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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qualia the Purple[edit]

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

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

This article has failed to satisfy WP:BK and the more general WP:GNG by showing any significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. All of the sources in the article are either primary or from a retailer, and cursory Google searches don't come up with anything that could prove notability by coverage from reliable sources. 十八 23:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. 十八 23:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunately I also can't find any coverage in reliable sources by its English title or the romanized title. It does have a manga adaptation, so someone with Japanese language knowledge might want to see if there was any coverage of that. Opencooper (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to Dengeki Daioh. I see no notability when it comes to this series but it might be worth it to redirect it to Dengeki Daioh as there is a mention there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON It does exist in MADB, but no anime, no RS reviews, only briefly mentioned in a forum thread on Fandom Post. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing currently suggesting the needed independent notability, nothing currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 26 May 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our Miracle[edit]

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

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

This article has failed to satisfy WP:BK and the more general WP:GNG by showing any significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Of the sources in the article, 4 are from a retailer, 2 are primary sources from the publisher, and the last one looks to be from a blog. A cursory Google search reveals nothing in the way of reliable sources. 十八 23:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. 十八 23:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 十八 04:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable work by a non notable manga author (Natsuo Kumeta is a self-redirect to Our Miracle) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Not non-notable as many other works on Wikipedia. --Article editor (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF.--十八 00:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable per the current sources, searching found an additional one paragraph plot summary at mangafox.me, still not notable. Gab4gab (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While it appears on MADB, there are no notable ANN reviews. [1] Online sources point to scanlation sites, blog reviews. Nothing to show best-selling rankings. Mentioned briefly on ANN but neither it nor the author have an entry there. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's nothing convincingly better for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. As per the Miss Peru article, the pageant is a "real pageant". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Perú 1977[edit]

Miss Perú 1977 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not a real pageant The Banner talk 21:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "not a real pageant"? Provide more explanation. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:00, 19 May 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Lodge of West Virginia[edit]

Grand Lodge of West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NN org, mainly due to no sources available to get a broad-based sense of the organization, and the article as it stands violates WP:UNDUE. The article was started because some news was made over a lawsuit almost ten years ago, and all of the information about the organization has been taken primarily from articles about that lawsuit, c. 2008. The organization has been in existence since 1865, and there is nothing RS to address that other 143 years of history; instead it focuses on about six months, really. It's not encyclopedically appropriate in its present condition, and it's not going to get any better without reliable independent sources, and there are none. MSJapan (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Once notable, always notable. Also there is no need to sanitize what is quite objective or even charitable discussion of the group and its discriminatory policy. The group to this day persists in its discriminatory policy, I am sure, else that surely would have been publicly noted and this article would have been amended by active Freemasonry-interested editors. I vaguely recall past dispute about this or a related article, in which I perceived there was a push to sanitize, to remove the fact that this Grand Lodge, at least, was prominently discriminatory, and to help the by-their-nature secretive Masons perhaps to "close ranks" and remove public negative info about their organization. IIRC, there were impeccable sources including the New York Times. If anything, this organization becomes more notable with time by persisting in its policy. --doncram 22:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the past dispute was about the Frank Joseph Haas, an article no longer existing that was argued unnecessary because it would be covered in this article instead. Haas sought to end discrimination, was ousted from the Lodge, and sued. IIRC, a nearby lodge in another state (Ohio?) notably invited/accepted his membership, by the way, reflecting disagreement by other Masons about the discrimination (this is no longer covered in Wikipedia).

The timeline on the controversy about the controvery includes:

• "Frank Joseph Haas" article created July 12, 2008, brought to this version
• July 21 it was PRODed by MSJapan
• PROD removed by User:DGG with summary "NYT article and AP article is sufficient to justify coverage"
• Discussion btwn DGG and MSJapan at User_talk:DGG/Archive_18_Jul._2008#Frank_Joseph_Haas about covering Haas and the lawsuit in the Grand Lodge article instead
• Frank Joseph Haas was eliminated by redirecting it to this Grand Lodge of West Virginia article by editor MSJapan in 2008 in this diff
• Relatedly, Talk:Grand_Lodge_of_West_Virginia#Merger proposal shows it opened by MSJapan, then closed by MSJapan, and it was called "out of order" by another editor
• A Redirect-For-Discussion was announced (and maybe started then cancelled?) to remove even the redirect, then un-announced (see MSJapan's edits in history
• The redirect was modified in 2010 by MSJapan to remove pointer to "Lawsuit" section of this article, since that had been removed from this article (in this diff from 2009 by another editor
• In 2013, lawsuit passage re-inserted into this article by User:JASpencer
• MSJapan reverted that one day later
• JASpencer restored it
• and so on.

There were administrative noticeboard discussions about this article (I recall the controversy, and apparently participated in it):

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive155
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive77
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive450
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive463

Note there do exist a number of articles about Grand Lodges (approx 72 members in Category:Grand Lodges and its subcats). This article's deletion (along with others) was also discussed within

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General list of masonic Grand Lodges (2nd nomination) (nom by deletion nominator here), and
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry/Archive 3 (including my noting WV article was reduced in its other coverage, making the Haas lawsuit more prominent and hence seeming more undue)

