as the NYT, CNN, various French and British news outlets. Methinks trying to hold this article to some standard other than WP:GNG may be motivated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lol. I'm the one who created this article. Didn't expect it to start such a big argument. --96.48.244.69 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is too long to fit into the main article and it is definitely notable enough. I don't see why this is being considered for deletion. Ghoul flesh(talk) 01:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not much I can say that hasn't already been said by other "keep" !voters, but...I'm not sure why so many seasoned users still don't understand that an articles doesn't have to be deleted before it is merged. I mean, even the nominator stated that s/he thinks the article should be merged, not deleted. Erpertblah, blah, blah... 01:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. World leader's reactions to such a historical terrorist attack are always going to be notable and there are a number of other Wikipedia entries in a similar vein (the recent attack on Paris for example). Perhaps trim it down a little as it's turning into a list page. Zerbey (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008, there is far too much sourced content to be merged into the shooting article. International reaction to the largest peacetime massacre in American history. The TOOSOON train has long since left the station. --Oakshade (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reactions are not notable in and of themselves. Actions are. Are we going to have Reactions article to every single event? And what about Reactions to the Reactions? I think Obama's response to Trump's response got enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article if "it's sourced and an important person said it" is the only rationale, and I'm sure Trump's response to Obama's response to Trump's response is going to generate plenty of coverage too, if it already hasn't. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, we've had these discussions before, and a consensus seemed to be that responses by directly involved persons or organizations were deemed acceptable in the main article. A response by the president of Turkmenistan or the candidates for the Spanish presidency--why? Drmies (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that so few of the responses here in the Reactions page are actually notable that all of them would be able to indefinitely fit on the main shooting page? When there genuinely is enough sourcing, I don't see why the general notability guideline is failed even if the reaction is from a country that is generally more ignored like Turkmenistan or from someone who is still at this stage only a candidate, such as the Spanish candidate(s) or Trump. I feel like your concerns would be most addressed in trimming or otherwise cleaning up, but that it would not be feasible to do so to such a degree that what remains could all be merged into the main article. I don't believe in the rationale or argument of "we must strive to keep as few reactions pages as possible" which does not care about notability or the precedent that has been set by the many reactions pages that have already survived AfD. Sumstream (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I feel differently. I don't know who you're citing in "we must strive...", but it's not me. The general notability guideline does not pertain to any individual response--that is a serious misunderstanding. The GNG applies to topics; whether an individual response is worth including is a matter of editorial judgment. What's funny is that the topic of "Reactions to ..." is itself not notable, if we take the GNG strictly, since I do not believe there is secondary sourcing that discusses the reactions, though there is secondary sourcing that lists the reactions. BTW, trimming so it fits in the main article, of course that's feasible. What happens with every act of terrorism, though, is that the article quickly balloons to 200k or more, because NOTNEWS is usually deemed irrelevant. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A serious misunderstanding is "Reactions are not notable in and of themselves. Actions are." A reaction is an action performed in response to a (generally prior) external stimulus, which itself may be another action but may also be a condition or something else. There is a retinue of actions cited as being done specifically in response to the shooting. This is cited in secondary sources. Even tweeting an official statement of response, whether it be grief, condolence, ridicule, or otherwise, is still an action and can still meet notability for inclusion. The topic as a whole, the reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, is obviously notable for the amount of such reactions but also the degree of reaction. For instance one of the most notable such reactions already has a page of its own, Senator_Murphy_gun_control_filibuster, and is quick to cite in the first line that the event happened in reaction to the Orlando shooting. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sen-chris-murphy-starts-talking-filibuster-over-gun-control-224369 and http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-democrats-filibuster-over-gun-control-enters-second-day-n593396 are credible secondary sources discussing and not merely listing how it is a reaction to the Orlando shooting. I can not understand how further notability could be necessary or even established in a way that would be deemed acceptable to you as described if this is not. Sumstream (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The misunderstanding is all yours. A tweet and some words and a press release etc. are not actions, nor are the properly reactions--they are verbal responses, words. The reactions cited in this article are nothing but words. Heartfelt words, well-chosen words, sometimes combative words, sure, but they are not actions. Murphy's filibuster (that this has an article is indicative of how quickly we jump on the news cycle) is an action, and should have a place in the article on the shooting, as do the comments by Clinton, Obama, Trump, and a couple others--maybe the pope. The president of Turkmenistan's response does not need to have a place anywhere. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are again concerns regarding trim and cleanup to the article and not the WP:POTENTIAL of the article regarding AfD which is not based strictly on current status. Please look to Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, which obviously does not contain EVERY single possible quoted reaction that shows up in a secondary source. It has had a lot of time to be carefully maintained. I intend to voice "Delete and Merge" whenever Murphy's filibuster article gets its own AfD, but I'm not rushing because the article that I expect the full relevant and notable contents of that event to be on is this, the reactions page. Exactly which statements and other events constitute the total inclusion scope of the article should be more slowly and carefully weighed out over time and is obviously beyond the scope of this AfD. Sumstream (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I note that the current consensus on the shooting talk page does not support merging most materials here (RFC is supporting summary form and only from specific, involved politicians with regards to certain statements). As merge goes against that consensus, this should only close on keep or delete. Since this is a significant incident regarding United States and affects multiple sensitive issues in an election year, I think this page is necessary. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There are a lot of different talk page threads about keeping this or that from the reactions (what does the Westboro Baptist Church say?) and my response is always going to be "stuff it in the sub-article!" I think we can keep the vast majority of stuff here (though the WBC trolls might only be relevant to their own article per WP:fringe, depending on how much media traction they get), and I do think this article is useful, but we don't want all this crap tacked on to the end of the main article. It's all a matter of relative importance. Wnt (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were a number of substantial reactions worthy of encyclopedic coverage beyond the standard fill-in-the-blank condolences. These included the Turkish newspaper dispute, the media firestorm over the pastor who condemned the victims of the attack, the Trump-Obama dispute, the walk-out in Congress over the refusal to pass a gun-control bill, numerous attempts on the political right to blame the attack on the religion of Islam, the arrest of individuals in Russia putting up #lovewins signs, ect. Ultimately, there are more than enough substantive events in the present to justify keeping this article at present, and common sense dictates that the deadliest mass shooting in American history is going to garner additional reactions as time goes on. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge key points from the first three sections. A list of statements released by governments about a massacre is no more notable than a list of statements released by governments in honour of an anniversary or holiday. Graham (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim to only involved countries, agencies, and/or organizations; per precedent on other pages like Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. If this renders the article too short, and there is space on the main article, a merge back would work as well. ansh666 05:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I think we might feel differently in a month but for now this keeps nonsense out of the main article and we have a place for people who want to know what everyone had to say. Reactions to the September 11 attacks makes it likely that some version of this will be kept and used years from now. Computationsaysno (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's how it always ends. Keep for now, then a month or so later, someone tries to delete again and it's summarily closed as too soon after the one held while people were fired up. So everyone stops caring till another one happens, when they're used as "What about x?" votes. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can't win an argument, but enough of them can always score a "no consensus". And there's almost always another "national tragedy", so any attempts to delete an older Reactions article are seen as timely pointy edits to undermine the new AfD.
Keep - If the article consists of any long lasting effects from the event (laws and regulation changes). Any reactions from notable figures should be kept to people with decision making abilities or public figures. US Presidential candidates that use this current event as fodder for their personal political agendas should be left out. That would be my encyclopedic opinion on the matter. DrkBlueXG (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amend or Delete - It is extremely difficult on a "Reactions" page to avoid the appearance of one-sidedness or favoritism. I felt the original tone of the main article was written to favor one viewpoint over another. The original article now reads much more neutral. However, a “Reactions” page will allows be defined as what is too much and what is too little, always fighting to remain neutral. While this may be an article in which many users gravitate to read various notable reactions, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Why not create a page that simply lists the names of people who have had a reaction to the incident, and then simply footnote the source of the reaction, and let the users go to that source if they so choose. Also, while this may not be the format for this comment (I am extremely new to Wikipedia), I do not understand why the brief link to the shooting, on the main page, says “gay nightclub”. Why not just “nightclub”? I accept the position that the status of the facility as a club for gays was likely some kind of motivation (maybe multiple) for the shooter, but virtually every target of a terrorism incident is chosen for one or many reasons. Instead of “gay”, why not say “mostly Latin”? Why not say “long-standing”? Was everyone there gay? I believe the more we label something, the more the label becomes a factor in separating cultures, races, and/or religions. By using the word gay on the main page, it immediately classifies everything going forward for a user, without the background and perspective that comes in an article. The main page link should simply say nightclub; the article can appropriately discuss the unique characteristics of the place. Rsbarnes (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Rsbarnes[reply]
This is exactly the kind of discussion I want to be taking place at the talk page that has not yet really occurred. I expect the vast majority of the current content of the article to be removed over the lifetime of the article going forward, but also expect it to be handled cooperatively in discussion at the talk page, where it will probably be easy to get agreement to remove the vast majority of say, arbitrary statements by heads of state, pursuant to the described summary at the village pump discussion linked to near the top of this AfD, where there is no inherent ban on such things but that there were many who stated most such statements posted were not necessary for inclusion. There are already many good parts of the article I expect will remain included, and many notable reactions that have not yet been included, such as the Murphy filibuster, and all the events described by Spirit of Eagle above. Your concerns sound mostly like such trim and content concerns that would be addressed there in the talk page and in revising the actual article. This, the Article for Deletion discussion, is about whether the article should ever exist at all, considering not only it's current state, but also it's future possible WP:POTENTIAL. Sumstream (talk) 19:08, 18 June 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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Article fails to assert the subject notability. No known Reliable Sources present, the only sources are a fan wiki, and the subjects own website. A quick google search provides nothing that would pass WP:RS as far as I can see. --Cameron11598(Talk) 20:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was originally a redirect to Ninja Sex Party. If notability cannot be established, maybe it should be redirected back there? Adam9007 (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I stated on the talk page of the article in question, I do not feel it should be deleted, as I think there are enough web sources to support the article. Nonetheless, even if it is determined that the subject of the article is not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, then it should be kept as a redirect page. I am, in fact, the creator of the page, and created it in 2014 as a redirect to the Ninja Sex Party article in the first place. Therefore, I agree with Adam9007's view. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 20:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page has become far more notable due to the improvements made by Tokyogirl79. It should certainly be kept. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 01:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I nearly both PRODed and AfD myself, there's simply nothing minimally actually convincing of solid independent notability and my searches found nothing better. At best, we should at least delete and then redirect and also then protect....as there are no signs at all this can be acceptable soon. SwisterTwistertalk 20:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Converting the article into a redirect would be the most beneficial option. The article doesn't meet any notability standards. However, deleting it would lead users to nothing, rather than the subject's corresponding "parent" article, Ninja Sex Party. As an additional note, the Ninja Sex Party article contains a good portion of this article's information, anyway. As an additional note, this page seems to be the result of Dan expressing his opinion on the fact that he doesn't have a Wikipedia page. As a result, it seems unimportant and unrelated trivia is being added to bolster the article's appearance. snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 23:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Given that Dan's notability spans two well-known music groups and a well-established YouTube platform, I think this could be given a second chance. A case could be made that there isn't enough information about Avidan. However, a case could also be made that with enough digging, this article may become passable. Tokyogirl79 has a solid point. snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 15:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, doesn't seem to meet notability standards at the moment but is an obvious redirect. ansh666 21:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made by Tokyogirl79 below. ansh666 23:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:GNG. I don't know feelings that much, I'm almost practically half-robot. Might as well program them into me. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I've never written an article to make some yahoo feel good! White Arabian FillyNeigh 23:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see why this page is marked for deletion! Dan Avidan is just as worthy of having a page as many of these other big YouTubers who have pages on here! For instance, Arin Hanson and Ross O'Donovan. Why is Dan being nitpicked? He has just as much notability as both of the aforementioned. I could find others too! Also, 3 years ago I could have understood having this page redirect to Ninja Sex Party, but he is now much bigger than that! He is now a part of the band Skyfall, as well as Starbomb, and the obvious Game Grumps! He is much bigger than just NSP now. He deserves it! EctoEgbert (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC) — EctoEgbert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That may be so, EctoEgbert, but without reliable sources that prove he is notable, we're not going to go anywhere. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Dan's page is essentially ripped from the Ninja Sex Party page, with a few extra tidbits that don't really add much to the article. Sure there are people who have articles that are in the same realm as him but the simple fact is that there's more notable information about them than him. Zombivacation (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article is now more notable and separated from the NSP one. Zombivacation (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As many have said above this article doesn't need to exist. His bands article covers most of the important info about him. Just add personal info of the members to the band's page, instead. That way you could even include Ninja Brian's information. 69.251.135.98 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think its been at least sourced better, and seems to have more reliable information than before. I say we keep it. 69.251.135.98 (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I feel it falls short of GNG but if a page for NSP exists, then it should be re-dir there. Eagleash (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous audio sources straight from Dan Avidan himself on the Game Grumps youtube channel. The wikia page referenced has a few of them, but it takes a lot of time to track down audio and turn it into a biography. I would not advocate for redirecting to the 'Ninja Sex Party' page because that page does not describe the other works done by Dan and the other projects he's participated in. Also, this is not a discussion that should only be taking place while the page in question is in restricted mode.CZauX (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)— CZauX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Dan's own youtube channel "Game Grumps" would not be considered a Reliable Source neither would the Wikia page. As far as I'm aware there is no policy that bars discussion on deleting pages if they are semi-protected, Can you point to such a policy? --Cameron11598(Talk) 07:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Game grumps falls into a self-published source on ones self. It is used as a sort of biography at times, and is most likely the best source of information outside of a published biography. However, due to the conditions of internet celebratism, actual interviews and published information on their life can be quite negative, so I think its a very happy middle that grants enough information to know some background without getting too personal as a biography would. Not to mention that this is 2016, not a lot of people have biographies made about them when their story is already out there on the internet. GG is also not the only source of information, Dan is majorly affiliated with many groups, as has been stated in other posts here. There may not be a specific policy barring deletion, but its a good idea to allow users to cite sources and improve a page during the discussion. CZauX (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per arguments above. Prof. Mc (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to NSP per nom. I recommend that the SPA keep voters review Wikipedia's notability policies and other stuff exists. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep per the points made by Tokyogirl79 below and subsequent article contributions - I originally voted redirect because I thought that Dan's notability was limited to NSP and was not notable enough on his own, at which point it seemed best to redirect to NSP. I agree that a redirect to NSP no longer makes sense because Dan is linked to multiple notable groups (can't redirect to everything). Given that, and Dan's co-founder involvement with each group, makes him notable enough in the relevant notability guidelines to keep.ZettaComposer (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep... for nowKeep.: This is a little tough. On one hand, Avidan himself hasn't been the focus of any specific coverage in independent and reliable sources. This is Avidan in specific. However I will note that he's the co-creator of two notable groups, Ninja Sex Party and Game Grumps. Both of these appear to be notable enough for their own entry and as someone who is familiar with both groups I can say that he's fairly equally well known for both. Now if we're going to go by the rules of WP:ENTERTAINER, that guideline states that someone can pass if they've "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." One could argue that being a co-founder and major participant in a notable comedy group and a notable YT channel would classify as a "significant roles in multiple productions". NENTERTAINER doesn't specify what these productions have to be, just that there has to be more than one and the roles have to be significant - which Avidan's roles are. One could also easily argue that the GG channel could qualify as comedy.