This article should not be eliminated, as the controversy is notable and has been expunged from elsewhere. This topic has been found notable and remains notable. Asserted "undue-ness" might be addressed by reasonable expansion of the article to cover other matters, consistent with other Grand Lodge articles. --doncram 22:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion might include mention (if it is true and about a lodge within this Grand Lodge) something like "The first black AF&AM master mason was "raised" in 2015 in Martinsburg, WV in Equality Lodge #44." This point was added by an I.P. editor on 18 January 2016, then removed without comment in the next edit there, in February. --doncram 01:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're not allowed to write wholly negative articles per WP:NPOV and the entire content focusing on the lawsuit is WP:UNDUE; things ran their course, and it's over and done with at this point. There's no indication that sources exist to cover the other 140 years of the history of the organization, so NPOV aside, it's not encyclopedically appropriate to have an article focused on one event in the last ten years when the organization dates back to the 1860s. Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, for example, has a much wider historical scope, and while it needs work, it is a good example of the sort of coverage we need to write a balanced, encyclopedic article. In this case, we don't have it, because the sources don't exist. I even tried to go to the GL's own history page to get some content, and unfortunately, their own history is sparse and unsourced. We can't base the article solely on primary sources, and in this case, the primary source is poor. To show notability, we need reliable sources, and without that, this is a case of "yes, the organization exists", but we can't really go any further than that, so we run afoul of existence is not notability. The organization is not notable simply because someone sued it unsuccessfully, yet that is precisely what the article covers, and that is all the article covers. MSJapan (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being approximately 150 years old, I assume the organization was formed during or just after the split of West Virginia from the rest of Virginia, going "north" vs "south" in the American Civil War. I expect there's interesting history to share about that. I presume Masons formerly of the same grand lodge fought in battles against each other, and that a good number of Masons became officers in both sides, with some made individually notable during the war. One general source would be histories and records of the Virginia grand lodge (or lodges) that extended into what became WV. I hear some lament there is not more readily available on the Internet but "dead tree" sources are fine. Has the Masonic library in NYC been visited/checked? And what libraries, Masonic and not, in Washington DC or Richmond Va or Charleston Wv etc been checked about the grand lodge? And as the grand lodge includes numerous local lodges, the summary history of them is history of the grand lodge. I think expansion is feasible.--doncram 05:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"You expect"? Well, that's great that "you expect", but the burden of proof is on you to show that. You're making a lot of baseless assumptions about an organization you know nothing concrete about, and presuming a lot of things without evidence. Masons being on either side of the war is irrelevant to the formation of a Grand Lodge - those are individuals, not organizations, and the GL won't inherit notability because of that. Checking the NYC Masonic Library? You want to go over there, be my guest, but you're not going to tell me that I've got to travel all over the US and that if I don't, you're correct that this organization is notable because I didn't go and do something - the burden of proof is on you, so you'd better book your tickets quick. Lastly, subordinate body histories are just that; histories of the subordinate body. If you had ever read one, you'd know that. The extent of the overlap is that they receive a charter from the GL to be legal, and that is it. They're not going to recap the history of the GL, because that's not the point of their history book. MSJapan (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, confirming what I expected, the lodge was founded in 1865, on May 10 (in the month after the end of the American Civil War. It's on their seal. It's in their webpages. It's consistent with the year of 150th year activities of the lodge, some of which might be described in this article. By the way their webpages mention "Work cited from "A Century of Freemasonry" 1865-1965 with addenda 1965-2000, which sounds like a relevant source. --doncram 16:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Doncram does this much better than me. The Grand Lodge was a notably conservative Grand Lodge in American terms in ties with Prince Hall freemasonry, an apparent colour bar and also some stuff about not allowing disabled people to become freemasons. The lawsuit was a part of all this. Grand Lodges for states have (often) hundreds of lddges and thousands of members and so are worthy of articles by themselves. But getting rid of interesting and more notable Grand Lodges. Why? JASpencer (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Your assumptions are showing. The GL is not "more conservative" by any means - the rules they have in place are the rules all GLs had in place until some were changed on their own individual initiatives. The lawsuit, by the way, was about Haas being illegally suspended, not any actions he took as GM, and if you had read the articles to understand what was going on instead of simply using it to confirm your biases, you'd have known that; that's why he lost the suit. They're behind on Prince Hall recognition? Well, that never started until 1990, and there are still several other jurisdictions that do not recognize it, so WV is not unique in its position, nor is it substantially lagging in the grand scheme of things. In short, all of these assertions you are making about the notability of the organization have no basis in fact. Most particularly, Grand Lodges are not notable based on size - the GL is independent of its subordinate Lodges; it could charter 76000 if it wanted to, with 3 members apiece. Moreover, Lodges come and go over time. Therefore, numbers are not a factor. Now, can we stop arguing content minutiae and maybe come up with, gee, a source that maybe has something useful? Again, the burden of proof is on you to show notability with evidence, not for me to show non-notability by the lack of it. MSJapan (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF. JASpencer (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly civil, and AGF has nothing to do with it. You are making a claim to notability with no evidence provided to support that claim, the underlying assumptions are factually incorrect, and then you are pushing the burden of proof to disprove your claim off onto me by insinuating that I'm trying to delete "interesting and notable Grand Lodges." You are making a subjective claim that the GL is "notably conservative" with respect to their rules. It is subjective because you offer no support for this assertion. That assertion is factually incorrect. You then tie that assertion to a lawsuit, and that assertion had no bearing on the lawsuit; A caused B, and B caused C doesn't mean that A caused C. Then you say that because the Grand Lodge is of a certain (indeterminate) size, they are notable. That's also not valid per policy. I am neither uncivil, nor assuming bad faith, if there is a factual problem. MSJapan (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is notably conservative. A map here, published yesterday May 23, shows WV isolated as (like I saw but Kevin Butterfield has already put into words) "one of a handful of states with no formal relationship between the "Prince Hall," or African American, Freemasons and the overwhelmingly white Grand Lodge. (All of the rest are in the former Confederacy.)" (bold emphasis added by me) in his article. And he commented "a decision to intervene would have been a conservative judicial policy in defense of Haas's "right of membership." And it may ultimately have meant that West Virginia Freemasonry would have moved in a direction that, at least from my perspective, seems to be the right one, ending its exclusionary policies based on race and disability." --doncram 01:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - except for the undue weight given to a lawsuit, I don't see any problems. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article's history now shows it has been considerably expanded by edits by User:JASpencer and some by me; it has been reduced by edits by MSJapan (which I have not reviewed). What is in looks good. If what was dropped is too sanitizing, perhaps it should be restored. Besides adding some material, I removed an "undue" tag in this edit because the article is so much expanded. It seems implicit, based on his 1993 award mentioned here in speech recorded at a West Virginia state Division of Culture and History webpage, that Robert C. Byrd, powerful (and longest-serving) U.S. Senator was a member of the lodge. If someone feels it is absolutely clear he was a Mason from that source or from elsewhere, please modify the article. Also mentioned in that source is a Sam Cole, possibly then State treasurer(?) and other officials not yet mentioned. It's interesting to read in the article now that Haas was later booted from the Ohio lodge, I'm curious what happened. Could more about that be shared here or at Talk:Grand Lodge of West Virginia, please? --doncram 17:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Some links about that were shared. The article grew some more to this 23:19, 24 May 2016 version last edited by me. Discussion about balance is ongoing at Talk page, I think. This academic article by Kevin Butterfield, "The Right to Be a Freemason: Secret Societies and the Power of the Law in the Early Republic" was just found by me. It is all about the Haas case vs. the Grand Lodge, set in sweep of history, and is a very excellent source not yet used in the article. --doncram 01:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - recent improvements have addressed various deletion issues including WP:UNDUE. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article has really only marginally improved, and I do not believe the UNDUE issue has been resolved, but that is likely a content matter to be addressed on the talk page. MSJapan (talk) 05:39, 25 May 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. joe decker^talk 05:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ekopedia[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD by now blocked user. All references on this page, which was created by an SPA, are primary references to the website itself. The website appears to have been defunct for some time now. My searches turned up no coverage of this website. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per failure of WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Every source provided is primary, linking to one of the various editions of the website in question, and I couldn't find any reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT: (too) (many) (parentheses) and not enough sources. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing better, still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 26 May 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R.L Weeks[edit]

R.L Weeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO. PROD removed by author. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:AUTHOR, at present. Have had a look for press sources and I can't find the required "significant critical attention", it seems to be at the level of Goodreads and Amazon reader reviews at the moment. --McGeddon (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 03:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 04:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Weeks exists as an author, but this by itself does not give notability and she'd need to have received coverage in independent and reliable sources like newspaper articles or reviews on websites that Wikipedia would see as a RS. I just don't see where she's achieved this at this point in time. I'm aware that it's difficult for indie authors to gain coverage, but it is required. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Self-published author with no coverage in reliable sources. Kolbasz (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - run of the mill writer who has not garnered any press, from what I can see. If somebody finds anything, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing here at all for any actual convincing notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 26 May 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. joe decker^talk 05:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betzalel Busel[edit]

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

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

No assertion of notability, no reliable sources provided. Would have PRODded but was contested by article creator last year. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no clear indication of notability. Blackguard 22:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The institution he is a leader of has about 100 post-secondary students. So even if he was clearly the top academic officer, which is not clear to me, I don't think he is a leading one enough to establish notability on those grounds, and nothing else jumps out to say he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all above. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:26, 24 May 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. Discussion indicates that this can perhaps be salvaged if some work is done on it by people familiar with the language and topic. May be renominated if that does not happen.  Sandstein  20:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Black Police[edit]

Hong Kong Black Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be a WP:Coatrack article that breaches WP:Synthesis in order to provide a platform for people to complain about the Hong Kong Police, including allegations against named individuals. The alleged logo used as an illustration is clearly faked (I've removed it). I've removed much of it already, but what's left has no sources at all that talk about the concept of "Hong Kong Black Police". I can also find no reliable sources that cover "Hong Kong Black Police" in any depth - the top Google hits are Wikipedia articles, and passing mentions to the term in sources that look like they might have copied from Wikipedia. In the version before I heavily pruned it, some of the sources did use the term "black police", but that was in passing in reports about specific incidents, and there was not one source among the English language ones that was specifically about "Black Police". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Apart from a single forum posting, the term appears not to be mentioned apart from when used in the context Hong Kong Black Police [noun], noun typically being "gloves", "cap", etc. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Absolutely fails WP:GNG by any standard. STSC (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. The term exists (e.g. [3]), but has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still questionable for solid notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per significant coverage in Chinese-language reliable sources, e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7] etc. SSTflyer 10:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  None of those sources appears to contain any in-depth coverage of the topic of "Hong Kong Black Police", but instead they appear to be reports of individual incidents, only some of which use the term. [2] does not appear to include the term at all (admittedly going on a Google translation), [3] appears to use it in passing in a report on a specific incident, [4] again does not appear to use the phrase. [5] uses the phrase "black police" a couple of times, but it's only a very short article and does not appear to comprise in-depth coverage of the concept. I think it's clear that the phrase "Black Police" really is in use (though not "Hong Kong Black Police"), but I'm not seeing the independent in-depth coverage of the concept that would be needed to make it into an encyclopedia topic. It still seems like WP:Synthesis to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Some additional comments: Apart from sources that support the mere existence of the term "black police", there are no sources that verify anything claimed in the body of the article. Also, not a single article Wikilinked in this article uses the term "black police". I've added a tag to every unsourced claim - I don't mean to tag bomb, but it's just to illustrate what I mean. I was going to suggest that If an article should be kept, the maximum we have the sources to justify would be a stub that simply covers the existence of the term - there's probably enough in the external links to say it's being used in protests but we don't even have a source that explains what it means, though we'd then be down to whether the coverage satisfies WP:GNG. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC) (updated after re-reading the external links Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  Yes, the article may need to be renamed to e.g. Black police (Hong Kong), but the term is notable. [4] is translated as "anti-triad police" using Google Translate but actually literally means "oppose black police" in Chinese, at least in this context. The lack of a mention of the Chinese term in the article, coupled with WP:Systemic bias in favour of Anglophone topics, create the illusion of lack of notability. SSTflyer 05:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Some background information: the (derogatory) term "黑警" in use to describe Hong Kong police is at least partially related to allegations of cooperation between the Hong Kong Police Force and triad organizations in Hong Kong. See zh:香港警察與三合會關係 for some information. SSTflyer 05:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, that's making a lot of sense, thanks - it's great to have someone who can understand and explain the Chinese context. Yes, I'm coming round to thinking the term is indeed notable, and I like your suggestion of Black police (Hong Kong) as an alternative title. So yes, I'm thinking we should keep it and just remove the unsourced claims of the development and usage of the term, but could perhaps include some examples of its usage from the sources we have? I'd be interested to leave it a few more days and see what other people think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure. I think there are definitely enough reliable sources to write an article about something, but the main subject might be something else. These sources use the phrase "haak ging" (black police) rather than discusses it, so they would be primary sources for an article on "black police". Instead, I can see how this article's content can be content forked with some parts of Hong Kong Police to form a new article about, say, "Criticism of Hong Kong Police". Deryck C. 17:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There have been some normal mentions of "evil cops" (黑警) in the press but that would not make "Hong Kong Black Police" as a notable topic. Also, the article seems to be a POV content fork which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 14:14, 16 May 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  20:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada and the 1960 United States presidential election[edit]

Canada and the 1960 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Canada and the 2000 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Canada and the 2004 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Canada and the 2008 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Canada and the United States presidential elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada and the 2016 United States presidential election, these are poorly sourced original research essays about Canada's relationship to United States presidential elections. Mostly they serve as collections of anecdotal trivia, such as whether Canada got mentioned in presidential debates at all and when the elected president happened to make his first state visit to Canada afterward and Carolyn Parrish stomping on a Dubya doll (which, for all the Canadian handwringing about it at the time, had no actual impact on anything at all in the US) — but none of them offer any strong indication that Canada's relationship to that particular US election was significant enough to warrant an independent article as a standalone topic in its own right. I get that Canada's geopolitical and cultural relationship with the US occupies a disproportionately large percentage of the Canadian cultural and political space, but that's why we have the main article on Canada-United States relations — while it would be perfectly appropriate for that article to contain a brief summary of broad themes, such as the fact that Canadians generally poll as being much more strongly supportive of the Democratic candidate for president, I'm not seeing why we need a separate spinoff article to document relatively trivial aspects of every individual US presidential election as a standalone topic in its own right. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some need more refs, but the later ones are well sourced. There's an inexhaustible supply of media and academic sources on this subject, so good articles are possible. - SimonP (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The overall thrust of Canada-US relations is certainly sourceable and inexhaustible. But Canada's relationship to each and every individual US election is not an independent topic in its own right, separately from the overall thrust of the overall relationship or from Canada's relationship to the next US election — the appropriate place for content about this is the main article on Canada-US relations itself. By the same token, we don't need a standalone article about Poland and the 2004 United States presidential election just because Dubya said "You forgot Poland" at one point in one debate — but that's about the level of substance that any of these articles actually offers. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - poorly referenced, and in some cases very problematic essays on trivial relations between the countries during US elections. No independent claim to notability, some bits of good info could be salvaged and put in the main election articles as needed. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all A section like "Looking back" of the 1960 article strongly suggests that there are several content issues. Some of the article content itself seems to question the notability of the topic ("issues like Social Security and education were central to the campaign but of little interest to Canadians. Moreover, the end of the U.S. election was overshadowed by the Canadian federal election held on November 27" from the 2000 election), depending on how you look at it. Wickypedoia (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What Bearcat said. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Per nom., Ajraddatz, and Wickypedoia.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per, as has been stated, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTESSAY, and, to a lesser extent, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, as any relevant information here can be better covered in the article about each specific election. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 19:36, 20 May 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 reached after two weeks and a relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qumbya[edit]

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

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

Fails to meet notability requirements. Kelly ^hi! 11:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems like a WP:ADVERT. WP:N not established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are third party sources available, but I don't think they cross the threshold of WP:CORP: [8] is a very local newspaper focusing on business, [9] appears to be some kind of local alternative newspaper, [10] is a student newspaper, [11] is a local newspaper and doesn't give much coverage of the subject, etc. I don't see evidence that this organisation has received the kind of substantial coverage in at least regional media that WP:CORP asks for. Hut 8.5 21:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing meaningful to add to what User:Hut 8.5 has explained above. Mwenzangu (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:14, 23 May 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. with no prejudice against speedy re-nomination (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take the Stage[edit]

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

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

Not at all notable. Article created and majorly contributed to by a producer from the show. Can't find independent sources. Fails WP:GNG Rayman60 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A Google News search for "Take the stage" and "Yobi.tv" shows 1 result which is [12]. The result is a press release. Therefore Take The Stage Fails GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Keep - The article already contains three reliable sources, which satisfy GNG [13], [14], [15]. I'm not sure what this AfD is about but it's not notability. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 13:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep perhaps because of the sources above, there may not be a large amount of resources here, but it seems enough. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 9 May 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 taking into account the first, IP "keep" as making no understandable argument.  Sandstein  20:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Hard[edit]

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

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

I don't believe there is much information on this person, who may not be notable enough. RES2773 (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable recording engineer. Half the references are--incredibly--reviews the subject has written about recording equipment! Highly suspect that the subject himself has authored this entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Moderately successful, but not encyclopedically notable. Scr★pIron^IV 19:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep information seems to have been updated since previous comments were left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.193.13 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC) — 104.162.193.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment While the article has been updated, there is no additional indication of the notability of this artist. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT Scr★pIron^IV 19:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note to 104.162.193.13. Since you left a message on my dashboard asking me to take a second look with the revised sources, here’s my response: First, I appreciate you asking for help to improve an article to avoid deletion. However, the new sources still come up short as far as conveying notability beyond the insular world of the technical end of the recording industry. These sources are trade publications and websites that would have no relevance to anyone outside the nuts and bolts of the industry. Within this world, even if Nic Hard were a “rock star”, it’s still a hard argument to consider him encyclopedia worthy. It’s a bit like, say, a successful realtor in Southern California having a wikipedia page on the strength of being a “name” among realtors and getting tons of press in multiple realtor trade publications. To keep the article there needs to be sources outside of trade news that convey notability. If they exist then they should be referenced. Resume style listings of credits, such as those on Discogs and AllMusic are also not enough by themselves. Second, as the likely author of the article your “keep” vote should be stricken since it is not an impartial opinion. And, here’s a question for you: are you Nic Hard (or his manager)? Considering the article sees fit to mention the subject's management, I suspect you may be, and therefore this article seems promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as still questionable and too soon for a solid article. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - only a few mixers appear to be notable, yet we should have some precedent to start, as a test case or specimen type, pardon the analogies. That being said, I only see a single good source in the article. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I consider a precedent having been set by Geoff Emerick as the type of people in this profession who have achieved notability. Outside of working with similar legendary recording artists very few others merit wikipedia notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The importance of producers and mixers in the music business is akin to Directors and editors in film. There are many, many people in this field whose work defines a genre of music and shapes the music for a generation. As far as I can tell this person has been credited with developing a "sound" that is unique and well respected by Artists, Labels and other people in the industry. I think that people like this should be included in wikipedia. It is art, not data entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.193.13 (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed, as only one !vote per person/IP address is allowed. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to admin The keep votes are from the same IP address that reveals a SPA editor who possibly has a role in the authorship of article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:20, 25 May 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liberatum[edit]

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

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

Redirected to the Pablo Ganguli article, but this has been reverted. Undoubtedly Ganguli gets quite a bit of press, but Liberatum doesn't (for example, the cited Vogue article mentions it, in connection with Ganguli). Considering this is an alleged organisation active during the height of the internet age, I can find nothing of substance about it that is independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Sionk, I have as requested by you looked up over 35 sights and reliable sources which all mention Liberatum as a cultural organisation in its own right.