I think that in order to say that Avidan is only notable for NSP we'd have to first argue that GG isn't notable, which is another battle in and of itself. Offhand I'm leaning towards a keep since he's a member of two notable groups and in order to argue that he fails NENTERTAINER we'd first have to put GG's article through AfD and prove that it fails GNG or NWEB. I'm aware that Avidan made a comment about wanting an article, something I don't really prefer (even though I am a GG subscriber), but I think that automatically re-redirecting this because he said something is not a good reaction here - and some of the redirect arguments center around him asking for an article.
Now if the GG article goes through AfD and is deleted, this should absolutely be revisted at that point in time. However right now Avidan technically passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to a stronger keep. He's also a member of Starbomb, which passes notability guidelines for musical groups. That means that Avidan is a member of two performing groups that clearly pass notability guidelines, Starbomb and Ninja Sex Party, as both have charted on Billboard. That would make him pass NENTERTAINER easily enough. Now GG is somewhat in question, but offhand it looks like it'd probably pass - albeit a close pass. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I just realized that Starbomb lacked an individual article despite both of the group's releases charting on Billboard (having two notable albums qualifies them for an article), so I've created said article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The TL;DNR of the above is this: While articles should not exist simply because someone asked for them, we also shouldn't delete them because they asked for one. That the article previously served as a redirect doesn't mean that it should continue to be a redirect, as we need to take into account the notability of the groups Avidan is affiliated with. Two of them absolutely pass notability guidelines and one is questionable, but appears to pass on a cursory glance. Membership or heavy involvement with two notable groups/productions is typically all that is required for musicians and performers and while it's generally expected that coverage will be heavier, there's enough here for Avidan to pass notability guidelines for performers (or if we want to be specific, as a musician given he's part of two Billboard charting groups). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging SwisterTwister for their opinion - I can't ping everyone, but I figure that you're a good voice of reason here. What do you think of my rationale? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tokyogirl79, NBAND is quite clear: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." There is no evidence from reliable sources that this person is individually notable. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really, really want to hear more opinions on what I've written. To restate my point, Avidan's notability is not solely based on Game Grumps. He's a member of two comedic musical groups, Starbomb and Ninja Sex Party. Both of these musical groups have released albums that have charted on a major national music chart, Billboard, something that makes these musical groups pass WP:NBAND. Now if it was just one group, we could argue that Avidan could redirect to that one group - as was previously done - however now he's a member of two notable groups. The guideline that we redirect performer pages is really only meant to apply in pages where the performer is only known for or participates in one group - and he's known for both. He's also known for Game Grumps and while the sourcing in that article is shaky, it appears to be notable enough to where participation in that group would pass notability guidelines. I also have to point out WP:PERFORMER, which while a separate guideline from the notability guidelines for musicians would also arguably cover Avidan considering that Starbomb and NSP could be seen as comedic acts. In other words what we have here is someone who is part of two notable musical ensembles and one semi-notable YouTube group. All three have their own articles at this point in time and none except for Game Grumps appear to be even questionable. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that a lot of this is a knee jerk reaction to Avidan requesting an article (albeit apparently indirectly) - we shouldn't automatically get rid of an article because someone requested it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've also asked about this at WT:NMUSIC as well. It just doesn't seem right that someone who is an important and major member of two notable musical comedy groups would fail notability guidelines. There's something very, very wrong about that situation because if we were discussing movies (ie, if his affiliation with the various groups were instead films) I doubt that his notability would even remotely be in question. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79: And to think, before this AfD, 2 editors insisted that this isn't just non-notable, but an A7! Adam9007 (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as his fame is notable enough to justify the existence of this page, and for arguments made above. Hyliad ([User talk:Hyliad|d]]) -- 17:25 (CEST), 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Even in the version first tagged, the article claimed the subject was key to finding two entertainment groups with Wikipedia articles. Should have been a PROD or XFD from the start, and reverting someone obviously not the creator's removal of the tag should never have happened. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. If there's no coverage there's no coverage. That he is a member of other groups apparently deemed notable doesn't change that. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the coverage in the article: besides the Billboard links, which only prove things about the group(s) he's in, there are only two things that could possibly be called reliable, secondary sources. InStyle is probably reliable, but this is nothing but a page with ads which is supposed to indicate his sister writes for the publication--it's not a secondary source, in that respect, that proves that her writing for this publication is important enough to be noticed. Plus, it's not about him. And this, from HuffPo, doesn't even mention him--it's two paragraphs on NSP. A redirect is the appropriate decision here. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I said on the talk page, I've (what I'd like to say is) thoroughly bolstered the article with additional information, as well as providing sources and much-needed organization. I've found all the information I can find with sources that are credible. Everything else is questionable. My point is that this is pretty much as lengthy as the article will become, I feel. Information is getting sparse. If the consensus is that it's still eligible for deletion, I think it should just be deleted. Thoughts? — snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 14:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep as per it can currently be improved with currently available citations. Avidan and the Game Grumps just appeared on televised news, and they are doing a tour of live on-stage versions of their show, which is sure to get some published reviews. If article is not significantly improved in another two months time I would support a redirect. --Ifrit (Talk) 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as pointed out by Tokyogirl79, there's no question that as an individual he theoretically meets the threshold of WP:ENTERTAINER, the limiting factor here is the extant and quality of the sources that provide coverage of him. A large amount of the existing references in the article do not meet the threshold of being reliable sources, or are primary sources. Of those that do meet the threshold of being a reliable third-party source, most only mention Avidan himself in passing, providing only a trivial mentions. Still, there are a handful of good sources that do provide adequate coverage, which pushes the article to the "keep" side. That said, I believe that more of the questionably sourced content still needs to be removed to meet WP:BLP concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Upon closer inspection of using YouTube videos as references, using Facebook as a reference, and using iTunes and vendors as references, I think most of the sources that many dub unreliable are subject to interpretation. The Game Grumps videos in which Avidan describes his college career and past are published by a verified and reliable platform, with no reason to doubt authenticity (the Mondo Media series links sing the same song, as they clearly indicate Avidan's involvement in the series, as well as the series' existence). The iTunes, CDBaby, and Myspace pages all signify the title of an album, song, or band, as well as members of the band, while being reliable establishments (similar to that of Billboard, widely-accepted as a source for verifying artists). Some of said sources even allow you to stream audio, further proof of the claim's legitimacy, and is stated as being reliable by Wikipedia. Facebook, though I do admit it can be risky, can be trustworthy. The link in which the band provides and image and a claim of working on an upcoming album is legitimate and believable. I see no reason to doubt its reliability. Let me list the requirements: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. All of these are true. These factors also apply to the YouTube links, as well as the vendor links. Why would Avidan have any reason to lie about his past on a well-established platform? No exceptional claims, no claims about third parties, all events are described by Avidan and about Avidan, I see no reason to doubt his information, and this article does not rely solely on these links. Only in certain instances when necessary. I just don't see why these sources are being deemed entirely unusable. This comment's sole purpose, along with arguing the necessity of this article, is to encourage the usage of YouTube links in which Avidan describes his life, as information has been removed after users have claimed that these links aren't notable. — snoɯʎuoɥʇuɐ 04:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The level of sourcing (even when discounting primary sources) is far above and beyond the minimum required to demonstrate that the subject meets our notability requirements. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Through NSP and Starbomb, meets at least criteria 6 of WP:MUSICBIO ("is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles"). This is in addition to his role in Game Grumps, plus a number of other smaller-scale collaborations and appearances. The article and sourcing have been much improved since this was nominated. the wub"?!" 23:11, 19 June 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.
not really noteworthy; haven't seen subject mentioned by reliable sources beyond the garden variety glancing mention.user:BrxBrx(user talk:BrxBrx)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx))) 19:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More rationale:
This article relies solely upon itself, except for in the "jewish hitlist" section
A google search can only find other forums pointing to the page, and nothing shows up in the "news" search. user:BrxBrx(user talk:BrxBrx)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx))) 20:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Subject is non-notable by the standards of WP:GNG, WP:WEB and WP:42.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have found some links but certainly nothing actually better and overall examining this found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwistertalk 18:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absence of any independent, in-depth, third-party coverage. As such also fails WP:WEB. ERK talk 22:40, 21 June 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.
Strong Delete: Obvious self-promotional article is obvious; despite the article's assertions, according to the ECHL website and eliteprospects.com, he never appeared in a pro game (I expect he was a third goalie on the roster), and his putative collegiate career was all of ten games over three years. The article on this nonentity was created by a SPA whose sole work on Wikipedia (barring including him on notable alum lists for his college and high school) this is. Ravenswing 21:36, 16 June 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 subject fails WP:GNG, WP:42, WP:DUE and WP:NEO. A term flippantly used mainly by a handful of pundits in reference to the status of Bernie Sanders' ongoing candidacy is not notable enough to rate a standalone article. No objection to a redirect if there exists a plausible target page for the term. Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a neologism used only by a few non notewworthy outlets user:BrxBrx(user talk:BrxBrx)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx))) 19:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: creative, but not an established term (maybe just "not yet") 75.172.181.80 (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
btw, the New York Times uses this with a completely different meaning, namely Trump as "damaged but unstoppable" -- further proof that this is not an established term. 75.172.181.80 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A neologism that fails WP:GNG and has not been used my reliable sources. Another article in the usual series of US Presidential election walled gardens AusLondonder (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:39, 15 June 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.
Keep As per nominator. Stryker1981 (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Per the standards set forth in Wikipedia, it should re-evaluate statements being made about the IBO not being a major boxing title. In its infancy, not much was known about it, but the IBO Championship is a notable title and is reflected elsewhere on Wikipedia and has been held by some of the greatest boxers the World has known. As another note, this page reflected other Wiki pages that articulate Josh Ekrem as a title holder. This fighter, although anonymous to most people, is deserving of his due. He fought the majority of his fights in Mexico, and was given an opportunity to fight for a legitimate title that did not make headlines. It was mentioned that this article did not possess links to other Wiki articles about middleweight championships, which it did. Lastly, by the own observation of this poster, there are multiple biography pages of fighters that only held the IBO Championship Title, therefore making his inclusion notable by Wikipedia's own standards. Stryker1981 (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IBO championship claims are not supported by the references given.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that was observed this morning. They were there yesterday when I found them. Someone has clearly modified the page; the stat page doesn't even show the last multiple belt holders to include Gennady Golovkin who has made 13 defenses of the belt- hence this list in its current state is inaccurate. Clear modification - was able to locate the original boxrec list.
I am at a loss. I know the boxer is legitimate. Stryker1981 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history for that page on BoxRec is instructive. I would like to see a RS source (non-wiki) that supports the claims. There is no BoxRec entry for the subject either. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That has been the best I have been able to find. The sourcing appears as reasonable as I have found for other boxing belt holders as perfect record identification is often incomplete. Stryker1981 (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stryker1981 (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My thoughts are that this boxer biography stays. I have been doing a lot of comparison and research throughout Wikipedia and his documentation is actually greater than that of other notables that I have located.Stryker1981 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and the only source is just a listing of people who have won that title (which doesn't meet NBOX) so he also fails WP:GNG. My search found no significant independent coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability and examining the article found nothing else to suggest otherwise. SwisterTwistertalk 18:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest to the contrary, being an IBO World champion has extreme applicable notability. Stryker1981 (talk) 04:08, 22 June 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 procedural close. Already deleted by AustralianRupert by way of a WP:BLPPROD: Nominated for seven days with no reliable sources present in the article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything in Japanese on this child actor/model. There were two attempts to create an article on him on the Chinese Wikipedia [12], which indicated his agency was Theatre Academy [13], but they do not feature him on their website. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable actor/model. We should not have articles on 13 year olds without really good sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 18 June 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.
Largely unsourced and promotional WP:AUTOBIO that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to meet standards. Falls under WP:NOTPROMO. RA0808talkcontribs 18:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC); edited 18:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page used to exist at User:Lawyerdvrao, which was deleted twice under WP:SPEEDY#G11 and once under WP:SPEEDY#U5, unambiguous advertising or promotion and blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Two of those deletions were on the same day, too. See below. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The username, added together with the way the user signs their talkpage posts (several examples of that here), makes me believe it's being used by more than one person, which would either fall under WP:GROUPNAME or WP:ISU. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also File talk:DVRao.jpg, where the user frequently uses words such as "we", "us" and "our", which could imply that the account is being used by more than one person. The file has been nominated for speedy deletion as a dupe of another copy of the same file, so the talk page might be deleted soon. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2: This opens up the discussion of if the username should be blocked because of this. I've reported the username on WP:UAA already for being a promotional username, but the page is backlogged right now. It might take awhile to get to that username, especially since derogatory usernames seem to get precedence over there. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G11 and/or WP:U5 as per previous notes. Seems to be blatant promotionalism. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@SanAnMan:User:Melcous already tried a speedy delete through WP:SPEEDY#A7, but User:Oiyarbepsy removed the tag because the article "Clearly includes claims of significance - such as a court doubling its staff because of a protest movement he led" (from the revision history here). -- Gestrid (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:A7, but SanAnMan suggested WP:G11 and WP:U5, which are different criteria for speedy deletion. WP:U5 is not applicable as this isn't in the user namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2: I'm ok if you go ahead and tag it with the speedy. Seems we all want it deleted in one way or another. Should we wait for others in order to reach consensus? -- Gestrid (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CHANGE OF VOTE: Speedy Delete and Salt: I found the person's Facebook page (not his personal one), and he has this Wikipedia page posted at the very top. I believe this constitutes violation of WP:SPEEDY#G11. I agree with User:Jytdog. I also suggest we filter and block articles with "d" "v" "rao" (in that order) to keep the editor from recreating the article, as they have shown they will do. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would support a speedy deletion under G11 if someone were to tag it. I took this to AFD after a PROD because I felt with was promotional but perhaps not enough for G11. RA0808talkcontribs 23:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll go ahead and tag it, then. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Page creator looks to be socking and copypasted this article to another title - see Dr d v rao (now a redirect) and User talk:Dr d v rao. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just redirected the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr d v rao for the other title mentioned by Oiyarbepsy to this discussion. The nomination statement (the only comment there so far) was:
Does not appear to be a notable lawyer. While he was the subject of this newspaper article, other hits I could find were only passing mentions, which probably isn't enough to establish notability. Note that the article creator appears to be Rao himself. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt - marginally GNG but obviously self-promotional;. delete and salt due to relentless self promotion including socking under named accounts and IP addresses. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Blatant self-promotion and no evidence of WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamieTalk 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. An open deletion discussion does not make a page ineligible for speedy deletion, but admins who speedily delete such pages should check the discussion to see if there is something in the discussion which invalidates the speedy deletion criterion. I'm not sure if this page qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:G11, and it probably doesn't hurt to keep the page for the duration of this discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, having a full discussion makes it easier to delete the page again later if necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - As I mentioned in the duplicate article's AfD, this is a promotional page of a non-notable lawyer, who at best has only been briefly covered in reliable sources. The fact that he apparently has been socking doesn't help things either. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 21:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The wiki isn't the avenue for self promotion --Lenticel(talk) 00:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Blatant selfpromotion. Thomas.W talk 21:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I realize the standard is to keep the discussion open for 7 full days, but is there any chance WP:SNOW applies here? -- Gestrid (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC) EDIT: I just realized WP:SNOW is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:31, 15 June 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.