I have nothing to do with this except I follow what the organisation, and see what it has achieved in England itis phenomenal worthy of mention more than a lot of things on Wikipedia that are kept. Vogue is the best and most reliable source of information other than The Times, Financial Times and The Daily Mail. It is considered the bible of the contemporary upmarket ideas. Liberatum works independently from Ganguli as I know for a fact that he employs people to do events all over the world if you research it you will find that. I think you could be making a mistake if you delete it I have probably made mistakes writing this Cricket500 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Having done some background check, it seems Sionk has been editing Liberatum related pages and the company's founder for a couple of years or so. Also, what is most perplexing is the sudden urge to nominate the page for deletion even though the page has been on for almost ten years with clearly reliable and credible sources that are cited. The organisation seems to have been operating in many countries and newspapers of different countries all have reported its activities. One wonders: was Sionk personally linked to the company and therefore holds some motive? or does Sionk suddenly no longer recognises the veracity of serious and credible organisations, newspapers, companies and publications all reporting on the company's activities and existence? Kamilakook (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware that I've been editing Liberatum related pages for several years. My first edit of this page, in fact, was in April. I came across it when a new editor added a link to Liberatum from the Amanda Eliasch article. When I redirected Liberatum, and when I nominated it for deletion, there were only two sources cited - one is an article from Vogue which simply says "reception and dinner hosted by Indian impresario Pablo Ganguli, the founder of the global cultural diplomacy forum, Liberatum", the other is a company website (not a reliable journalistic source). Even Cricket500 (above) agrees that Liberatum only gets passing mentions in newspapers. Wikipedia's notability guidelines, WP:GNG, requires significant coverage of the subject, not passing mentions in relation to something/somebody else. Is there any in-depth news coverage about Liberatum you can provide? Sionk (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good day to you Sionk. The evidence shows, through, reliable sources cited that Liberatum has been significantly mentioned and covered by leading newspapers in many countries. You keep mentioning Vogue but what about the other newspapers such as the New York Times and the Independent? Vogue also featured Liberatum in its headline as the main story not just a passing mention. Are we reading the same thing? It seems Liberatum runs programmes, festivals and initiatives with different names in several countries. Just been checking online and reading all about them. I'm surprised you can't see them as they are hard to miss. Wall Street Journal, Guardian, GQ. The list goes on. The BBC reporting an entire programme on Liberatum is not reliable or significant enough for you? Kamilakook (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can see you edited Liberatum owned festival pages in 2014. Istancool being one of them. Kamilakook (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the many available sources showing this organization as meeting WP:ORG. Kudos to Kamilakook for his efforts to make this suitable for the project and its readers. And when WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage is lacking, the many many many more-than-trivial coverages of the orginization and its events in multiple reliable sources shows the organization as worthy enough of note for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if you google Liberatum support women in their creativity you will see all the projects they do to support them, it's not just glossy events. This is one of many other programmes they do, it would be a pity if they are not included on Wikipedia. I follow them avidly and am truly impressed by their achievements, and opportunity they give to others Merrypinkwoman (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is the first time I have voted to keep something. As I said yesterday there are links all over google. I answered User:Sionk and read the article in La Monde which is not a correct reflection of Liberatum's work. It just needs the links on Google attached as relevant citations. I will try to mend the page. It seems a pity to chastise a company who genuinely wants to do good work for others? I say Keep Cricket500 (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We need to stop powerful well connected people from having their companies have pages on Wikipedia. This is not a press agency service. So what this company has lots of press? Why should we only rely on newspaper articles ? Maybe they paid newspaper editors a lot of money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.21.191.71 (talk • contribs) — 95.21.191.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What on earth are you talking about? If we can't rely on newspapers as credible sources, what other options do you suggest? What are you trying to imply by saying "paid newspapers". This is slander. 81.33.28.244 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)— 81.33.28.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Dear God! It appears to be a legit organization with an incredibly large number of citations. Looks as though some people are out to deliberately remove the article despite credible sources and links from reputable newspapers. 81.33.28.244 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC) — 81.33.28.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is becoming absurd? Yesterday I was putting citations on an article and the sockpuppet kept deleting them, today somebody who is trying to do something in life is being deleted? I have only been on Wikipedia for two weeks yet there is more drama about keeping people who are doing good things for women than stopping people from deliberately adding puff to their pages. Checked Liberatum again, there are a number of videos on culture, Women have benefited from the organisations support. This is not my world I am into Cricket and roses but I do not like to see destruction of useful data. Cricket500 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I vote 'keep'. Simply because it clearly seems to be a credible organisation (operating for many years) with credible, reliable citations, sources and links all provided on the page. Films, videos, newspaper articles, programmes, festivals that are all online. I will work on further improving the page and maybe you could all do that too? Kamilakook (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This needs a speedy keep? Please women out there come forward to save one of the most valuable platforms in the world for women speakers and artists. Thegcb (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many available citations showing coverage. But please, people, don't canvass for votes. Smartyllama (talk) 16:11, 26 May 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. joe decker^talk 05:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The school of hairstyling[edit]

The school of hairstyling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The first five references currently provided are listings and can't do much except confirm that the school is indeed accredited as claimed. The other two sources mention the school in passing but don't provide the kind of significant coverage on which one might build an article. Pichpich (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage of any kind, and the article is very advertise-y. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:PROMO that fails WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 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. joe decker^talk 05:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Union for the Public Domain[edit]

Union for the Public Domain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references except its own website, which has died. No sign of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to find any substantial coverage from third parties. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete can't find more than minimal coverage in third-party reliable sources, and those mostly consist of citations to it. For a topic related to the open source movement I would expect sources to exist online. Hut 8.5 21:46, 19 May 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. Keep the first article and merge the second to G.E.M. (singer). MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X.X.X. Live[edit]

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

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

Unremarkable tour. Possible a candidate for redirecting to the artiste. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following similar page:

• Get Everybody Moving(G.E.M. Tour) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Advanced search for:  "Get Everybody Moving (G.E.M. Tour)"
In books/documents  Google Books  · Questia Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news  Google News: recent  · archives Questia  · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media
In academic/legal journals  and reference works  Google Scholar: academic  · legal Microsoft Academic: new  · original Oxford Reference  · JSTOR PUBMED Central  · Questia HighBeam  · Internet Archive
World Wide Web pages  Google Web Search  · Advanced Search Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4 Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free)  Google  · Flickr
More  Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Advanced search for:  "X.X.X. Live"
In books/documents  Google Books  · Questia Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news  Google News: recent  · archives Questia  · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media
In academic/legal journals  and reference works  Google Scholar: academic  · legal Microsoft Academic: new  · original Oxford Reference  · JSTOR PUBMED Central  · Questia HighBeam  · Internet Archive
World Wide Web pages  Google Web Search  · Advanced Search Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4 Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free)  Google  · Flickr
More  Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep X.X.X. Live – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below.

• Selective merge/redirect Get Everybody Moving(G.E.M. Tour) to G.E.M. (singer). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The sources provided in one of the above comments establishes this tour's notability. Meets WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – @Aoba47: Note that Get Everybody Moving(G.E.M. Tour) is also nominated for deletion in this discussion. It appears that you're only referring to the initial nomination atop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize for the mistake. I agree with your suggestion to Selective merge/redirect Get Everybody Moving(G.E.M. Tour) to G.E.M. (singer). Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rambler Coaches[edit]

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

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

Non notable local company Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (I declined speedy deletion of this article.) I wasn't able to find any significant coverage online beyond what's already in the article. I can't assess the print source it cites, though. Seems to fail WP:CORP; tentative delete. —Cryptic 07:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable. 82.132.186.32 (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — 82.132.186.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep (as creator), not the most notable company, but has gained coverage in local, trade and enthusiast press. Soton23 (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Soton23: Can you characterize the currently-cited offline coverage in Bus & Coach Buyer and Buses Magazine? How in-depth are they - in particular, how similar is the Bus & Coach Buyer source to the similarly-named article from Hastings & St Leonards Observer that's available online? —Cryptic 01:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The fact that the article is verifiable does not make the subject notable. It strikes me as a typical local coach operator, of which there are hundred in UK, if not thousands. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There are thousands of villages, listed buildings and actors -the number, or claim that they are "typical" is not a reason for deletion;also many have less history than this, such as companies founded after deregulation. The GNG is, in addition to verifiability, a reason to keep, and this would not be indiscriminate as there are others- even with public transport routes- that are less notable and have been deleted. 82.132.184.165 (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — 82.132.184.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - If there was more coverage etc I'd of gone with Keep however there's bugger allon the company, Fails CORP & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Peterkingiron. Utterly non-notable and fails WP:CORP.Charles (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This just shows how much certain editors' views on notability differ from community consensus as demonstrated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomex (3rd nomination) (result: keep) and earlier AFDs for that article. Unfortunately many of these editors target articles related to buses in the UK, which causes bias against those topics. There are two sources of the type suitable for notability (plus two follow-up articles to one of them) in that AFD, and three sources that contribute to notability for Rambler Coaches, which provide much more of the type of information that belongs in an article. Peter James (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A company that operates a nation wide franchise is very different from a small local transport company.Charles (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different, but not inherently more suitable for an article. Wikipedia doesn't discriminate against local shops in favour of catalogues or online shops. What's important is whether the sources are sufficient for an acceptable article to be written - whether other people think they are worth writing about, not your opinion. Peter James (talk) 22:21, 20 May 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. Obvious copyright violation, also self-promotional vanity page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Zaki[edit]

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

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

Zaki appears to pass WP:GNG (as User:Allahomora pointed out when contesting my speedy deletion tag), but article itself appears to fall under WP:DEL14 as WP:PROMOTION and would require a substantial rewrite to become encyclopedic. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 16:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Possible copyvio of http://pioneerscapital.com/index.php?pg=board_of_directors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:COPYVIO, as well as having no independent sources, thus fails WP:CORP and WP:BIO. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:51, 19 May 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. joe decker^talk 05:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Goers[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he is notable Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One, I'm afraid, of a number of spurious Keeps in the last week by this new editor. Upon what basis do you think he's notable? Ravenswing 04:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Career minor-leaguer with no particular accomplishments. Fails both NHOCKEY and the GNG, doesn't meet any notability criteria. Ravenswing 04:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As mentioned above career minor-leaguer who fails both GNG and NHOCKEY. I haven't been able to find anything to indicate he meets either. -DJSasso (talk) 10:59, 24 May 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. joe decker^talk 05:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Kirlianis[edit]

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

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

Non notable person, bogus reference Speedy tag removed. H.dryad (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete This is an article about a 15 year old basketball player. No references are provided that discuss him, although the claim is made that his uncle owns a restaurant, which is an implausible claim of notability Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is nothing about the subject that is notable. The page's only reference notes that his uncle owns a restaurant, again not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 17:01, 19 May 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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Martin[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he won some awards Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None that make him notable. Joeykai (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Actually ... being a First-Team All-Star in the UHL does meet Criterion #4 of NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 04:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets criterion #4 (multiple times) of WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 22:03, 23 May 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) 18:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Paterson[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he was a part of the U20 canada team Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that doesn't make him notable. Joeykai (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One, I'm afraid, of a number of spurious Keeps in the last week by this new editor. Upon what policy basis do you think he's notable? Ravenswing 04:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Career low minor-leaguer with no particular accomplishments. Fails both NHOCKEY and the GNG, doesn't meet any notability criteria. Ravenswing 04:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to meet GNG after a search and does not meet NHOCKEY either. -DJSasso (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. I did not place any weight on the 'keep' !vote as this is not a policy or guideline argument. The article can be undeleted if the subject becomes notable in the future, as DJSasso noted, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Jenks[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep almost had 100 points in the OHL Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make him notable. Joeykai (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One, I'm afraid, of a number of spurious Keeps in the last week by this new editor. Ravenswing 04:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails both NHOCKEY and the GNG, doesn't meet any notability criteria. Ravenswing 04:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He falls just 17 games short of passing WP:HOCKEY, it does not look like he can pass WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes me wonder if it would be better to hold off on deletion until next season starts. If he retires or starts the season in ECHL it may make sense to delete then, but if he starts in AHL, he is likely to quickly reach the 200 game threshold, making deletion now spurious. 21:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot do that as your argument falls under WP:CRYSTAL. I see no reason why this article would need to be salted, so recreation would not be a problem if he ever hits the needed criteria. Deadman137 (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And admin, (often me) just undeletes such articles if they become notable in the future. -DJSasso (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear to meet GNG and is still short of NHOCKEY (although failing GNG would negate NHOCKEY anyway). -DJSasso (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Streptopelia. Any merging from history is up to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  20:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle-dove[edit]

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

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

This article is a POV fork from Streptopelia. Note: The history is somewhat confusing in that it shows versions going back to 2002. But the pre-2016 versions were an article about biblical references to the "turtle-dove" which was reduced to a redirect; so the 2016 versions truly constitute a new article. The POV differences are: 1) Streptopelia says that the genus contains three lineages which are “Possibly separable” into three genera, whereas the new article says they definitely are three separate genera. 2) The new article says that the three genera have the collective common name “turtle-dove,” whereas Streptopelia lists several species including “turtle dove” as part of their common names but says nothing about it’s being a collective common name. 3) The pre-2016 consensus was that the meaning of unqualified “turtle dove” was the single species European turtle dove, and the title was a redirect to that article.

I have no opinion which point of view is correct, but I believe that there should not be multiple articles on the subject, and that the one article should retain the history of Streptopelia. I am not necessarily saying the article should be deleted: Perhaps it should be redirected to Streptopelia (or to European turtle dove if that is the usual meaning of unqualified “turtle dove”). —teb728 t c 00:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't believe this is a POV-fork; "Streptopelia" is about a genus, this is about a higher level of taxonomic organization. Ornithologists are notorious for changing common names, using the name of a species also as the name for a larger taxonomic group, and so forth. You're right, there's considerable redundancy between Streptopelia, Turtle-dove, and [[Columbinae]; but this should be resolved through mergers, not through deletion, because there is no evidence that actual disruption is going on, and the history may prove useful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Streptopelia article is about a genus defined to include lineages that might be split off as separate genera. It neutrally describes the uncertainty over whether they should be split off. The Turtle-dove article is about exactly the same lineages/genera. Indeed the species list of Turtle-dove was obviously copied from the species list of Streptopelia. So there is not “considerable” redundancy between the Streptopelia and Turtle-dove articles but total redundancy. If and when ornithologists decide to assign the common name “turtle-dove” to this group of lineages/genera, then it might make sense to move (not copy) the Streptopelia article to the turtle-dove title. The Streptopelia article is more complete and has valuable history. —teb728 t c 06:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Streptopelia, they are discussing exactly the same thing with some POV forking, so there is no justification at all for separate articles, though there may be a little merging to be done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 16:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 16:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How come why not (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the editor who expanded the article from a redirect has been indefed for vandalism. Jim1138 (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I stumbled apon this page today while looking at different birds. Although a small page, I found it useful and educational. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be about gaining and sharing knowledge?

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.73.67 (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, if it is the second day of Christmas and I come to Wikipedia to find out what on Earth turtle-doves are, I should expect there to be something other than a non-existent page. There should be an article, a redirect, a disambiguation, or something; all of which can be made by anyone with the editing tool. As such, please explain why an administrator using the deletion tool to remove a whole edit history is required at any point at all, here. Uncle G (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if the outcome is merge and redirect, we could have agreed that without an admin to help. However, here we are, and we still think a merge and redirect is the right answer. Once we're all happy, we can have this closed and then we can do the merge, and yes, you'll have a redirect between the two names for the same subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Streptopelia as per nom: it is redundant except for the alternative name. DeVerm (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain why you are burdening an administrator with the task of removing the entire edit history, and why removing the entire edit history is necessary. Uncle G (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Excuse me? I am not burdening anybody; I am offering some of my time to evaluate this afd; research the subject, adding to the little knowledge that I have on the subject and then giving my !vote with arguments. Even the picture is a straight copy, there is no question about it, really. If at all, I could imagine an argument to be made for a disambiguation page instead of a redirect but even that would be stretching it for most editors on AfD DeVerm (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are not excused. You know what writing the word "delete" in boldface means. So please explain why you are placing that work onto an administrator and why you think it to be necessary. This is now the second request for an actual deletion rationale. Not a rationale for someone with the edit tool to make a redirect, but a rationale for an administrator to use the deletion tool. Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for pointing out my mistake Uncle G. Feel free to be a bit more direct with me so that I get it first time :) DeVerm (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Streptopelia. "Alternatively, they could all be placed in Streptopelia." Well duh :) There seems to be no added value to this article.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:49, 23 May 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. joe decker^talk 05:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Rahman[edit]

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

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

WP:PROMO article for a PR executive. No assertion of notability on page, just a basic CV. Sources provided are low quality and at best trivial mentions. My searches turn up nothing better. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still nothing suggesting the necessary notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources and notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:06, 19 May 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. (WP:NPASR). It's unclear if the first !vote after the nomination is based upon source searches for the subject or only upon sources in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bambadjan Bamba[edit]

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

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

Non-notable actor. Has brief mentions in some articles, but don't see any significant coverage on him. Natg 19 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found 1 article on him, but not any others. [16] Natg 19 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all convincing for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a supporting actor in notable productions films and tv shows such as Greys Anatomy and CSI one good RS shown above by nom plus some other bits that all add up, there are links to Ivory Coast stories and coverage that are now defunct websites which suggests there may well be offline coverage of him in Ivory Coast press and magazines , I think he passes WP:GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:36, 10 May 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. Probably needs much work, though.  Sandstein  20:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Rothenberg (activist)[edit]

David Rothenberg (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rothenberg {activist)|View AfD]] · Stats)

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

Has been deleted earlier [17] also unsourced and notability. Fitindia (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Delete per WP:G11 again, same WP:BLP1E and non-notability issues. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the available sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like advertising to me, and it's an unsourced BLP. Weak Keep - There's some real work to be done. However, I think he may be notable enough to pass WP:GNG, as per the following sources:

WSJ piece

Forward piece

Gay City piece

The Villager piece

Some coverage from student publications at UC Denver: [18][19]