Delete – The article states that the earthquake was felt but nothing more. Apparently there was no scientific interest in the event, but that's not surprising. The criteria by which our stand alone articles are scrutinized also applies to our lists, so redirecting is not an option. Dawnseeker2000 00:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator, Dawnseeker2000, and DeVerm.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 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. I have salted the article for a year. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of sources used is questionable (WP:V) and does not in any way indicate how he is notable (WP:BIO), also the coverage of him in the sources provided such as the Pink News are merely a passing mention and the Huffington News which is self-published. Donnie Park (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete. The previous two AfDs were for deletion, yet here we are again. I've googled; I don't find notability. --Tagishsimon(talk) 00:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this is the third time around for this article I recommend the closer WP:SALT the title if this closes as delete again. JbhTalk 12:15, 20 June 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 move. Interesting discussion for AfD. It should probably have been a RM, but hindsight is 20/20. In any case, the consensus here is that the general is the primary topic and should be moved to the base title. The dab page (which this AfD is about) will therefore be moved and deleted at Paul Van Riper (disambiguation) per WP:TWODABS. It will be moved first so that it can be more easily recoverable in the event more Paul Van Ripers become notable. Jenks24 (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TWODABS. Neither of these people are known as plain "Paul Van Riper", but Paul K is the primary topic, so "Paul Van Riper" should be deleted and redirect to his article with a hatnote for Paul P. Using AfD because RM would not work (nothing is going to be moved). Nohomersryan (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Neither of these people are known as plain "Paul Van Riper" — actually both are more commonly known by the name without the middle initial. Just check the references in the articles. That plus the page views suggests the article on the general should be titled simply Paul Van Riper with a hatnote linking to the academic. Further the academic's article perhaps should be titled Paul Van Riper (professor) or something similar. older ≠ wiser 15:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be right, my results were diluted by Wikiclones. Guess the initials were a weird way of WP:NATDAB. The PRIMARYTOPIC/TWODABS thing still stands Nohomersryan (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MovePaul K. Van Riper to Paul Van Riper and hatnote to the professor. The Marine is definitely the primary topic, and furthermore it appears his common name doesn't use the middle initial. --Tavix(talk) 21:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam SailorTalk! 18:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201talk 03:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the determination of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be implicitly decided just by looking at the page views of two articles that don't match the term. Instead, it should be decided by analyzing e.g. https://www.google.com/#tbm=bks&q=%22Paul+Van+Riper%22 On a quick skim it looks like the general is more popular, but someone should invest a modicum of effort to make sure he's so substantially more popular that it doesn't make sense to have people looking for him click twice. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as it may perhaps be applicable for the chance someone is not familiar with the middle initial and thus searches for Paul Van Riper. SwisterTwistertalk 21:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: Yes, but that's not the issue at hand here. It's really a question of whether or not Paul K. Van Riper is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "Paul Van Riper." If so, we would either redirect the title to Paul K. or move Paul K. to "Paul Van Riper" and hatnote to the professor. If the answer is, "yes, Paul K. Van Riper is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC," then the disambiguation page in question would be unnecessary per WP:TWODABS. --Tavix(talk) 21:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting again as I noticed that neither Talk:Paul K. Van Riper nor Talk:Paul P. Van Riper have been notified of this discussion, which is partly a move proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:36, 13 June 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.
Appears to be a non-notable natural health guru. Sources do not establish notability. The most biographical detail comes from Quackwatch (which is considered a reliable source), but other sources are dead links or don't cover him in depth. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ACADEMIC. His bibliography is impressive, but oriented to a fringe alt-med community, so it appears his notability is hardly mainstream. Delta13C (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Currently uncertain but may consider Delete because the WorldCat shows 1,739 which may not be enough and the article contains noticeable claims, but my searches have found nothing outstandingly better, delete perhaps unless this can be substantially improved. Notifying DGG for subject analysis. SwisterTwistertalk 05:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is problematic that the provenance of his PhD and ND degrees cannot be determined. This is reflected in the remark in the Quackwatch article on him that states that his educational background is nowhere to be found. I could not find more details other than he is "Russian educated": I found a reference for him in MacLeans's (Oct. 27 1980), edited by Marsha Boulton, pg. 43:
It is better to eat junk food and exercise a lot than to eat healthy foods and not exercise at all," comes the word from Dr. Paavo Airola. The 66-year old Finnish-born, Swedish and Russian-educated nutritionist, who took out Canadian citizenship and now lives in Arizona, is on a continuing rampage in favor of sit-ups and against the evils of protein, an excess of which he believes causes cancer. He also blames refrigerators for causing bad health by encouraging people to eat old food. Even granola, the crunchy delight of health-food faddists, cannot escape his wrath. The great granola dilemma is apparantely the shelf life that allows air to ravage the contents. Quite simply, says Airola: "It's rancid."
There are other sources that mention him, but they come from sources that are fringe, which include the Townsend Letter and other natural health magazines. Delta13C (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional article whose facts cannot be verified. We cover notable quacks, if there's enough information for an objective article. None of his books seem to be in more than 200libraries, which is trivial in this field. None of them are published by an established publisher- not even an established specialist publisher in the field of natural health or alt med. In fact, it has published only his own books, plus a book written by his daughter. That means his books are essentially self-published. We very rarely cover self-published authors in any subject except in the rare cases where they really do attract significant outside notice DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Nobody has opined for keeping this so far, but I think a relist is customary for an AfD of such low participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:38, 13 June 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.
Non-notable and promotional; significant coverage in reliable sources is unavailable. The reliable sources cited aren't actually about this company, but are rather citing generic information about diseases and chemicals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself PROded this because of the apparent improvements but there's simply still nothing solidly convincing. I still confirm my PROD. SwisterTwistertalk 19:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister, just a reminder of policy: Do not re-WP:PROD something which has already been prodded and the prod has been removed. Please check the edit history before prodding or Speedying an article, for that reason. Softlavender (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy as WP:TOOSOON. Recent company/product-line that may achieve encyclopedic notability but isn't there yet. Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 14 June 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.
No indication of notability per WP:BAND. Speedy A7 declined by another editor on the grounds that they have toured their home country, but I can find no writeups of the tour from WP:RS, nor any other significant coverage online from WP:RS. OnionRing (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NMUSIC's touring criterion requires that the tour has received reliable source coverage in order for the tour to constitute notability in and of itself — but the sourcing for the tour shown here amounts to a WordPress blog and a photo set (not even an actual article) in the community weekly newspaper of one band member's hometown — a source which is not widely distributed enough to carry WP:GNG. And all of the other references here are either primary sources, blogs or the alt-weekly in the city where the band is based (which is a source that could assist carriage of GNG if the rest of the sourcing around it were solid, but is not able to carry GNG by itself as the only valid source in the entire bunch.) NMUSIC is not passed just because its passage is asserted; it's passed when the claim to passage is properly verified by reliable source coverage, of which there's none here to speak of. And for added bonus, the writing tone has a (not speedy-eligible blatant, but definitely present) advertorial skew to it. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when something much more neutral and much better referenced than this can be written. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you are saying is I need access to a bigger source to prove the tour? So, if I remove mention of the tour in general, everything else will suffice? There are sources that aren't from the hometown in regards to reviews of the albums that are certifiably from the UK. The only thing that seems to be the problem is the tour, correct? PunkRockCaveman14 (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've completely misinterpreted what I said — the tour itself is the best claim of potential notability that's even present here at all, so removing it from the article would make the problem even worse rather than better. The problem is the quality of sourcing that's being used to support the article — none of it is adequate, because except for Vue Weekly and the Lac la Biche Post, virtually every other source or external link here is a primary source or a blog. Reliable sourcing, for the purposes of getting a band over NMUSIC, is major-market daily newspapers from a range of markets not limited to the band's own hometown, and music magazines on the order of Exclaim!, Spin, Rolling Stone, Paste or Magnet — it doesn't matter if a blog is from the UK, because it's still a blog. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the references are weak. Simply having references is not enough. These do not convey notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are some sources but still at best nothing solidly convincing, delete until there is better. SwisterTwistertalk 18:16, 21 June 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.
PROD removed with nothing but an insult. This is a non-notable strain of cannabis, lacking reliable sourcing. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because of--well, same reason:
So where is the discussion about this? Drmies has flagged my entry for deletion based purely on PERSONAL PREFERENCE. Who is Drmies to make the decision that Blackjack is a "non-notable" strain of marijuana. How can someones personal preference dictate what is displayed on Wikipedia. If that is the case, then I have a personal issue with a lot of different articles. As I have stated before. I WILL CONTINUE TO LIST INDIVIDUAL MARIJUANA STRAINS regardless of the PERSONAL OPINIONS of a few members of the ANTI-MARIJUANA LOBBY. It doesn't matter to me or anyone else if YOU have an issue with this perticular thing. Personal opinion doesn't trump the thousands of scientific findings in the cannabis industry. There are not "Notable" or "Non-Notable" strains.
As for citing Leafly.com as a blog? No. Perhaps the person flagging this article isn't familar with Leafly. That is not a concern of mine or anyone elses. In the Medical Marijuana industry we use Leafly.com as a tool that helps us find the exact strain that will help a patient. These are actual Medical Patients with very specific medical issues. Certain strains may be more beneficial than others. Wikipedia is a great place for those that are curious to learn.
Stop hindering peoples knowledge. Back off.
The deletion flag MUST be removed from my articles. Deleting the pages will do nothing as I will continue to list them in protest. This is a guarantee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcQueen36 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SteveMcQueen36, yelling at me is not going to help your case. This is an encycopedia, not a self-help manual. I have no personal opinion on your subject, except that it's not notable by our standards. If you find thousands of scientific findings pertaining to this particular strain, cite them--but you are consistently confusing this strain with cannabis in general. And saying you won't stop listing things is only going to get you blocked. As for me making the decision, and your asking "where is the discussion"--look at the screen. This is the discussion, and it's editors here making the decision. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources pertaining to the subject. Last sources was from June 2015. -- LuK3(Talk) 19:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant independent coverage outside of highly specialized sources (in this case, the lone reference is to a website which specializes in listing marijuana strains). And @SteveMcQueen36: this article was nominated for deletion because it lacks reliable sources, and thus cannot be proven to meet the general notability guideline by which all articles are judged. While it is understandable to be upset when an article you created is nominated for deletion, you should always assume good faith with other editors, and make your case by citing relevant guidelines and by providing sources to back up your claims, not by making accusations or threats. If you continue to do things like that, you may be blocked from editing. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable sources. I searched as far as I could and found nothing outside of the blogs and grower sites. The problem is longstanding: the laws making cannabis illegal in the United States since the 1930s have effectively prevented serious research, thus preventing development of the kind of reliable, third party sources Wikipedia generally relies on to support its articles. This is not the place to publish original research. Come back in a few years, perhaps. Geoff | Who, me? 19:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supporting this AfD, I have discovered, 'is ideal for depression, stress, pain and muscle spasms leaving the user feeling relaxed and happy.' So it had some purpose then. By the way, as per the cogent notions above. MuffledPocketed 20:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling a muscle spasm coming up. Be back in five. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine guys. I understand what you are saying. However, this conversation is moot if you are not in the Marijuana industry. You guys keep supressing the information that needs to be put out there for people's health. This is why Marijuana research stagnates. People like you DECIDE amongst yourselves that Granddaddy Purple (GDP) isn't worthy of a Wikipedia page but Diesel (Cannabis) is? Are you serious? Who makes that call? Not anyone that cares about Marijuana.
Go ahead and mock me. Message eachother and get these pages blocked. This is IMPORTANT information that users are going to need. Also, LEAFLY.com isn't a blog. We use this site in the industry all of the time. It is one of the worlds best resources for Cannabis. What classifies it as a blog? Just beacuse it isn't a mainstream website like CNN.com? Drmies why don't you go ahead and pull up 10 random pages and let's see how many blogs are cited. Get a grip. Stop hindering peoples knowledge. These are actual Medical Patients with very specific medical issues. Certain strains may be more beneficial than others. Wikipedia is a great place for those that are curious to learn.
LUK3 - Nothing has changed with the strain since that article was cited. Who cares how old it is?
Also, I don't know how you can all sit there and tell me that personal preference doesn't play a part here? It's all personal preference. User:SteveMcQueen36
Again, I apologize for coming off hot. But if I can't post this stuff on here then I would rather be banned from posting on Wikipedia. It's no wonder this place sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcQueen36 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't apologize for "coming off hot" and insulting me again in the same post--"get a grip". This may be the internet, but that doesn't mean you have to leave your manners at the door. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SteveMcqueen36: The reason I object to this article is the same reason I object to other articles of this sort: you have not proven that it is notable through multiple, independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place where anything and everything that exists/has existed/will exist gets a page; "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Every article must meet the notability guidelines as has been mentioned; the fact that it doesn't meet the requirement does not mean that it is false or unimportant or wrong, or that anyone has anything against it. It simply means that it does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia.
As for your additional comments, no one is mocking you. If it came across that way, I apologize. Do not feel that the criticism weighed against you is personal; everybody here has to obey these guidelines, including those of us who have participated in this discussion.
If you can provide sources which meet the source guidelines, and which display notability of the topic (generally, multiple citations from multiple publications are needed), I will gladly change my position in this discussion. However, since that has not happened, and I have no reason to believe it will, I must favor deletion. Thank you. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete White Buffalo (Cannabis) as well - same reasoning, just to be clear. Leafly.com is not a reliable source for the same reasons Pfizer.com also is not: they're vendor sites not edited or fact-checked by unrelated third parties. As much as I might enjoy doing some original research on these strains, the no original research rule applies. And right now, as I mentioned earlier, there is no no other kind available. Geoff | Who, me? 21:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I am sure that Leafly is a useful website, it is not a reliable source for establishing notability on Wikipedia, because it compiles anonymous user reviews. Just as a restaurant is not notable just because it has lots of Yelp reviews, a marijuana strain is not notable just because it has lots of Leafly reviews. Cullen328Let's discuss it 22:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as I have found nothing better and there's still nothing convincing for its own article. SwisterTwistertalk 18:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the discussions above, not enough independent and reliable sources to validate this article. Unfortunately finding any reliable third-party research on this topic is generally difficult because of its legal status, but at this time we don't have anything to work with. No original research. ERK talk 22:44, 21 June 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. Not a speedy delete but consensus is for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PROD remove by article creator - does not appear to meet WP:NFO or WP:GNG, possible WP:COI creation as well? Melcous (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not a hoax per this video, which shows the short's prospective director pitching it to his class. Ultimately this just looks like it's what the article claims it is - a student production. I like that his presentation laid everything out so neatly (well done on that), but at this point in time the short film just doesn't pass notability guidelines per WP:NFILM or WP:NFF, if it hasn't been created or released yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 14 June 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. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tragic, yes. But entirely run-of-the-mill murder. WP:NOTNEWS. IMO the editor who obsessivlt create these aericlees have a problem. TheLongTone (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Riley Ann Sawyers ("Baby Grace") murder is pretty well known and got national attention and coverage. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The case received national attention and has quite a bit of notability. My first thought when seeing this nomination was ...really?--GouramiWatcherTalk 03:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin this vote was clearly canvassed [14]. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Canvassing, the notification was appropriate due to my experience with creating and editing articles of the same topic. I also experienced multiple AFD debates after a certain editor nominated several pages on this topic.--GouramiWatcherTalk 11:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
given your strong interest in the topic don't you always vote keep? Paul Austin has only contacted people that are known to vote keep. LibStar (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. Even if I wasn't involved in this type of article writing, I would still vote keep. I recall seeing this story in the news when it first developed and I live across the country from where it happened. --GouramiWatcherTalk 14:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
do you disagree that Paul Austin has been only notifying known keep voters about this AfD? LibStar (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only notified *two* people who have been involved with the article, *plus* the WP: CRIME Project. My notifications were all neutrally worded and *did not* ask for keep votes. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
nice try, your message your neutral but you only sent it to known keep voters. as per WP:CANVASS, The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ never edited this article and is known to always vote keep at every single AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability demonstrated by sources. Everyking (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not satisfy WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute keep—and the demonstrable lack of AGF in the nom is disturbing ... 🖖ATS/Talk
What is lack of good faith in thinking that people who are obsessively interested in even the dullest murder case have a problem? (I'm far too polite to say they are sickos). The canvassing is disturbing as well.
Of course this got coverage: it's the kind of story that provides the yellow press with what sells their product. Lasting coverage is what is needed to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only "disturbing" thing here is TheLongTone's lack of civility.--GouramiWatcherTalk 01:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We right now at this moment have an article at RD about a singer that was shot by a fan. So what is your point really. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's little better, TheLongTone, than when someone makes my argument for me. Based on your assumptions, not only is it impossible for the creating editor to have been motivated by making a good encyclopedia article, but that person must be a sicko? And this is from someone with nearly seven years' and 30,000+ edits' worth of experience? You've graduated from AGF territory to NPA with this unfortunate response. 🖖ATS/Talk 19:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those individuals were all notable well before their death, and in fact their deaths were completely irrelevant to their notability. This child was not notable before she died. She's not notable now. Her death isn't notable. Tragic, yes. Not notable. Risker (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my point, Risker, but thanks. 🖖ATS/Talk 02:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete lots of coverage at the time and the trial does not override WP:VICTIM and WP:EFFECT. Nor does getting national coverage. The murder did not itself lead to a lasting effect like a legislation change, major movie or change in judicial or police practice. LibStar (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your above statement is clearly deletionist WP:IDONTLIKEIT like the nominator. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
hardly. it is based on clear guidelines for criminal events. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources speaks for themselves, really good sourcing independent sources. I also think the nom itself is very combative keep to the topic instead of remarking on users that create these kind of articles. Also this is such an obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT nom. And also Notability is not temporary. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"really good sourcing independent sources" does not overcome WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from WP:EFFECT Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislationLibStar (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it's not rude, I'm making the point that we should consider each article on its merits. a lot of people in this AfD are citing other examples. LibStar (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing adminEvents are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation this vote was clearly canvassed [15]. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this user, like myself, has quite a bit of experience with these debates on this topic and has continuously brought up valid points, especially how most of these nominations reek of IDONTLIKEIT.--GouramiWatcherTalk 01:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ always votes keep without fail on AfDs on all topics . why notify someone with a 100%track record for keep? I love how people are trying to disguise this blatantly obvious selective notifying as somehow innocent. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that as i don't usually hang around AfDs. You are also invoking personal attacks and uncivil behaviour. Knock it off. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should knock off any notifying of others of AfDs. It's not personal attack, it's bordering on blatant breach of WP rules, if you continue, expect an WP:ANI for canvassing. I have to say your excuses/reasons are far from convincing best to knock it off and stop notifying others. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe an ANI may also be appropriate for the nominator here. It's fine to have an opinion, yet this user continues to be disrespectful (here's a shining example) when a nomination doesn't go his way.--GouramiWatcherTalk 03:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill murder similar to dozens if not hundreds a year in the US alone. There's nothing special here. No laws were changed. No child protection policies were affected. It was such an un-notable murder that the coroner allowed cremation of the body before the trial. No death penalty was sought (in Texas!) so it was not considered a particularly heinous crime. Seriously, there's nothing at all notable about this murder. Tragic, yes. Not notable. Risker (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After doing a quick Google search, I discovered this case is more notable than I had previously thought. Nationwide coverage from reliable sources, such as CNN and USA Today gave reports. Furthermore, the case also was detailed on an episode of Investigation Discovery in 2011 (clearly, the notability didn't end back in '07, as the nominator describes) and an island was also named for the girl. To top it off, she also got international recognition when twenty foreign countries participated in a series of memorials for the victim. As far as the whole "no death penalty" argument, the subjects pled guilty to avoid being sentenced to death. Definitely not a "run-of-the-mill murder." Notability is clearly there; I rest my case.--GouramiWatcherTalk 04:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the murderers pled guilty, Gourami Watcher - both of them had full trials and were convicted by juries. Neither of them were sentenced to death, which may actually be the most notable thing about this murder, that it wasn't considered heinous enough for the death penalty in Texas. And please don't bold little bits of your comments. People in 20 countries released balloons protesting child abuse in her honour; that's not the same as "international recognition". Risker (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I could have sworn I read they pled guilty, but I suppose not. But I stand by the rest.--GouramiWatcherTalk 15:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you would say it is not run-of-the-mill. Almost every American child murder I can think of (and scarily just sitting here I can think of at least 50) gets this kind of attention. It's perfectly standard response. Of course if this child was in India, or Sri Lanka, or anywhere in Africa, not a single Western media outlet would have even noticed. It's not at all an unusual child murder, and it's getting exactly the kind of media attention that is perfectly typical for murders of American children. Risker (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, there are few cases where a child's unidentified body is the subject of massive media coverage (Riley's and Bella Bond's are the two that had such a large effect). There are even fewer where a child that age is even identified, not to mention, after a relative halfway across the country recognizes a composite sketch.--GouramiWatcherTalk 04:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you would say such a thing. Massive media attention is commonplace in the case of unidentified murdered children. Risker (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There really is not - there are tens of thousands of cases and a select few are lucky to get local and statewide attention. Through my research after creating several articles on the topic, there are so many other cases that have one or two primary source entries (in NamUs, The Doe Network or a sheriff department website page). Riley Ann's got so much more than that.--GouramiWatcherTalk 05:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this is where a lot of confusion happens with murders in WP, getting "lots of coverage" in "national sources" does not automatically translate into a WP article, there needs to be a long term WP:EFFECT of the crime that trumps WP:GNG besides capture and sentencing of murderer. otherwise every murder that hits national news in every country gets a free pass WP article. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So by your narrow definition, we shouldn't have an article on the Black Dahlia. After all by your standards she is not notable as most people today would have no idea who she is or that she was murdered. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: I assume you are replying to me, above; but feel free to put your comments all over the shop. Re: WP:LASTING is not defined by the fact that it gets 'mentioned' X-years later It has to provide " a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance." Which this does not do. Cheers, MuffledPocketed 12:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not replying to you but the example cited by Paul of Black Dahlia. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has no bearing on this AFD. Please, no more pointless commentary like this. Keep on topic. Sergecross73msg me 12:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Everyone - comment on content, not people. Stop making accusations and slights on other people's editing. Even with canvassing, make a note, leave a dif, and be done. The closing Admin can decide whether or not they find it to be canvassing. I have no stance in this deletion discussion, I'm just saying no more discussing other's editing habits. Sergecross73msg me 12:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further research I've conducted has also indicated that this case meets WP:Lasting. I found several articles that had information about this case, published between 2010 and 2016. I've also found a Finnish source, which also gives more worldwide recognition for the case.--GouramiWatcherTalk 03:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is even farther off-topic. Discuss the subject's notability, or lack thereof.
The attempt to self report is highly relevant as an admittance of canvassing. AfDs would be a lot better without canvassing. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then point it out and be done. None of all of this "isn't this hilarious" crap in between. You're just muddying already murky waters in this discussion with taunting like that. Sergecross73msg me 13:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a taunt . You should also declare that you found this discussion because BabbaQ contacted you. Yes we have interacted before but because he does not like me may be part of his motivation. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant, it was not necessary. Nor is this. I do not need to declare why I'm telling people to stay on topic. Last warning. Any more off-topic comments are going to be removed on the spot. Comment on whether the article is deleted, or leave me comments on my talk page. The end. Sergecross73msg me 13:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the GNG with international impact in widely diverse reliable sources. The Steve 06:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of change was caused by the international impact? LibStar (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its great that you want every factor of WP:EVENT to be strictly adhered to, but that isn't what the guideline says. WP:EFFECT is ONE factor that you should take into consideration, but it is not required for notability. No single facet is. Cheers, The Steve
You didn't answer my question. What kind of international impact was there. And that's not the same as international reporting. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changes? None. International Impact? Maybe a 2. The Steve 06:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
can someone please close this AfD? It's been open a week, emotions have run high and it looks like being used as a proxy for inclusionist-deletionist wank. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It still has one day to run .LibStar (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I very rarely !vote keep for articles of this sort, but in this particular instane the circumstances of he case and the extent of news coverage are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 21 June 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. Deryck C. 17:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability guidelines (low-ranking soldier), nor WP:SOLDIER, as no source for the Knight's Cross has been provided. The article has been tagged "Unreferenced" since Dec 2015. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find a few mentions of him (example), but none of them mentioned the Knight's Cross. Agte does mention the Knight's Cross, but we can safely discard this because we have severalprominent MILHIST editors and other authors calling Agte's work "pov driven, not objective and carries undue weight." "Agte is referred to as a "Neo-nazi" in Rethinking the Space for Religion by Catharina Raudvere and al. It should also be noted that Agte was closely associated with Waffen-SS revisionist organisation HIAG. Perceived by the West German government to be a Nazi organization..." You get the idea. Since Agte is certainly not a reliable source, the article fails WP:SOLDIER #1. As he was just a platoon leader, he fails #6, as well as pretty much all of the rest andWP:GNG. GABgab 20:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found a few links at Books but there's still not the needed solidity for sufficient improvements. SwisterTwistertalk 06:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe that sufficient reliable source evidence exists to sustain a page on him. I find myself agreeing with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To give folks an opportunity to review the potential sources recently identified J04n(talk page) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:46, 13 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 16:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Was on a 40-man roster (at least one) in the past but that's not a WP:BASE/N criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the team is not a major one and the career overall is still not convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwistertalk 18:18, 21 June 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.
Couldn't find any substantial third party mentions apart from photo credits and db-style sites on either google.co.uk or google.it. — crh23 (Talk) 15:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only one ref that's a dead link to something that was nothing more than an image credit, this is an unsourced bio. Mduvekot (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The official website link somewhat counts as a source, hence AFD rather than PROD. — crh23 (Talk) 17:22, 14 June 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 delete. promotion for non-notable company Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable and promotional . Eve the AdvertisingAge article is a slightly disguised press release; the awards are localor regional, not notational. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 15:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have found a few other links but still nothing solidly convincing, the article shows no other signs this could have convincing improvements with my searches finding noting better aside from a few links. Notifying 2013 PRODer Jimfbleak. SwisterTwistertalk 19:12, 13 June 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.