Local news article

There's also this, which may be someone else. Either way, I imagine a better version of the article could conceivably be written in the future. GAB^Hello! 19:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've found sufficient Reliable Sources, but you advocate deletion? The sources, if sufficiently reliable, demonstrate that the article should be kept, but cleaned up and properly sourced. Your New Yorker source is about the other DR, the prof/jazz musician, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Well, sorry for the confusing rationale. I originally felt like deleting it and simply starting from scratch was a distinct possibility. Now, the article is sourced at least, but it relies far too much on the subject's own book (it makes up over 75% of all references!). Now, it should be expanded with more sources besides the book. GAB^Hello! 19:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a duplicated version of this article (accidentally created by the same person who created this version) at David Rothenberg (activist). Given that David Rothenberg (activist) is clearly the most appropriate title for this page, I think the page at the David rothenberg activist title should be redirected to the one with the better title. Everymorning (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Everymorning is correct. I abandoned the original article David rothenberg activist because I couldn't figure out how to change the article title. David Rothenberg (Activist) is the more appropriate name and also is the complete article with sourcing. The previously seen versions were not complete. The article is not advertisement and Rothenberg Passes the notability criteria. He is truly a legend in New York. Please see the external links in my updated article David Rothenberg (Activist). Please remove the deletion tag. I agree the article can stand to be improved and I will strive to work on it going forward. Thank you! Sapiopath (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think instead of deleting David Rothenberg (activist), one should delete the page which redirects to it as it is useless at the moment. The page which redirects to it is David rothenberg activist. Abhinav0908 (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The question is as always whether there are (in the world, not necessarily in the article) sufficient Reliable Sources to support an article on this living person; any redirects can be tidied up separately. Currently the article is sourced only to a work by Rothenberg himself, which does not establish notability. However there are independent sources, e.g. Forward, New Jersey, Shelter Island Reporter, a Historical Dictionary of LG Lib. entry, Newark Sun Times, North Jersey, and so on. There is some difficulty with search because David Rothenberg the philosophy prof/jazz musician is also sometimes called an activist (on behalf of nature and the environment). However I think there is enough on this article's DR to demonstrate notability. What is required therefore is to source the article properly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article has been redirected and all links in this AfD page corrected to reflect the new article title David Rothenberg (activist). However, I still believe WP:GNG is rather questionable, as almost all sources cited are a book from the subject. See also article author's very similar article Fortune Society which has also been flagged for potential GNG issues. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, if it exists, is proven from whatever sources exist (in libraries, on the web, in the world), not in whatever has been put in the article so far. We all agree the article is as yet poorly cited: the question is whether it is citeable, and it seems that it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is basically all sourced to the subjects memoir, that is not possible to be a reliable source on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was badly sourced by a novice, which is why it came here. The point is that other sources exist, can be used, and demonstrate notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. sigh This kind of article is a profound embarrassment ot the project. It reads as though it was written by David Rothenberg, in the wake of writing the Memoir on which teh article is largely based. However, apparently because Rothenberg had had a minor career in New York Theatre, and had hung around sundry activist political causes, he was sufficiently well-connected to garner color pieces (not reviews, I think) of his Memoir. We play by the rules here. There are enough sources to write a brief aritcle on him. If anyone wants to return it to user space and ask him to cut it down to reasonable size, I could support that. What I don't see is justification for deleting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 27 May 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. Of note is that The Jakarta Post article only provides a single passing mention, and the Trax article is short, with only four paragraphs. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Ringo[edit]

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

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

My searches found nothing better at all and the current article is still not convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable Indonesian radio personality for 20 years and a long music career with a number of pop groups , the article already has reliable sources such as the Jakarta Post newspaper. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - From what I've searched (admittedly not much yet) there seems to be a decent amount of press about this guy, esp in Indonesian sources. I feel like our perception of notability is being skewed because he's not popping up much in english/otherwise western publications. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to GFW Schools. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GFW Middle School[edit]

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

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

Redirect to school district was reverted. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, that is the best way to handle an article about a middle school with no sourced claim to notability. There is no sourced claim to notability, and the internet doesn't offer more than reviews, listings, and the school menu. (Today: Corn Dog/ Hot Dog, Cole Slaw, Sweet Potato Fries, Assorted Fruit--no vegetarian or kosher options, it seems.) I asked the redirect to GFW Schools be confirmed. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support redirect as per WP:ATD-R; no hits under news, books etc, even combined with news outlets; other results are only from its own website, facebook, and Yellowpages; these are vastly outweighed by material on the parent company (the target of the redirect); the assorted fruit is the vegetarian option. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's sad. Can't they make them some pea fritters or falafel? Drmies (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect per Drmies' clear and correct statement of normal Wikipedia practice for all but the most unusually notable middle and elementary schools. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as not independently notable and also not a serious need for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect article per Drmies. Delete cole slaw from lunch menu per Mark Evanier. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the district article unless proof of independent notability is found. LadyofShalott 18:02, 21 May 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. joe decker^talk 05:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TripodMaker[edit]

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

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

Written by the founder of the company with no evidence of passing WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability, either in the article or elsewhere. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article lacks any prosperous information to establish notability for this company. A search doesn't result in any reliable third party coverage to render notability. After WP:BEFORE the only way for this one is delete. Mwenzangu (talk) 09:24, 23 May 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  20:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State Crimes Against Democracy[edit]

State Crimes Against Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:FRINGE, not notable subject. Searches come up with nothing. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:RS. WegianWarrior (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Although I do not feel qualified to comment on what threshold for notability such concepts in the social "sciences" must meet, there are over one hundred Google scholar references that discuss this concept. Many of these are independent of the subject, published in the peer-reviewed American Behavioral Scientist, a journal with a reasonably high impact factor. They seem to me to be secondary sources that are independent of the original author, that are reliable under the rather high standards even of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. But as I said, I am not really qualified to assess these sources in a deeper way, other than to indicate their existence, and apparent reliability under our usual sourcing guidelines. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a certain issue of American Behavioral Scientist gets a lot of attention on 9-11 Truther and Conspiracy websites. Looks like Lance deHaven-Smith, Matthew T. Witt, Laurie Manwell, etc. are accredited academics who also happen to hold conspiracy beliefs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a several cups of speculation, with a side of synthesis all flavored with the barest sprinkling of RSs. Gordon Ramsey would not be pleased. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Quite a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS used to make a fringe theory/term coined by Lance deHaven-Smith sound like it has mainstream traction. For example, the first sentence defining the term is sourced to Lance deHaven-Smith and Laurie Manwell, a 911 Truth advocate, but presented as the opinion of unspecified "scholars". Then a bunch of reliable sources that assert "crimes have been committed by government officials in the past" is used to bolster their theory. The pre-TNT version has many more examples of the synthetic argument being made by the article. If I had time, I would check all the non-fringe/non-deHaven-Smith sources to see that they actually discuss the topic as presented. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at some of them, and I can't find any non-fringe sources (I consider deHaven-Smith to be fringe, given his proclivities) that are well-cited and not used to support synth statements. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a COATRACK for the promotion of Fringe Theories. The sources also appear to be overwhelmingly FRINGE and thus fail RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The TLDR is that when you take out the articles authored by people with a potential COI (see sidebar discussion below), "state crimes against democracy" doesn't meet notability criteria, no matter which notability guideline you're looking at.

When I eliminated the names of people who contributed to deHaven-Smith, Witt, et al.'s books, I was left with 4, presumably independent sources in peer-reviewed journals that discussed SCAD and only two were solidly in-depth (Manwell 2010 and Kee & Forrer 2012). The other 2 were Catlaw (2013)^[1] and Love (2013).^[2] Otherwise there were some articles with reference lists that cited papers with SCAD in the title and a few passing mentions, but nothing else had enough coverage to use as a source in the article. On google scholar without the COIs, at most there's 1 additional book that could be a potential independent reliable source, but I haven't looked into it because I didn't think it would make or break the decision anyway. Also there are zero mentions of "state crimes against democracy" in mainstream news sources.