A7 speedy removed by Adam9007, perhaps on the theory that anything started by the wife of a head of state indicates significance. In any case, it certainly doesn't indicate notability DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also speedied this but was quickly removed as an apparent "significance" when there's nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability, everything here suggests nothing of the kind. SwisterTwistertalk 19:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Aisha Buhari, the founder of the organization, per Wikipedia's usual practice in such cases. While a standalone article at this stage could be questionable (even if I would be not surprised if the article was savable), there is enough reliable coverage available and verifiable informations (eg. [16] and [17]) to justify a couple of sentences about this project in Buhari's bio. Cavarrone 08:28, 14 June 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.
no evidence of notability for this real estate development company. Nor would I expect any, since they have constructed no notable products DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Cannot find anything notable for this company, also almost all the references used are from their own website itself. JackTracker (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is basically also imaginable speedy material, only localized company with nothing else to insinuate the applicable notability or anything else minimally convincing. SwisterTwistertalk 19:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article reads like a brochure (advertising) - all that's missing is the pictures. Does not meet notability threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:38, 17 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Postion does not imply notability, and the purported references are either mere listings or the like--none of them is substantial coverage from a RS. DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but could be rewritten to be less promotional. [18], [19], [20] suggests this person is notable in armeniaBrxBrx (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BrxBrx, the three weblinks you listed are simply announcements -- each one shorter than the last -- by the gov't that he'd been appointed to a deputy ministerial post. This isn't the sort of significant, independent coverage required. I do see there was a short item about his resignation. I think this interview is probably the strongest of the links/refs already on the article, but again, it's more primary than secondary, indie coverage. delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as everything here is still not showing anything for any convincing applicable notability, nothing else convincing especially given the article's current formatting. SwisterTwistertalk 19:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with "the article's current formatting." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it isn't. And the use of a couple of bulleted list for credits is a no way unusual. Anyway, that is indeed beside the point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little coverage beyond the official announcements about him being appointed Deputy Justice Minister of Armenia and then shortly thereafter dismissed from that post. I did a fairly extensive google search for his name ("Артём Гегамян") in Russian as well. The results are equally strange. Usually for Armenian politicians of any significant (or even minor) standing there is some coverage in Russian media beyond the official bulletins. In his case there really seems no be literally nothing else. Basically nothing before his appointment and nothing after, except for some official leftover pages created while he was still in office, and some reports about his appointment and his dismissal. Not enough here to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Deputy Justice Minister of a country would seem to be a high enough position to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have literally hundreds of articles on US members of congress and US judges that are verbatim copies of the articles on them published by the US government, but no one has tried to delete them. Governments are generally considered to be independent enough of holders of office in the government, that their own publications can stand to pass GNG for office holders if they fit accepted notability creteria, so the only real question here is is the office Geghamyan holds one that confers notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. However, I would hope that most of those articles exist not just based on the title of the position but because there is substantial coverage available, or at least because there is significantly more coverage than what we have here (being appointed, dismissed, and a bio profile page while in office). In fact, many high government U.S. officials do not have Wikipedia articles, particularly various agency heads - essentially sub-ministerial post holders. For example, the current Director of USCIS, Leon Rodriguez, does not have an article, nor does the NCIS Director Andrew Traver. Nsk92 (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deputy ministers are certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is an appointed position held by an non-elected public official, not an elected political position. 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)
Keep Excuse me, can you tell me what I can do to keep this article? What changes can I make to this article so that it will be reliable for you? It's important and I don't want it to be deleted. --Էլինա Գեղամյան (talk) 15:52, 15 June 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. Since it appears clear that this was intended as a draft and is in fact a duplicate of an existing draft at Draft:Chapter 1.4: Representations, I'm taking the liberty of closing this discussion early and deleting the article space duplicate in favor of the draft. The normal WP:AFC and Wikipedia:Wiki Ed processes can proceed using the draft version. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article on Representation (mathematics). Any new information can be folded into the article. The title appears to be taken from a textbook. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article for representations specifically in inorganic chemistry, not just mathematics. The title comes from a chapter in a textbook (because this is part of a school assignment where students cover the contents of the course), but the content has the sources cited. If anything, the title can be changed to Representations (inorganic chemistry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianaqdam (talk • contribs) 15:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - these were supposed to be drafts for a class assignment; I don't think this was supposed to be posted in mainspace. I will get in touch with the instructor ASAP. I'm going to sandbox the article, unless someone strongly objects. Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) I have just AFC reviewed and declined another incarnation of this article at User:Julianaqdam/sandbox, I presume it should also be dealt with through the Wiki Ed system. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another in Draft-space - Draft:Chapter 1.4: Representations, this one looks identical to the mainspace version. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As nominator, I support the concept of moving this article into user space or draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 13 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is not a notable player, has not played any senior international or continental tournaments, no non trivial English sources other than a FIVB profile which is a preliminary list of world league that doesn't mean he will play there Tomcat313 (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE, also WP:GNG. Fails everything we have under WP Volleyball. For now, not notable. --Osplace 19:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing from that listed career has any insinuating signs of the needed notability, my examinations found nothing else better. SwisterTwistertalk 18:20, 21 June 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.
There seems to be an attempt by the Cannabis lobby to create as many strain articles as possible. It strikes me as inappropriate for Wikipedia. We are not leafly nor erowid. If a strain is notable, such as Kush, which carries infinite sourcing ranging from the press to hollywood films, then having an article is advisable. But what about the dozens of non-notable strains such as this? There is no independent nor reliable coverage about them. This needs to stop and a few articles will have to be deleted as well, and the creators warned. FoCuScontribs; talk to me! 13:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your views on Cannabis, your reason for removing an article is wrong. I am quoting from your discussion above "It strikes me as inappropriate for Wikipedia." This excerpt is purely personal opinion and not anywhere grounds for deletion. Each individual strain of Marijuana has unique medical benefits and side-effects. This makes it an ideal candidate for a series of Wikipedia articles. Weather you agree with Cannabis or not, the scientific facts are undenyable. I will continue to create articles on ALL different strains of marijuana regardless of the Anti-Marijuana Lobby. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcQueen36 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are making this personal. I've stated the strain does not pass our general notability guideline. Others do. Most don't. You need to improve your reading comprehension. Best, FoCuScontribs; talk to me! 01:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to not get sidetracked here and just look at whether this particular strain meets WP:GNG. It seems to me that this is a bona fide reliable source -- so that would be one. The Cannabist, a newsite published by the Denver Post, has this review. And I do see lots of minor mentions in other results. Rather than declaring war on all cannabis strain articles the nominator states in his nomination that major strains such as Kush are clearly notable. Even as a cannabis enthusiast I think we're at least one really good reliable source for a keep !vote, as my personal rule of thumb for "multiple" articles is at least three. Anyone got one? I don't believe a listing in the Leafily online guide would count. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to look for sources. You provided a decent one (Cannabist). What's the other one? Three is our recommended minimum at AfC. FoCuScontribs; talk to me! 01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We need to be careful when jumping to conclusions based on web results. Reliable references are needed, not comments or forum posts. That is the whole problem with these articles. FoCuScontribs; talk to me! 01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Some source examples are listed below. I consider Leafly to be a reliable source in terms of its editorial coverage of strains. However, the user review aspects of their content does not count toward establishing notability. North America1000 21:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough reliable sources here to show that this strain beyond all doubt meets GNG. For example, [21], [22] and [23]. Omni Flames (talk) 08:21, 24 June 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.
This is an article about a film producer that had been working its way through the AfC process. However, the author decided to move it to the mainspace. As it's now outside of AfC's purview, I am nominating it for deletion to see whether the community thinks it meets our notability criteria.
The subject does not meet WP:ANYBIO because they have not won any awards, and because their contributions to the film world as an executive producer have not been "widely recognized". In fact, this is the problem with the article: there is almost no real coverage of Johnson out there. The article itself mostly cites press releases or pages without significant, in-depth coverage of Johnson; these do not help show notability. The best source cited is from the LA Times, but all it offers is a short sentence about how Johnson "came to the rescue" of the Pawn Sacrifice film. This is an interesting tidbit, but I can't find any sources that develop this idea further. (Worldchess calls him "a great guy named Dale Johnson who runs this fund called Mica", but that's not much in the way of coverage.)
I also did my own search for references. While there are plenty of one-off name-checks, it is difficult to find more than one sentence from a source independent of Johnson. There is a biography of Johnson circulating on the Internet (with text from here), but since Johnson is a partner an advisor (I got his title wrong, but my point remains the same /wiae/tlk 15:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)) at that studio, it's not an independent source. As a result, the subject doesn't meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG either, and thus fails our notability criteria.[reply]
One possible counterargument to this nomination is that as an executive producer, Johnson has financed and thus played a "major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", per WP:FILMMAKER. I do not think WP:FILMMAKER was intended to apply to executive producers, but perhaps the community thinks otherwise. /wiae/tlk 12:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as even my simplest searches and examinations found nothing better at all, by far nothing convincing and that's not surprising given his list of works. SwisterTwistertalk 02:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Tom29739[talk] 19:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned in the nom, doesn't pass WP:GNG. I can't justify him being notable under WP:FILMMAKER either, and that lack of good sources seals the deal at this time. ERK talk 22:38, 21 June 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a small company that deals with the frequent problem Canadians have of getting rid of large amounts of snow. I declined a WP:CSD#A7 request because there are some small local news pieces, but otherwise nothing that obviously shows the company has long-lasting national prominence. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing minimally convincing of any actual notability here. SwisterTwistertalk 06:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article reads like an advertisement. In any case, it is a local operation, and the sources go to its website, google app store, an article in "Edmonton Metro" that reads like a press release, and so on. There is no persuasive indication of notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:59, 17 June 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.
inadequate evidence for notability ; presumably an advertisement for the surgeon. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur with DGG, nothing here at all for any applicable notability at all and nothing to suggest its own article. SwisterTwistertalk 18:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note the sources that have been provided below after this !vote was posted. North America1000 20:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Upon discounting sources available in Google Scholar and Google books authored by the technique's creator, there are some sources available that provide significant coverage. See below for some of them. Also, note that the acronym "SPAIR" also refers to Spectral Adiabatic Inversion Recovery, which is not included in the sources below. Also, it's important to note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing within articles. North America1000 12:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – *Numerous* science journal articles on this, definitely meets WP:GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete along with Dennis C. Hammond which was created by same (probably paid) editor directly, without going through AfC. Would not have passed AfC due to lack of independent reliable secondary sources with substantive discussion. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:27, 13 June 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 DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hosting provider with no indication of notability per WP:CORP. Won two business awards of unknown notability. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. OnionRing (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all convincing with my searches finding nothing better at all, there's by far nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwistertalk 06:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content of the article is promotional. Although some of the company's work has been nominated for a couple of awards, I cannot see that either of these are notable. For example, the CSSDA appears to be a mechanism to showcase designers. Of the six references: two are press releases, two are awards/showcase site pages, a blog on website themes that has a focus on construction, and link to the company's own website. There is a lack of sources that are reliable and independent. The claim made of Netbee being "one of the world's leading website hosting companies" has not been verified, notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:20, 16 June 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. This is a pretty clear snow keep at this time. I did consider the consensus and groupthink argument mentioned below, but do find sufficient rationale among commenters that this article should be kept for now. In the long term, if someone wants to reconsider this, that's fine, but for now, I think it's a pretty clear keep as per the outpouring of arguments. GoPhightins! 19:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable in its own right. Everything said here in this short article is already said in the main article on the shooting. In addition this is complete recentism. Nothing in the future will likely be added to this article that will not feature in the main article. Mootros (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the incident itself. The incident doesn't confer notability on the club but some of the content should be available in the article on the incident. Note: nom has malformed the AfD and accidentally listed the talk page but I'm sure that will be rectified. MLA (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have fixed the malformed nomination (the talk page had been listed instead of the article page). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The article cites a subscription-only source that a "major" shooting occurred there in May 2013. If someone can gain access, we might find out a lot more about that, but in any case, that means it's not solely related to the 2016 terror attack. There are many crime articles where the shooter gets his own article, just because. How about letting the site targeted also have its own article? I bet there will be a lot more background coming out over the next couple of days, making this much easier to research than it is now. Wnt (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite Orlando being a heavily tourist oriented place, there's nothing of substance on the club in the usual travel guides in google books. They usually cover notable clubs and hotels in that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to those sites, Gay Orlando only lists clubs, doesn't describe them; Gay-Guide is for sale, and when I go to the Wayback Machine is much the same as the prior, a location-specific DMOZ of sorts; The Centre is a community non-profit, and its directory is largely (if not only) of GLBT support services. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. Give editors a chance to expand this article. Sources like this and this are helpful, and provide a narrative that goes beyond just the 2016 shooting. ---Another Believer(Talk) 13:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not !voting in this AFD yet, but I think maybe we should give this article a day or two to maybe find more reliable sources. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no harm in taking time over this to see what sources appear as editors dig into it but with the sources I can find in a cursory search I'd say this needs merging to the shooting article. SPACKlick (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent events have made this club very notable, and the detail needed regarding its history would make the shooting article too long.Juneau Mike (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is useful, as it should and does contain any and all information about Pulse not related to this shooting event. For example, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building has its own article. -Mardus /talk 15:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article showcases plenty of information on board, many of which doesn't fully relate to the shooting right now. Besides, I've seen plenty of articles that showcase much less information then this article has now, and yet we've kept those articles that held only one reference point at hand. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No notability except for the shooting incident. Raider Duck (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful article based on reliable sources.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article meets general notability guidelines and contains information that goes beyond the recent shooting. Rab V (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While the event is clearly notable, Pulse itself probably isn't. – Robin Hood(talk) 20:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rab V. Subject is notable per WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has useful info that's not related to the shooting. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has reliable independent coverage outside of the recent shooting and thus meets WP:GNG. Z105space (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as the location of the worst mass shooting in US history. Plenty of reliable, independent sources document its existence and place in the community up until that time. Moncrief (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N, and WP:LASTING. I see no evidence given the diversity of the sources to see how this isn't notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' One of the more momentous events in gay history, and the club therefore certainly deserves its own page. Plus: gve the editors some time, it's been two days since the event only... Karin Spaink (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An Islamic terrorist attack where 49 civilians were killed is a "momentous event in gay history"? Seriously?! Either you have no idea what's going on, you have a knack for choosing the worst words possible, or you're a complete sociopath. TheListUpdater (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with the incident at hand. I dont believe sandy hook elementary has an article of it's own? user:BrxBrx(user talk:BrxBrx)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx))) 00:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrxBrx:Sandy Hook Elementary School redirects to Newtown Public Schools. Though there may not presently be a need to distinguish it from a half dozen other sites in the district, there definitely is a need for it to have an article independent of the attack. Wnt (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral With Mateen being a regular of the nightclub, there might be more about earlier history this can grow into. ([24]). -- Callinus (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL, there may be some notability in the future is not a policy argument for keeping it.SPACKlick (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for the level-headed comment! Mootros (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be expanded given time.--☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 08:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously now a notable club due to recent events (2016 Orlando nightclub shooting). There will be more details as time passes. Maybe later we can revisit deleting this article but for the moment there is plenty of potential. --Joey (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's much too soon to determine long-term notability. It could become an inconsequential detail, or it could become another Stonewall. Let's wait it out. --tooki (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the venue is not going to get any less notable, any more than The Admiral Duncan in London has. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Like how criminals and their crimes are tied to the same article, I don't think Pulse is notable enough, nor will be notable enough, for a separate article. To say that the place is different enough to justify a new article, it would be like saying the specific Safeway where Giffords was shot (2011_Tucson_shooting) has "enough references" for an article of its own. It doesn't. That being said, I think it should be kept for at least another week. TheListUpdater (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, give the article like a week or so as it helps to let the dust settle to see where to go from there. As for the article I see an abundance of keeps, and seeing a merge discussion isn't deletion hope this can be closed soon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. The venue seems to hold sufficient notability, and the consensus here is overwhelming. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much to the deletion rationale though as it boils down to notability. One side gives x on why it is notable, while the other side has y on why its not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article NOT a policy or guideline page. Mootros (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it stands appropriately describes the club itself and the club's history, with the current shooting as a footnote. Many (but not all) of the sources describing the club pre-date the recent shooting, demonstrating that this club was notable prior to current events, even if no one had yet written an article about it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references are either guide books or citations about the shooting. The shooting does not make this club notable. It seems that open and shut to me, though all these !keep votes above are befuddling and making me feel like I need to make a bigger case. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 14 June 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.
I came across this via the related AfD for a film of his that's allegedly in production, a fan film set in the Nightmare on Elm Street universe. This article was proposed for deletion, but a look at the user's edit history shows that he's tried to create this in the past, so I think that a full AfD would likely be best in order to help prevent future recreation.
While the article claims that Charlson has been part of various productions, a look at IMDb shows that they're only bit parts - nothing that would really be of note. The article also claims that he was involved with the CW to a limited extent and there were some legal issues, however there's nothing to back this up at all and the media would likely jump all over a story of this nature. Other than him having posted some Flash shorts to YT, the section looks to be a complete WP:HOAX.
From what I can see Charlson is an actor that has only played bit parts, typically the non-named characters. The IMDb account would have you believe that he was part of an Emmy award winning music video, but that's something to take with a grain of salt when there's zip to back this up. Given that the Flash section looks to be almost a complete fabrication, I'm leaning somewhat towards his IMDb account also being an almost complete fabrication as well, unless someone can find some non-primary sources to back anything up. (And offhand that's all that can be found.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair notice: I also blocked the contributing editor as WP:NOTHERE. Since he signed up in 2011 his edits have solely revolved around adding himself to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found the Emmy - it was a regional college award, so it's not the type that would give notability here on Wikipedia, per this statement:
Students are not considered peer professionals and as such, their regional student productions are not eligible for Emmy® award recognition. Schools/students may not use the Emmy® name or replica of the Emmy® figure in any form of school publications, commercial advertising and promotion.
In other words, it's an Emmy award that isn't really an Emmy award. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-researched nom. Self-promotion. Squall doesn't appear to be a credited actor on any of the television shows or films listed. The only claim to notability as a director is a regional Emmy but that is debunked by nom. The weasel words in the writing section do not claim notability - merely that Squall tried to get some writing work but none seems to be credited. MLA (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons set out above. Question: Is there a way in which the author can participate here, notwithstanding the block? Kablammo (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He can contest the block on his talk page and we can monitor his user page for any comments about the AfD. I did feel slightly bad about blocking him while there were AfDs out, but he's been at this since 2011 and he's already had his bio A7'd once before (along with deletions for articles for some of his other projects). I have to admit that I don't really anticipate him making any sort of argument that would save the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. He doesn't seem to meet the WP:GNG, and this seems to be a WP:COI/WP:PROMOTION project for himself as well. Wikipedia is not a means of self-promotion. Sergecross73msg me 18:26, 13 June 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.
My redirect of the article was reverted saying that this article passes criteria 1 of WP:NSONGS, well it does not. There's no independent third party notability, no major reception surrounding the song and no major chart action. Deleting this article, is not detrimental to the encyclopedia at all. There is just one source from Neil McCormick's book which does not establish the song as independently notable, and the other source is just a primary reference. —IB[ Poke ] 08:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Supportredirect. This page lists lyrics and when it was performed, but has no indication of notabality. After 10 years, if there's no indication that it is notable, it should probably go. Prof. Mc (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Prof. Mc (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Plausible search term, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it meeting the WP:GNG for having its own article. Sergecross73msg me 13:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a long-time editor of many U2 song articles, I can say that this article definitely has extensive third-party coverage, and that it meets all the requirements at WP:N and WP:NSONGS. The article is currently poorly written and lacks good sources, but they do exist. Most reliable sources for "lesser-known" U2 song articles are print sources, as there have been countless books written about U2's music over the years. Many (not all) U2 songs are notable enough for an article based on print sources available, and this is definitely one of them. A Google Books search will show some of print sources available that discuss the song in detail. I own a handful of these books and can say that there is enough coverage available on this lesser-known U2 song to easily turn it into a good article, just like Slug (song), Exit (U2 song), Ultraviolet (Light My Way), among others. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is beside the point. If its not expanded and those sources are not amended to the article, there's not point in keeping the article. We don't create articles in Wikipedia thinking of a future point when it will pass NSONGS. In its current form, it does not pass it, therefore it should be deleted. Simple. —IB[ Poke ] 11:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dpon't try to lecture me on WP:WAX. I know them very well. I have clearly mentioned that it does not pass WP:NSONGS, even from the sources you mentioned. There are passing mentions of the song, not independent notability. Your faulty logic would make every damn song released by every artist as notable then. —IB[ Poke ] 13:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My logic in no way implies that every song released by every artist is notable — that is complete utter nonsense and it shows that you are clearly failing to understand my reasoning. You have not stated any solid case for this article failing notability. Lack of chart action does not imply failed notability. Your biggest argument was the lack of third party coverage, and I was clearly able to state that that is not the case, as plenty of print sources have covered this topic. If you don't want to be lectured on Wikipedia guidelines, then you should adhere to them. –Dream out loud (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not finger-pointing here in anyway. Just a reminder that we're all after the same thing here--improving the encyclopedia. WP:AGF, WP:CIVILProf. Mc (talk) 13:31, 20 June 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.
My redirect of the article was reverted saying that this article passes criteria 1 of WP:NSONGS, well it does not. There's no independent third party notability, no major reception surrounding the song and no major chart action. Deleting this article, is not detrimental to the encyclopedia at all. —IB[ Poke ] 08:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a song from a Grammy Award-winning album by U2, one of the most popular bands in the world. It is definitely not the most popular U2 song, but it is plenty notable. Just because a song hasn't been released as a single, appeared on a music chart, or won individual awards doesn't make it not notable. According to WP:NSONGS,"Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." It is evident that the nominator did not do any research on the background of the song, as a simple Google search turns up the following reliable sources that mention the song: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. Additionally, the article currently cites two published books, and there are more publications available that detail the background and recording of the song. The book U2 Into the Heart: The Stories Behind Every Song has an entire page about the song, and other books mentioning the song can be seen here: [33][34][35]. The previously mentioned links are by no means a comprehensive listing of sources available for the song, but simply show that a quick Google search can establish the song's notability. Some perfect examples of notable songs by U2 that have not been released as singles or charted significantly include Acrobat (song), Exit (U2 song), Slug (song)—all of which are good articles. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I'm spot checking some of your sources, and most of them are just a sentence or two about the song in an article focusing mostly on a review or retrospective of the album itself, not the song. The fact that the album won a Grammy doesn't help the song's notability either. You've built up a wonderful argument for defending the album's notability, but much less so for the song itself... Sergecross73msg me 14:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't a comprehensive list of sources. Most of the links are from album reviews that would fit appropritately in the song's reception section. But my point is that such sources exist to support the article's notability. The article Slug (song) is about a much more obscure U2 song, so obscure that it was released by U2 under a name other than "U2" and its album did not sell well and was not critically receieved. The song didn't chart nor was it released as a single, but it has since gotten to good article status and it is currently undergoing a featured article nomination. Countless books and journal articles have been written about U2 and their songs, such that most tracks that have been released on studio albums are certainly notable. If I had the time, I would work on the article itself, but I shouldn't have to expand an article to prove its notability just so it can survive an AfD. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that you haven't really provided any sources where the song is the main subject. The one's I've spot-checked had the album as the main subject, and just mentioned the song in passing. You need to find more sources that focus on the song itself. (Or if you have, you need to single them out from the bombardment of sources above.) I haven't looked into the sourcing of any other U2 song, but that wouldn't likely have any bearing on the outcome of this discussion anyways. Good or bad sourcing of another song would not protect this song's article from deletion. I'd focus more on providing sources that provide significant coverage of this song. Meeting the WP:GNG is really the ultimate concern here. Sergecross73msg me 17:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect This isn't a notable song. Saying it is because it's on a Grammy Award-winning album by U2 isn't enough. See WP:NOTINHERIT. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect as above, not every song in an award-winning album deserves a stand-alone article. Cavarrone 09:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expanded the article today to help further establish its notability. In reference to the previous two comments, I did not mean to imply that its notability is solely relied on the fact that its album won an award. The nominator's reason was due to a lack of souces, so I added some information to the background and reception sections of the song with some additional sources. There are plenty more sources about the song, but I wanted to list some print sources below that go into more detail about the song and could serve as excellent references for the article:
I hope that the additions and new sources can help further establish this article's notability. I am by no means trying to bombard sources, as all of these can be used in the article. One of the biggest things about this song is its many lyrical interpretations by different sources, which I think would make a great section once it gets written. Of course, the song had no major chart action as previously mentioned, but there is plenty of third party notability available. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I'm not seeing any sources that have significant coverage on the song in particular. Too much of the sourcing (and even the content of the article) is more about the album on whole than the song in particular. Without charting or having any sources dedicated to the song, it would be better discussed in the album context. Sergecross73msg me 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I hate to reiterate myself, but the fact that the song hasn't charted does not mean it's not notable, so I don't know why the commenters keep mentioning it. I have presented a diverse number of reliable third party sources, which do plenty to establish the subject's notability. Many of the sources are in print so I cannot link them directly, but they have pages that cover the song in detail. With the exception of two sentences about the background of the album, all the content in the article is about the song. Mothers of the Disappeared is a great example of a U2 song that did not appear on any charts, was not released as a single, did not win any awards, and most of its article sources are about the album. Yet it is obviously notable and is currently a featured article. This article has the same potential as that one, as well as Acrobat (song) and Slug (song), all of which fall in the same category. I have been writing U2 song articles for many years and I know for a fact that these sources exists, so I would not try to save an article from deletion if it did not meeet the necessary requirements. I have also reviewed WP:N, and it satisfies all the necessary requirements.
Yes, I (and likely the others) know that charting or being a single isn't required. Nobody said it was. It's commonly a helpful point of reference or indicator of likeliness though. If a song charted on a major chart, there's usually a reasonable assumption that, even if sources can't be found at an AFD, they're likely to exist somewhere, just because songs with that sort of visibility commonly have coverage about them out there somewhere. We're just saying that this song doesn't seem to have that luxury. We're pre-emptively throwing the htought out there, as people who want to "keep" an article commonly try that argument.
Can you point to the sources in particular that you believe show significant coverage for the song? Because most of the sources I've spot-checked have been album reviews that dedicate a sentence or two to the song in question here. That does not prove notability for the song. Sergecross73msg me 14:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The webpage sources only cover the song's reception, which would naturally be found in review of the album. As with many other U2 song articles, most of the references are print sources. See articles like Slug (song) and Ultraviolet (Light My Way), which are good articles
[43] – about a page about the writing/recording of the song and the meaning of its lyrics
[44] – half a page about the song's lyrics and meaning
[45] – full page about the song's lyrics and meaning
[46] – full page section about the writing and recording of the song
[47] – full page with interviews with the band members about the song
[48] – discusses the song's live performances on a concert-by-concert basis throughout a chapter
[49] – full page about the song's background and meaning
Redirect non notable song. Most sources are related to the album, not specifically about the song itself. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's certainly content but is also still best connected to the album itself thus redirect. SwisterTwistertalk 18:21, 21 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fifth / lowest division of Cypriot football? Lacks the required notability for season articles. We don't even have an article for the division as a whole! Fram (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Its Cyprus, a small country. But its a championship that all sports pages and newspapers coverage. I can add some sources. And is not regional. Teams from all over the country take part. Just think that we have articles about regional leagues of 10th level of England 2015–16 West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division!
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As far I am concerned, articles like that of the West Midlands (average attendance per game: 50!) should be deleted as well. Fram (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't nominated it... Xaris333 (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just like I haven't nominated yet the articles I recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 103#Notability of individual matches, which was about articles on games in the lower English competition levels. So? There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia I could nominate, I just happen to come across this one now a,d have no interest in starting a discussion on another article right now just because whatever. Fram (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have. It was a poor idea, from whoever nominated it, to mix 9th and 10th level leagues in that nomination. And it was a bizarre discussion as most if not all "keep"s just gave general comments, not discussing the actual leagues but opposing the very idea that some 10th level league season would be deleted. That one should probably be properly readdressed sometime, but is not really the focus of this discussion. Wikipedia doesn't work by precedent, one discussion which is somewhat comparable does not policy make for all other discussions. Fram (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not the fifth level of the Cypriot football, as all the fifth level competitions (amateur leagues) are organized individually by each city's local federation. Instead, this competition is organized by Cyprus Football Association and the participating teams are coming out from all the cities (local federations) of Cyprus. In general, this competition it's a play-off promotion system for entering the fourth level and is more close to the fourth level rather than the fifth level, as no one team of the fifth level is promoted to the fourth level directly through their local leagues. After they win their local league, they have to participate in this "extra" competition in order to win their promotion to the fourth level.
I think the most important problem in this case is the lack of a main (general) article for this competition. If he create the competition's main article and also add more references in this one, then it will be OK to keep this article. Marios26 (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Season article for a regional competition. No indication that this season has received significant reliable coverage outside of routine match reports. Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although there's information, there's still questionability for actual independent notability as its own article. SwisterTwistertalk 06:51, 25 June 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.
Delete advert with no claim of notabilty MLA (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Satellizer, not notable advertisement. ThePlatypusofDoom(Talk) 10:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We really, really need to start requiring new editors to submit their articles through the AfC process. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising and pov. Not a notable game. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Poorly written advertisement, game fails notability qualifications regardless. Spilia4 (talk) 02:51, 19 June 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. The sole argument for keeping is not in accord with WP policy, as properly explained by the other contributors. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No problem finding a dozen search results – each one a mere directory listing confirming the church's existence only. The article cites no sources, obviously written from original research, and since none apparently exist the article apparently can never be improved. —Prhartcom♥ 12:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello all, yes, prhart is correct it is original research - I wrote the article. I am a member of the Sikh faith, and was born and raised in 100 Mile House, BC. My family roots can be tied back to the town to the early 1970s and my dad was a founding member of the 100 Mile House Sikh Society. You are correct, there are no articles about this Gurdwara and that is because no one really knows of it or its story. I added this to an already existing article "Gurdwaras in Canada" and then decided to write a brief history on it, allowing people to learn of it and its existence, and perhaps conduct research on their own.