FWIW, I didn't get the impression that other scholars considered deHaven-Smith & Co.'s positions to be fringe or conspiracy theory. They seem to be well respected, even by academics who disagree with them. They do have an online fan club of conspiracy theorists who misrepresent their statements though and deHaven-Smith seems to feed into it. —PermStrump(talk) 02:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails GNG and even if folks find the few independent sources with substantial discussion to push this over the bar, it still would need to be TNTed to have a real WP article. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- a useful article about an actual term. It's a real thing in the world, a term of art that's used. So keep it and make the article the best possible. It's not "fringe" and it's not wrong for Wikipedia to have this article. This is a canvassed vote, as well, being alerted on a certain noticeboard with encouragement to delete it here. SageRad (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SageRad: Posting notices to a noticeboard is not canvassing. There is no function on WP which prevents pro-fringe users from reading or participating at the FTN, nor can one interpret posting there to be targeted, as pro-fringe editors regularly do participate there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. That board is publicly visible but the following is generally expected to vote to delete this article. I hope many non-McCarthyist editors will respond here in addition to those who see it as their mission to declare and root out all content that collides with their ideological agenda. (Striking done by someone else, not by me -- my use of the term "McCarthyist" and description of same was a direct parallel to the use of "pro-fringe" in the previous comment as an impkied characterization that anyone who supports this article is "pro-fringe" -- which i find to be a serious aspersion made by MjolnirPants and ask them to strike it if they're gonna go aroun and strike my comment because they don't like it. SageRad (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of usage of this term in peer-reviewed literature, like this, and it's a reified term as well as many other sociological terms about which Wikipedia has articles that nobody questions. It's mainly because it has something to do with non-mainstream thinking about conspiracy that some people here would label it "FRINGE" and therefore a sort of "thought crime" to entertain an article about the term. Well, i think that's ideological and not right according to the ideals of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is explicitly not a mainstream ideology adhering website. It is not a tool for propaganda. It is to present articles about all topics that merit an article, and this is one of them. Why did someone just hack away 80 or 90% of the article and then put it up for deletion? Because there are no good sources about this topic? Doesn't seem so. SageRad (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because 80-90% of the article was badly sourced fringe material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per OP. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as well explained by LuckyLouie. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —PermStrump(talk) 23:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —PermStrump(talk) 23:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as mere promotion of an neologism that has not caught on. By his own account, Lance deHaven-Smith coined the term in his 2006 article "State Crimes Against Democracy." (DeHaven-Smith, Lance. "When Political Crimes Are Inside Jobs: Detecting State Crimes against Democracy." Administrative Theory & Praxis 28, no. 3 (2006): 330-55. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25610803.) His coinage has had a decade to catch on, and it has gotten little traction despite the fact that the conspiracy theories deHaven-Smith peddles are very popular. Check out deHaven-Smith's website [21] "What are some examples of SCADs in recent U.S. history? : the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King; the attempted assassinations of George Wallace and Ronald Reagan; the election breakdowns in 2000 and 2004; the numerous defense failures on 9-11-2001; the anthrax mailings in October 2001" There's more, but you get the drift. 9/11 conspiracy theory. JFK assassination conspiracy theory. Anthrax mailing conspiracy theory. Good grief. Original deHaven-Smits 2006 article defines a SCAD as :"concerted actions or inactions by public officials that are intended to weaken or subvert popular control of their government." Note also that this page was started by an SPA in 2014, and has seen little in the way of expansion or incoming links in the years since. This seems to parallel the lack of resonance in the world at large, at least in my searches. The hits on the term in a books google search are a mix of conspiracy theory books, books about conspiracy theories, and a book by deHaven-Smith. If DeHaven-Smith's original article, or his book Conspiracy Theory in America were a Wikipedia article, we would delete it as mere WP:COATRACK, he piles one example after another with little to connect them, an dvirtually nothing in the way of evidence that these events were in fact conspiracies. Conspiracy Theory In America did garner a positive review on the website: Citizens for Truth About the Kennedy Assassination [22], but was ignored by the political press and scholarly world. Delete as per WP:BROCHURE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With 80 peer reviewed articles by at least 17 academics, the burden of proof is on those who claim that this topic is either "fringe" and/or not notable. If there are issues with any particular statements or references, they should be dealt with as individual items, and discussed on the article's talk page. And what was the hurry about TNT before delete discussion? Somebody attempted to restore the original version, but that was reverted because they also deleted the AfD tag. JerryRussell (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC) — JerryRussell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Now I see it was LuckyLouie who failed in his attempt to restore the article. But he's voting to delete it. The original article had 32 references, half were nuked even after LuckyLouie's attempt to restore the article. If you look at the page access stats, there were 250 views on the day the AfD appeared, and all those visitors saw the nuked version of the article. NO wonder most didn't stick around to vote in favor. This combination of nuke-and-pave followed by AfD followed by edit warring strikes me as seriously lacking integrity. JerryRussell (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought the WP:TNT done by a new but overenthusiastic editor was premature, however I did examine the full version of the article and found it lacking. I also posted a link to the pre-TNT version in my comment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie, thanks for posting the link. But the article as it stands is still a shadow of its former self, and the vast majority of visitors are not going to be so diligent as to track down the previous state of the article. Another overenthusiastic(?) editor reverted it to the destroyed state because you forgot to re-create the AfD tag? It seems to me it's too late now to undue the damage, so many editors have passed by without being correctly informed. This entire process ought to be declared a mistrial.JerryRussell (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JerryRussell: If you read my !vote above and the sidebar below, you'll see I was initially supportive until I explored those sources more in depth and found that all but 4-5 of them had contributed to a book on the topic together. Of the 4-5 independent sources, only 2 were in depth coverage. —PermStrump(talk) 05:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Wiki policies does it say that contributing to an edited volume creates a vested interest, and prevents objectivity on the part of the academic contributors?JerryRussell (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not tainted forever for everything they do (re: your comment in the sidebar). But they don't count towards the notability of this one particular topic. If there were more people covering it who were independent of the subject, those contributors could be used as sources (with due weight), but the fact that all of the contributors to the book have written other papers about it, but almost no one else has, is a reflection of the lack of notability of the topic outside of the inner-circle. I thought it was interesting stuff and I'm not arguing that it's fringe, but it's more of a neologism than anything else and it's only being used by a small group who collaborated on project about this very topic and stand to gain from book sales. —PermStrump(talk) 16:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not fringe, then the only question should be, how big does an academic movement need to be to achieve Wiki notability standards. Seriously, you're arguing that all these academics are motivated by the huge royalties paid for book chapters and peer reviewed journals? JerryRussell (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, and aside form how many partisans an idea requires to be notable, the idea has to be encountered and discussed by scholars or serious journalists who are not advocates for the topic. It is also, of course, usual for a new term/idea to be seized on by established, notable scholars and writers because the neologism is found by them to be useful. This is the sort of validation I would need to WP:HEY. Successful political neologisms include Islamophobia and Islamofascism but if you scan the WP political neologism category, you will see that many/most of the articles are disputed, or tagged for primary sourcing or notability. More of them probably ought to be.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi E.M.Gregory, thanks for at least entertaining the possibility of WP:HEY. Just as a hypothesis, what if the SCAD neologism has served its purpose at this point? That is, academics are increasingly willing to talk about government crimes and conspiracies, without fearing the taint of being called "conspiracy theorists"? Many people are still trying to throw around that insult, but it just isn't sticking any more. Even Donald Trump is a 911 conspiracy theorist. :-) But if SCAD has served its purpose as a neologism, it's still of historical notoriety.JerryRussell (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How big exactly? I don't know, but I suppose that's what this AFD is to decide. —PermStrump(talk) 20:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purely hypothetical, I was laying out what it would take, but those things do not exist in this case. I have searched and looked at what exists. Advocates for this concept are few, non-notable, and working inside in an echo chamber. I can find no no substantive sources outside that small echo chamber who take this concept seriously.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the person I remember, I believe you have actually done editing work during an AfD that led me to flip my vote from delete to keep; if that is right then your words here deserve a lot of weight. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am blessed with access to some really powerful search engines, so I am often able to weigh in with sources that many editors will have trouble finding. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is, by what authority are these delete discussions tallied up and decided? I found a policy article on this "nuke and pave" tactic, and somebody commented that delete discussions could also be nuked and paved. I'm very tempted. :-) JerryRussell (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responded below in sidebar. —PermStrump(talk) 15:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the arguments above RE the sourcing. Appears to be in use by a small circle. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG (except to those in an echo chamber it seems). Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar[edit]

It seems like it would be useful to at least try to reach consensus on how to categorize the topic (not the TNT'ed content). Because if we're evaluating it with WP:NFRINGE guidelines, we'd have to explore if the ~80 peer-reviewed articles on the topic are all "in-universe" in order to assess notability. If we decide the topic is legitimate perspective in the political science field, or even that it's an "alternative theoretical formulation" then I guess WP:GNG would be the applicable guideline? On the other hand, maybe the topic boils down to just being a phrase some professor coined and we should think of it as a WP:NEOLOGISM. I don't know what my opinion is yet (and WP:NEO just occurred to me, so now I have to brush up on that), but I do worry we're being too quick to assume that the topic is FRINGE. —PermStrump(talk) 19:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling about the same. There are a couple ways to go with this. Since "State Crimes Against Democracy" appears to be a term in limited use by a small group of "involved" academics, the article might better be renamed [[Preventing State Crimes Against Democracy (book)]]. Or it could be a bio of Lance deHaven-Smith. In both cases, we'd need to find truly independent sources that objectively describe these views, e.g. [23] so we can write a neutral article that's not coatracking and soapboxing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait... There's a book? My gut reaction to learning that is that the article is likely an WP:ADMASQ for the book and also happens to be WP:FRINGEBAIT (that should be a thing). And I would bet that the majority of people who buy the book (outside of his students) are conspiracy theorists, so the more provocative statements he makes online are probably catering to his audience and that's why it sounds so different from what he's actually published in peer-reviewed journals. Anyway, I guess we should add WP:NBOOK and WP:ACADEMIC to the list of options for how to evaluate this. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that there's zero coverage of the topic in the mainstream media, but there were more academic articles in peer-reviewed journals than I originally expected. Let's say this was an article about the book, what does that say about its notability? —PermStrump(talk) 20:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: a possible book article - it is a bit confusing, but it seems there are two books hawking this term: State Crimes Against Democracy (Political Forensics in Public Affairs) by Matthew Witt (with Lance DeHaven-Smith listed as "contributor"), and Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance DeHaven-Smith (containing a substantial acknowledgement to Matthew Witt). Like I said, the topic is forwarded within small group of "involved" academics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State Crimes Against Democracy: Political Forensics in Public Affairs by Alexander Kouzmin, Matthew T. Witt, and Andrew Kakabadse lists 17 contributors (including deHaven-Smith and the 3 listed as authors), so maybe that list will make it easier to tease out which of the 80ish peer-reviewed articles are actually independent. I think we can assume anything written by at least these people has a potential COI: Alkadry MG, Burke J, deHaven-Smith L, Dixon J, Hinson C, Jensen C, Johannesson J, Kakabadse A, Kakabadse NK, Kouzmin A, Kuku-Siemons DS, Mouraviev N, Pappas NV, Siemons H, Simnjanovsk R, Spehr S, Witt M. And their works shouldn't count separately towards the notability of the concept or book. I wonder if we'll find anything truly independent, even if it's to criticize SCADs. The suspense! —PermStrump(talk) 22:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI makes a distinction between biography and other types of articles. Writing about yourself is automatically a serious conflict, but writing about subject matter within an editor's field of expertise is not necessarily COI. The idea that contributing to a collected academic volume creates a COI among a big group of authors seems silly to me.JerryRussell (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:JerryRussell pardon the ping; not sure you are watching this page. Yes, "COI" is being used incorrectly above; what I believe is meant is WP:INDY. as in WP:Golden rule. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytog, where on WP:INDY does it say that contributing to an edited volume creates a vested interest that would be relevant to an academic topic article? I think what we have here is seventeen independent academic voices.JerryRussell (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, of course. I think you have to read a bit more than the first line to get the spirit of INDY, however :) Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read it, 'the spirit of indy' is to prevent corporations from buying Wiki articles, and to prevent people from writing about their mother. It's not to prevent academic collaboration in creating edited volumes.JerryRussell (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is part of it; it is also a test of whether the notion is discussed outside of a "bubble"; in other words, is it possible to generate a truly neutral article. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