An article cannot be deleted simply because it is original research, arguably every article on any topic was once original research. You must determine the credibility of the source behind the research which I have spoken to above. I will continue to improve the article and will add pictures of the temple, and its events.Dalvinder K (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Finding the same sort of results as Prhartcom, indicating a lack of notability. The creator admits that this is original research - while I admire their desire to write a history of a meaningful site, Wikipedia is not the right place for this. Articles on Wikipedia are built on secondary coverage from reliable sources, not original research. Perhaps there may be another venue more suited for the piece - a blog, maybe? GABgab 02:15, 15 June 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.
Delete. The good folks at Project Ice Hockey have done a great job of establishing guidelines for notability, and the subject here doesn't pass them (he would need to have played in at least 200 games in the AHL). Also, the sources in the article are of the routine type that one typically sees when athletes sign with a team, so I'm not seeing the significant coverage that would be required to meet the general notability guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the article still found nothing better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwistertalk 18:22, 21 June 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.
Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding much coverage. Rlendog (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining his career here found nothing actually better for the applicable notability, there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwistertalk 18:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject had a brief and undistinguished career in the mid-minor leagues. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:49, 22 June 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.
Delete as examining the article still found questionability for the necessary improvements thus the article is not acceptable as its current questionable state. SwisterTwistertalk 18:25, 21 June 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.
fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hockey player playing in the top level of professional ice hockey in the UK. MLA (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MLA: according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the UK's EIHL is a "Lower-level league" "for the purpose of satisfying Criterion #4." Criterion #4 of WP:NHOCKEY is "Achieved preeminent honors." He has received no honors and fails WP:NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY. As mentioned by Joeykai, the EIHL is not considered a top level league. That being said I can't find anything proving notability through GNG anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to meet NHOCKEY or GNG. Rlendog (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the article still found questionability for actual independent notability. SwisterTwistertalk 18:30, 21 June 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.
Delete has never played in an NHL game, no other reason to consider this athlete notable. Drafted in 2005, now aged 29, so likelihood of ever seeing him play at the top level is almost nil. LAroboGuy (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is not far from meeting NHOCKEY with 99 games in the AHL plus 80+ in Allsvenskan, but he still falls short and I am not finding much coverage to meet GNG or any other special reason to make an exception. Rlendog (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur with the above, nothing convincing for the applicable notability and nothing else convincing from there. SwisterTwistertalk 02:37, 17 June 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.
fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was expecting to find someone who clearly failed the professional sportsperson test but three seasons in a fully professional top level league in Germany passes the notability test. MLA (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MLA: according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the German DEL is a "fully professional minor leagues" "for the purpose of satisfying Criterion #3." Criterion #3 of WP:NHOCKEY is "Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors." He has played 134 games in the DEL and has received no honors. Joeykai (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, he has also played 103 games in the American Hockey League, and, last time I checked, 134+103=237, in which case, he would actually meet criterion #3 of WP:NHOCKEY. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NHOCKEY #3 based on the number of games played in the DEL and AHL. -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 15 June 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.
NN person, doesn't meet GNG. Coverage exists solely from his death because of his association with Hezbollah. No significant coverage otherwise. MSJapan (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close as disruptive: Article is sourced. This AfD only exists because User:MSJapan doesn't like that User:Kvng removed the PROD tag from this article. IMO, since the article was sourced, removal of the PROD tag was acceptable and it should have never been AfDed. pbp 14:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going to AfD once a prod has been rejected is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. The fact that not everyone here agrees with you should indicate that there is some merit to this discussion. HighInBCNeed help? ((ping|HighInBC)) 02:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@HighInBC: I withdraw the disruption claim, though I still believe MSJapan HAS gone too hard after Kvng IMO. Didn't he just fill your talk page and e-mail box with requests to sanction him and/or me? I'm not withdrawing the keep vote, as the article is sourced well enough to pass GNG IMO. pbp 03:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm withdrawing my vote as well. pbp 04:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by [50], [51], [52]. This is significant coverage and I don't understand what policy disqualifies it as evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm changing my position after discovering and suggesting WP:BIO1E based research I did when things MSJapan was saying were not making sense (see below). ~Kvng (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh good, now I have contrib stalkers. And actually, I AfDed this because the extent of what we know is "was a Hezbollah commander, is now dead" which is a perfect case of WP:NTEMP in terms of news media cycle coverage. Reposting the sources that are already in the article doesn't establish notability if those sources don't establish notability. MSJapan (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not stalking you. This article is on my watchlist because I deprodded it. I restate my original case for notability because, some people don't read the article, article history or article's talk page before commenting. Speaking of which, I don't think WP:NTEMP says what you think it does. You may be thinking of WP:BLP1E. ~Kvng (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MSJapan: You yourself are a contrib stalker (of Kvng). pbp 17:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, withdrawn, I quit, have a nice day. MSJapan (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely nothing in the article passes GNG. This is not significant coverage because the only coverage is of his death. Someone who wasn't notable before his death (and there's no evidence that he was) doesn't become notable because of his death (and he doesn't pass WP:BIO for military personnel either). You need to have some evidence of his notability whilst alive. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BIO1E. The only news coverage about him concerns his death in a battle which is a single event. There is literally nothing else to indicate that the subject is notable. He was a field commander; nothing indicates that this is an important position. No news coverage seems to exist for the subject prior to this incident. Technically, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply but WP:BIO1E does apply here. Hence, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the sources we have, one is an article with no connection, with a mention of him in a caption. The other is an article that starts out mentioning his death, but digresses into discussion of the results of Hezbollah being involved in the Syrian Civil War, without showing how Fayyad had any policy role in such matter. Fayyad may well have been a key formulator of Hezobollah policy, but we would need sources that show this. Based on the sources that exist, he was a low level field commander killed in battle, and is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there should be not controversies about taking this to AfD at all, the information particularly is not suggestive of the needed solid independent notability with nothing to suggest his own convincing article. SwisterTwistertalk 02:40, 17 June 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.
Delete as examining this still found nothing actually convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwistertalk 18:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject had an undistinguished career in the mid-minor leagues. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:52, 22 June 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.
Delete as there's no Hall of Fame, nothing else at all convincing to suggest there's enough about his sports career to suggest an actually convincing notable article. SwisterTwistertalk 18:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject played just a single season of minor league hockey, without distinction. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:54, 22 June 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.
Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding enough coverage to support GNG. Rlendog (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the article still found nothing for any actual independent notability, there's nothing at all suggesting better. SwisterTwistertalk 18:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject had a brief career in fringe leagues. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:55, 22 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted because it is not notable. While it purports to represent a topic, the boundaries of the topic are arbitrary and not defined in any reputable source. NCSwampDogs (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the cited Wired Magazine is "an unassailable obfuscation scheme", which is unrelated to the "List of obfuscators for .NET". The "List of obfuscators for .NET" page has no content that relates to the Wired Magazine article. Another wiki page Obfuscation (software) does relate to the Wired Magazine article; such article is not labeled AfD.[[User
NCSwampDogs|NCSwampDogs]] (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.Andersonmyrtle (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List is mostly marketing. Full of outdated and inaccurate information. emadari —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only created the article as a redirect to another, and 12 years ago at that, so I don't mind. In any case, I have no opinion on whether the article as it stands should stay or go. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a list with information which at best could be acceptable as is, but the information and sources is still actually questionable for keeping as its own article thus Delete at least for now and then evaluate if this can in fact be its own article. SwisterTwistertalk 06:57, 25 June 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.
Not notable and promotional. All the refs are merely about the initial rounds of funding for this small company. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this was created by someone connected to the company; i had cleaned it up and found what independent refs were available and this was the best i could do. agreed that it fails N. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Agree with nom about the vehicle for promotion - that's what drove me away from the site years ago. MLA (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches have found nothing better, the current coverage is only expected especially for the field subject and the age so overall there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwistertalk 06:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article passes WP:GNG based on a wide variety of postings in the press. It is quite misleading to say that this is just an article created by WP:SPAs, Rcjeffery and SocialJenny, or is an WP:ADVERT. Jytdog, the editor with the most edits to the page, makes full WP:COI disclosure that he works for a VC company and I am not sure why he has not spoken in favor here. A quick scan of WP:ORGIN seems to support inclusion in the encyclopedia. There is lots of real news to be summarized about this company. Most of the news regards its financing, but adequate content is in the news items to describe the business in an encyclopedic manner. The fact that sufficient content exists to present the paragraph describing the service is a good indicator. Walt Mossberg is a co-executive editor of the main source describing the business, All Things Digital. We should have an article on any business Mossberg thinks is notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
gah things like the NYT interview with the CEO do not add to N. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That the NY Times feels he's notable enough to interview is certainly relevant. Regardless, other sources I identified (Forbes, Crain's) clearly satisfy WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources about the company, although not by a strong margin. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, although it does not have a particularly promotional tone at this time, such as extolling the greatness of the company, peacock phrasings, or encouraging readers to do business with it. North America1000 02:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't have a promotional tone when it was nomimated. I had cleaned all that up. So I am not sure what your !vote is about. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination states in part, "Not notable and promotional". My !vote addresses these aspects of the nomination. This seems plain and clear to me. North America1000 02:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes companies seek to get an article in WP for promotion, because they think it helps raise their visibility; that is how we end up with all these articles about marginally notable and non-notable articles about companies with poor sources and talking about stuff like their funding rounds, as was noted in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 20 June 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.
Nonnotable and promotional. The CNN "article" sorry to say, is no better than an press release. Not everything in a usually reliable source is reliable. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:CORPDEPTH pass per a review of available sources about the company. Also, the CNN article within the Wikipedia article is not a press release. This is evidenced by the manner in which it is a bylined news article written by a CNN staff writer, and that Google searches for "LevelUp app aims to keep coupon users coming back", the title of the CNN article, only links to the CNN article, and no others. It's important to accurately distinguish between independent news sources and press releases, and it's assumptive and inaccurate to state that a source is essentially a press release by assertion alone. Lastly, the article is not particularly promotional; it provides an overview of the company, but does not extol its greatness, does not have promotional language, and does not encourage readers to do business with it. North America1000 13:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes the basic test of WP:N, with in depth coverage from major sources like the NYT etc. Steven Walling • talk 02:46, 15 June 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.
Contested prod. WP:BLP1E - a witness in The Purple Gang's trial. No sources with any other information, no GHits of value. Not a potential redirect because the subject doesn't appear in the Purple Gang article. MSJapan (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:The Purple Gang. I strongly believe that this should be a required step whenever anyone proposes a merge at an AfD. Otherwise, the likely result is that the editors of the target article object to the merge, undo it, and we are left with an impasse between a consensus here and a conflicting consensus there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems eminently sensible to me. Is there a discussion or guideline on these lines? Thincat (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's right from where we stand now but the proper way to avoid such a mess in the first place is to consider a merge WP:BEFORE nominating. ~Kvng (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with that as well. There's far too much stuff gets nominated here that ought to be discussed on talk pages. Thincat (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mention at the other article however amount needed as that would suffice, Delete and then Redirect as there's nothing particularly suggesting keeping this if there are no future signs of better and thus can be deleted if any necessary contents are simply moved. SwisterTwistertalk 17:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If the article is deleted and redirected, a mention of the subject at the merge target may never actually be performed, because users wouldn't be able to access the content of this article. North America1000 18:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - In the grand historical scheme of things, this guy was one witness in a trial. That's his entire claim to fame, and he gets a trivial mention on one page in every book on the Purple Gang, and that's it [61]. I really don't think the quality of the encyclopedia or the target article is going to be terribly affected if he's not included, considering we're not even covering the larger event that the subject is a part of. He's just one of many people involved. Just because he exists doesn't mean he needs to be linked to an article subsection where only his name is (not yet) mentioned along with six other people.MSJapan (talk) 18:59, 17 June 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.
Although I would generally be cautious about proposing deletion of an article which previously survived an AFD discussion, I am making an exception for two reasons. The previous discussion was 10 years ago, and another Wikipedian agrees that this person would not now be regarded as notable. There is also a primary topic discussion going on in relation to Myra Taylor, and it would be useful to know how many Myra Taylors we are dealing with. PatGallacher (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taylor is listed in this "pioneering nurses" archive at King's College London. I think the historical context underlines this nurse's achievements. It was (even) more of a big deal in the early 20th century to be a senior, professional nurse with serious training than it is today. Some of the other KCL pages help show how being a well-qualified leader in the nursing profession was quite new and unusual.[62][63]Lelijg (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And - info about Taylor's period as superintendent.[64][65]Lelijg (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete. I do not consider the period of her activity 1914-36 a period where the career of professional nursing was still in a pioneering stage, and not every senior nurse fro mthat period is notable from an encyclopedic point of view, though they may well be important enough for their archives to be collected by their professional society. The question is whether head of nursing at her hospital was sufficiently important. Her predecessor in the position, who founded the nursing service is however notable as a pioneer : see Mary Southcott DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response Although nursing training had made important advances, there was a long way to go with establishing nursing as a respected profession. For example, it took till 1922 just to establish nurse registration laws throughout Canada, 1919 in the UK, earlier in some US states. I'm not suggesting Taylor was a major figure, but she was a notable one. While working under an unsympathetic administration she expanded the curriculum, campaigned on nurses' working conditions etc. A Royal Commission discussed her position in 1930. [66] (pp 46-51) Lelijg (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can’t see any downside in keeping this, even if someone thinks it’s on the borderline of notability. It’s not the kind of article that threatens to make WP seem unencyclopaedic.Lelijg (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 04:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having read the referenced sources regarding Nurse Taylor, I believe she received as much notable recognition as a nurse was probably likely to receive in her professional era. Nursing was a default women's profession receiving little press coverage in the day; I suspect her notability was quite significant in her era. I see that this is maybe a close call but I'll take my chances erring on the "keep" side. - Julietdeltalima(talk) 00:58, 21 June 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.
Likely WP:OR, and it's essentially unsourced (as I shall explain). Apart from the obvious Melbourne focus, there are some inconsistencies in citation that make me think this may be copyvio or a copy of someone's thesis. For example, there are numerous inline "[3]" references in the text which don't link to anything. Those refs are then followed by a wikied ref, but none of the wikied refs appear in the reflist. Also in the reflist is a cut and paste biblio that is not used in the article. So I don't quite know what it is, so I'm not sure if it's speediable, but I do know it is not appropriate in its current form and cannot be used without blanking the page entirely, so we might as well delete the article. MSJapan (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's badly written, but it's still salvageable IMO. A quick Google search (which, BTW, User:MSJapan, you should have done yourself) reveals that the term is used primarily in Australia, but it is used rather extensively and therefore is probably the official term for a certain type of project in Australia. I would note that being a terminology primarily confined to a single country is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. pbp 04:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did a Google search. How else do you think I figured out I couldn't source the material in the article? Anyhow, I don't deny "Activity centre" is a topic, and I did not say that it was not. As I said, my problem is with the article content. I was unable to source any statement made in the article, and I maintain the formatting indicates copyvio or OR. Speaking of, the copyvio tag you put on it is wrong - Liquisearch is a WP fork, not the other way around, and the source link is at the bottom of the page. TL;DR is that the article as it stands is not usable, and rewriting what's there isn't going to fix the lack of citable statements. MSJapan (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If your problem is the content in the article, AfD is not where you should be. pbp 05:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did a copyvio search and found that the lead is duplicated at hubpages.com (I can't include the exact link here due to WP:BLACKLIST). I beleive it is more likely that this site copied our text than vise-versa. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by scholarly sources: [67], [68], [69], [70]. The other problems cited by the nom can be fixed through article improvement and do not require deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough sources here to establish notability within the urban planning community (esp. Australia). Clearly enough to negate the WP:OR argument. Needs some cleanup. Cleanup & Keep. ERK talk 22:47, 21 June 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 that the subject does not meet notability requirements for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An immense amount of very minor material. Extensive namedropping, including what I will call second degree namedropping, where the subject interviewed non-notable people who have connections with some actually notable people
If anyone can reduce this to reason I'll withdraw the AfD DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lot of wikilinks to people who are notable but no evidence of any notability for the subject itself. The large number of references are primary sources with no real third party coverage conferring notability. MLA (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my own searches have found nothing noticeably better at all and the article, through and put aside the massive amounts of sources, still suggest nothing actually convincingly better. SwisterTwistertalk 04:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually zero independent coverage of this person, and nothing in-depth. I found a Los Angeles Times article [71] about an artist on one of her shows that mentions her and her "TV show". It was quite revealing: TradioV, an online channel that broadcasts in-studio discussions (think of it as a radio station with a camera filming the recording).... I also found this puff-piece in the local Laguna Beach newspaper and a passing mention of her in the "Acknowledgements" in this book from the vanity publisher Morgan James Publishing. She was attempting to crowd-fund her "Po-Show" recently [72] and these 4 press releases are the sole coverage mentioning her in Google news. The creator of this article has also been publicising her, her associates, and her projects in other WP articles since 2012, alas to no avail [73], [74], [75]. DGG, this article can't be reduced to reason unless it consisted of one sentence about one artist appearing on her show, and the fact that she is the "promotional director" for another one [76]. There is simply not enough independent coverage of her to source any kind of article let alone a biography of a living person. Note that most of the sources in the article for the claims that she is somehow involved with reasonably notable people, don't even mention her, although there is a photo of her sweeping the mud out of Vladimir Kush's gallery after a rainstorm in Laguna Beach 6 years ago [77]. Voceditenore (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have drastically truncated the article to include only the information about her which can be independently verified. There was no reason to keep that advertorial nonsense on Wikipedia for the duration of this AfD. It now also makes clear what constitutes her career, minus the puffery and minus the primary sourced name-dropping of people who allegedly appeared on her podcasts or at events at her spa. This is what the "References" section originally looked like. The following reference commentary is from today's revised version:
1. Los Angeles Times article about a local Laguna Beach sculptor and the web tv show she co-hosted with Hryn. The article devotes three sentences to Hryn and describes her as "a painter and arts promoter"
2. Brief radio schedule announcement in the local paper (Laguna Beach Independent) simply stating that she was the co-host of Spoken Word Spoken Song, a web radio show on KX@OneLaguna
3. Laguna Beach community news website (Stu News), not mentioning her but confirming that KX@OneLaguna became defunct after a year
4. Local newspaper (Coastline Pilot) puff-piece on her newly opened spa in Laguna Beach
5. Another Coastline Pilot piece explicitly based on one of her press releases and verfiying that the spa closed after a year
6. Orange County Register article on art fraud affecting several Laguna Beach art galleries, with two brief quotes from her and describing her as the "promotional director" of Vladimir Kush's gallery.
7. Event announcement by the local chapter of the United States National Committee for UN Women verifying that she was the emcee at one of their fundraising events.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article, which is about a county-level political party, lacks significant, independent and reliable sources and as such fails WP:GNG. TM 01:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage to be found in Brooklyn Democratic Party search. ~Kvng (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will you provide links to such significant coverage? I just see mentions, not significant coverage.--TM 09:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are an enormous number of citations dealing with the tribulations of corrupt officials in the organization and I think those, in sum, establish notability for the organization. There are also sources that cover the organization more directly: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - I abstain. Braum is my homeboy (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Braum is my homeboy: You don't need to "Abstain", you can just not comment on the AfD! ThePlatypusofDoom(Talk) 10:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky one. Nom may have followed WP:BEFORE, but he needs to show us that he has looked at the topic, not the page.
1.) nomination is not really valid, since the question at AFD is not whether "this article... lacks significant, independent and reliable sources," but whether the topic has them.
2.) I leaned yes, after all, Brooklyn is bigger than most American cities and votes Democrat.
3.) However, the page not indicate that any of the many sources brought discuss the Committee as a significant organization, beyond, that is, the functions any County-level committee performs.
4.) Worse, I cannot find such sources. I thought that a quick search on google books would do it [84], or a news search [85], but the surprisingly tiny number of mentions of this committee are along the lines of, "a Midwood resident and a Kings County Democratic County Committee (AD45) member, ..."
:* Finding nothing to support notability of this committee, Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC) changing !vote. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, I feel stupid. No wonder I couldn't find it. Sources just brought above are persuasive, but by have to replace "King's County" with "Brooklyn" in all searches (New Yorkers undoubtedly don't even realize that this does not immediately occur to the rest of the world). I do wish that the article creator would have worked on this at least hard enough to add a little material making the notability clear, because this AFD has been a total waste of everyone's time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is titled after the official name of the organization, and the association with Brooklyn is noted in the first sentence. I figured that would be clear enough to "the rest of the world," sorry you found it so challenging. It is the person who nominated it for deletion who is wasting people's time. I put plenty of my own time into creating the article.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article was proposed for deletion (deprodded by me) and then WP:AFD by Namiba who apparently is not very good at recognizing potential controversy that makes WP:PROD inappropriate for such things or doing the necessary research WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. Nor was Namiba very good at finding sources even after I added a new ((Find sources)) to this page and pointed the way. Brooklyn Democratic Party is there in bold at the very beginning of the article so it is not authors fault if anyone had difficulty understanding what to search for. If you're not willing or able to do the work required from your side, please refrain from doing nominations. ~Kvng (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons stated above. The article is well-sourced and the notability is clearly outlined.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 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 that the subject does not meet the notability requirements for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as my searches are finding several news sources at News and browsers so far alone, but all in all, it's still suggestive of current questionability thus delete for now at best. SwisterTwistertalk 22:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing substantive found. Subject hasn't been discussed in reliable sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject has not been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 21:23, 15 June 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.
Delete as clearly too soon, my searches have found nothing particularly better at all (not one actually acceptable link) and there's nothing at all, from the filmography, to suggest the needed substance. SwisterTwistertalk 23:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per being TOO SOON. The SPA editor seems intent on promoting this director and her recent film Majha Naav Shivaji. There are proper non-English sources,[86] but more independent coverage is needed. If or when more comes forward, the topic may be reconsidered. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:28, 16 June 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.
Delete and I would not explore merging as this can easily be added to the community's article with the necessary basics, searches found nothing better and there's nothing else convincing otherwise. SwisterTwistertalk 23:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magna, Utah § Mass media, where this is mentioned at. The topic has received some coverage, such as this article in the The Salt Lake Tribune, but not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. This is a valid search term for this redirect. North America1000 02:21, 20 June 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.
Unsurprisingly my searches have simply found nothing better at all and there's basically nothing actually convincing to where I would've PRODed too. This basically has noticeably not changed since starting in 2008 and everything simply suggests it cannot actually be amply improved. SwisterTwistertalk 07:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - weak There do seem to be plenty of secondary references, but yes there does not seem to be a lot to easily add to the article, although if someone had the time and interest I also suspect that there will be secondary references to notable drug developments by this company if the research areas mentioned came to fruition and while not universally notable would be rather notable in that area of medicine and health care. I have now deorphaned the article, so this might mean more people find it, and maybe WP:EVENTUAL, so keep for now. Eno Lirpa (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete dearth of independent sources; exists to promote the company (see history) Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did notice the earlier SPA too, but does it matter if the article can potentially stand in its own right anyway ? Surely the parentage of an article does not tarnish the article itself ? Eno Lirpa (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a growing consensus that articles with marginal notability created for promotional purposes get tipped toward non-notability by the WP:PROMOpolicy violation. We don't exist for that. And of course if it were clearly notable we wouldn't be in this discussion at all and then the origins would not be relevant. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A company that is trying to produce new drugs but has not yet produced any cannot possibly be `notable. They should post[pone their efforts at publicity until such time as them have something to publicize. Local business journals will publicize anything in their area, and are indiscriminate soures and cannot be used for notability The notability isn't even borderline, it's zero. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear lack of reliable sources, and exists only to promote the company. Tom29739[talk] 18:16, 21 June 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.
My searches have simply found nothing convincingly better at all and there's nothing convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwistertalk 06:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep[87] is a decent source. I strongly suspect paper-only coverage would exist in the various paint-ball magazines. This was a popular brand. Hobit (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 13 June 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.
Delete - I think the idea of the article needs to be on Wiki, however this clearly needs allot of work before I could vote for keep --Bennyaha (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally this article is useful but needs work is not a reason for deletion but enough time has passed without any improvement that I doubt there is the interest. If these Lists are kept they would have to be reduced to blue links as per WP:LINKS which makes it even harder to see the notability. The original editor has been notified and he is active. I would change my vote if there was even a hint that this would grow to its potential but right now I just don't see the notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is a consensus here to delete, but only the main article is mentioned in those comments. Relisting so that people can comment on the other two articles nominated. MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles are in a poor state but the redlinks indicate articles that should be created - our coverage of boxers pre-1980s is poor. This is a topic that has been covered in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, the two articles are in a poor state and I can understand Peter Rehse's logic that after a long time with little improvement, there is little interest in the subject. But it would only take one person who is knowledgeable on the subject to come along and see something that they can and want to fix. Deleting the article would remove that opportunity. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like these two topics should be notable, but right now there's no significant independent coverage from reliable sources. The articles consist of a list of names, with no supporting evidence of notability or other facts. Perhaps they can be moved to user space until someone makes an acceptable article out of them.Mdtemp (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know AfD is not for article clean-up, but I think an exception could be made in this case because these articles have no content supported by reliable sources. I think these topics may well be notable, but only with decent referenced articles. I don't believe either of these articles belongs in the main article space as they currently exist. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's clean-up and then there's the fact that these articles currently fail to meet WP:GNG, which is the default standard of notability. I have no objection to this topic being on WP but I do believe articles need to meet some notability criteria. Currently that evidence is lacking. These last two sentences are why I suggested putting them in user space. Papaursa (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic meets GNG that should be fine, regardless of the state of the article, which can be cleaned up. But so far no one has offered any evidence of coverage that would meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:47, 22 June 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.
I would've PRODed too as my searches have basically found nothing convincing at all aside from a few links for events such as book events and such, nothing particularly convincing. SwisterTwistertalk 06:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fast fast , the references say we should delete no evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason? Rlendog (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i try to fix this article but i cant find a reliable source Samat lib (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, improve, and advise Nom to run WP:BEFORE. I ran a single, simple Proquest News archive search on "Charles Harrington Elster" 1st hit is a profile in a major metropolitan daily: "A MAN OF HIS `WORD' | ... and yours, as it turns out -- meet Charles Harrington Elster, answer man: [1,2,3 Edition. Wilkens, John. The San Diego Union - Tribune [San Diego, Calif] 13 Nov 2005". The next several hits are columns he wrote as teh vacation fill-in for William Safire in the "On Language" column in the New York Times. There are 450 hits. the first page includes reviews of his books, stories and profiles about him, co-host gigs on National Public Radio, articles he wrote - all in major, mainstream media (mostly big city daily newspapers). Potential sourcing totally passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC, having received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. In addition to source examples provided above by E.M.Gregory above, even more examples are listed below. North America1000 01:54, 20 June 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 19:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am actually finding some links but there's still nothing actually convincing for an independently improved and notable article. SwisterTwistertalk 18:45, 21 June 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 per CSD A9: Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance. The artist's article had been deleted long ago. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines ,,,,
there is NO evidence of Notability on this Article ,
Secondly the references on this article are not reliable Samat lib (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing particularly suggesting the needed stability and solidity for independent notability thus nothing convincing. SwisterTwistertalk 06:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:28, 13 June 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.
Does not meet notability guidelines (low-ranking soldier), nor WP:SOLDIER, as no source for the Knight's Cross has been provided. The article has one citation to Iron Cross 2nd Class, the rest of the material in uncited. The article has been tagged "Refimprove" since 2010. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Potential sources for Knight's Cross here, here and here.
Here's the version as of Nov 2015, before I edited the article. It had only one citation, Williamson, and had been tagged Refimprove since 2010. I believe that six years is sufficient time to improve an article.
"In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." The footnote states: "Some awards are/were bestowed in different grades. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. See: Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades."
The GNG still needs to be met, through multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. Also pinging Hydronium Hydroxide to see if they would like to revisit with the Nov 2015 version of the article in mind. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: K.e.coffman's extended edits to the article and consideration of sources above are acknowledged. However, for such a pattern-based series of nominations this really needs a discussion, and possibly an RFC, at MILHIST since there appear to be over 3000 pages for which Veit Scherzer and Walther-Peer Fellgiebel are used as sources, they were removed from Sandrock and elsewhere, the talk page conversation with Peacemaker indicates controversy regarding source assessment, and higher grades of the Ritterkreuz were awarded for subsequent awards rather than being initially attainable. If consensus from that is that large numbers of Ritterkreuz recipients do not warrant separate articles, then AFDs for most should not even be required. Instead, redirect any which fall under agreed criteria to aggregated list articles such as List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients of the U-boat service and leave their categories in their redirected articles (with a brief capsule bio for such recipients possibly included against their names in the aggregated list articles). It's a much better option than piecemeal nominations with the probability of inconsistent results depending on who responds, and the possibility of thousands of Ritterkreuz-related AFDs. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:30, 16 June 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. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. Discussion about grammatical errors can occur on the article's talk page. North America1000 00:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatical mistake in the title Atticuscomo (talk) 00:17, 13 June 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.
🖖ATS / Talk 20:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