on the contrary, if 17 different academics have published 80 articles in respected peer-reviewed journals, and no one has published an attack anywhere, this is not what a 'bubble' looks like. On the contrary, it's virtually a sign of academic consensus that these authors have found a way to address SCAD (formerly known as conspiracy theory) in a way that's academically respectable. The question should be, when is an academic movement big enough to achieve notability?JerryRussell (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Found an article [24] about Matthew DeWitt and his book State Crimes Against Democracy: Political Forensics in Public Affairs in a promotional mag published by the not-prominent school where he teaches, University of La Verne. The Article Dr. Matt Witt and Former Student Collaborate to Raise Awareness About ‘State Crimes Against Democracy’ in New Book makes it very clear that the book is a work of advocacy/promotion of the SCAD neologism/concept: “This book is important to me, personally, because it assembles scholars from around the world working together to create a new social science paradigm keyed to forensic analysis of public affairs in order to better understand how otherwise democratic institutions can be systematically gamed and corrupted,” Witt said. So, the articles in the book, and the book fail WP:INDY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar search fails to turn up any review of State Crimes Against Democracy: Political Forensics in Public Affairs [25]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the book itself only counts as one source -- if the contributors then write other articles elsewhere, those other articles would be independent sources. A person is not tainted forever by contributing to an edited volume. JerryRussell (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One might even think of the DeWitt book as a sort of extended review or academic meditation on the themes posed in deHaven-Smit's original book and journal articles. A confirmation of academic notability, in other words.JerryRussell (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the article I cited above, the editor makes it clear that the agenda of this book was neither an "extended review or academic meditation," nor yet a scholarly attempt to present a range of perspective on a topic, but, rather, an agenda-driven effort "to make some serious headway in American politics." In other words, it is a polemic. A perfectly legitimate form of authorship, but not WP:INDY because the authors in the volume were all pushing the same perspective. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the editor "wants to make some serious headway in American politics." In what way does that connect with "pushing an agenda" specifically related to SCAD? And even if the editor had such an "agenda", how does this prove that all the contributors shared that exact "agenda"? By this definition of "Indy", any authors sharing the same viewpoint are automatically considered non-independent. The same argument could extend to all authors that contributed to any peer-reviewed journal over many years.JerryRussell (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a tendentious argument. Look, for mainstream stuff people can have different ideas - let's say the best way to organize a health care system in a country. You can make arguments for universal healthcare, and you can make arguments about a free market approach; there are a range of independent sources about the thing. Then you get "bubble" concepts like this where the only people who even use the term are in that bubble. In this case a semi-conspiracist FRINGE bubble. In my view there is actually an important notion here but by giving themselves over sloppily to the fullbore wingnut crowd with interviews like this the proponents have marginalized themselves to the extent that the idea seems to be simply ignored by the mainstream. I have found no mainstream sources addressing this concept and we cannot write a neutral article about it Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC) (redact to complete the thought, sorry Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hear, hear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JerryRussell re: Your comment above... What does "nuke and pave" mean? As far as I know everything is recorded in the history and someone would just revert it.—PermStrump(talk) 15:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See [26] Also formerly known as "Demolish and Delete". Also WP:TNT, etc. I think it's satire, but these days it's hard to be sure.JerryRussell (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of 'keep' arguments[edit]

removed non-neutral "deletionists" from section header Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to statements by LuckyLouie and MjolnirPants that the article is wp:synth, I've now read some chapters from deHaven-Smith's book, and I feel confident that the article accurately represents his views and research as stated in his published book and peer reviewed articles. Thanks to MjolnirPants' suggestion, I put the article in 'source voice' to make it clear that the opinions were coming from deHaven-Smith.

Ad Orientem claimed that the article was a coat-rack, but I believe it only appeared that way because of the nuke-and-pave attempt.

It is agreed that the article represents a minority viewpoint, and thus according to NPOV, it should not be given undue weight in summary articles. However, it is disputed whether it is PSCI or FRINGE.

Someone complained that it was impossible to write a balanced article, because no RS have attacked the concept. My argument would be that no one has attacked the concept in any RS because SCAD is simple common sense. But I have done my best to provide a balanced intro based on valid use of WP:SYNTH and WP:BLUE. I hope my detractors will have the courtesy to let my attempt stand during the admin review of the article and this delete discussion. JerryRussell (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An unresolved question is whether the article meets GNG. As an academic movement, it has attracted >15 self-identified adherents. As a neologism, it has accumulated >100 references at google scholar. In the mass media, it has apparently gone completely unmentioned. I believe Wiki has many articles on academic concepts that are far less notable, but haven't gone to search for examples.JerryRussell (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My argument would be that no one has attacked the concept in any RS because SCAD is simple common sense. Honestly, I find this statement humorous beyond words. A neologism, used almost exclusively by conspiracy theorists to classify events which exist almost exclusively in the minds of conspiracy theorists, elucidated by breathless adherents and relying upon torturous logic (conflating law and ethics, reality and conspiracy theories, and somehow insisting that democracy is the victim), and yet you insist it is "simple common sense". It's not.

Nor are those who voted to delete "deletionists", nor does this subject qualify as an academic concept. The reason we cannot write a balanced article about it is not because there are no sources attacking it: It is because all the sources we have describing it are suspect, because the description is so vague as to be useless, and because it is only used by a fringe group. You can 'contest' those statements, but they will remain factual nonetheless.

Finally, in a process in which the dominant voice and argument has been to delete, it is quite dishonest to post a 'summary' which ignores all of that in favor of repeating the sparse arguments to keep which have been presented. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'common sense', that's just my opinion. Others can make it as complicated as they want.

The section title was originally 'summary and reply to deletionists', which made it perfectly clear that it was from a POV, not a neutral summary.JerryRussell (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to the 'dominant voice', I count 2 keep, 1 week keep, 11 delete. But, many of those 'deletes' came in early, and they were looking at the TNT version of the article. Is this determined by 'dominant voice'; by most reasoned argument according to the policies; or by consensus? I thought it was by consensus, and I don't see any consensus.JerryRussell (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing other editors as "deletionists" because they don't agree with you isn't a valid argument in a deletion discussion. And the problems previously noted in my !vote for deletion remain unchanged. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the word 'deletionist' wasn't an argument, it was a descriptive term. Jytdog's edit created the confusion in the headline, hopefully now it's clear enough. If editors are concerned about being described as 'deletionist' perhaps they shouldn't put so much effort into trying to get highly informative and interesting articles deleted? But, no offense intended.JerryRussell (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the word 'deletionist' is a rhetorical device known as Dehumanization, which undermines opinions voiced against you by ascribing them to a group which is defined by their opposition to you. It falsely implies that all such arguments are circular by suggesting that opposition is ideological instead of rational. It is a form of an ad hominem argument, and is a fallacy on multiple levels. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants, Is the concept of 'fringe' a similar rhetorical device? JerryRussell (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

request for feedback[edit]

Somebody mentioned to me that I might be 'bludgeoning' this topic, and that it's inappropriate for one editor to take on such a prominent voice in a discussion here. Do others agree? It would certainly be less work if I were able to relax and just trust in the consensus process. I would especially like to hear from those editors who support keeping the article.JerryRussell (talk) 15:07, 27 May 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.