< 15 October	17 October >

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. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leary Lentz[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable athlete. Quis separabit? 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NBASKETBALL states, to be notable, a subject must "Have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association..." Lentz played in the original ABA, so he is presumed notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eddy. Meets WP:NBASKETBALL as a former American Basketball Association player. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Ejgreen states, he played in the original ABA (which is a league folded into the NBA in the 70s. Rikster2 (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: definitely meets basketball notability requirements by having played in the ABA.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk)
- Speedy Keep Meets WP:NBASKETBALL BlackAmerican (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NBASKETBALL by playing in the ABA. Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:57, 20 October 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. There is a fundamental disagreement in this thorough discussion, per deletion being qualified as per WP:NOTNEWS versus article qualification per the topic having received ongoing sustained coverage, an indicator of having enduring significance (see WP:EVENTCRIT for more information). Both viewpoints have been asserted and debated by several users, as have some other matters. Some of the rationales for retention are based upon the topic meeting the General notability guideline, but do not address WP:NOTNEWS concerns, the latter of which carries more weight regarding Wikipedia articles as part of the What Wikipedia is not policy page. The conferring of less weight to keep rationales that do not address WP:NOTNEWS concerns is necessary herein, and as such, no consensus for a particular action has occurred. Ideas and concerns about the article, such as its content and the potential for a merge and/or redirect to another article, can continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Jerusalem shooting attack[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. There's been an unfortunate habit of creating an article for every news event involving violence, at least every event involving violence against Israelis, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This should be merged to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 unless some sustained coverage, which requires time, can be shown Nableezy 23:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:RECENTISM. Yes, I know that NOTNEWS and NOTMEMORIAL indicate the "article" should be deleted, but I also know that the "article" will almost certainly be kept regardless of policy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of reason is that? Zero^talk 00:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason(ing) is this: Since the administrator who closes this discussion is almost certain to ignore all rules (and not in a WP:IAR sort of way, because that policy requires as a condition the improvement of Wikipedia) and close it as keep based on a nose-count, it doesn't matter that I cite policy that says this alleged article is a Wiki-abomination. I might as well vote with the majority. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this logic we should delete half of the articles about events in Wikipedia.Many articles rely solely on contemporary news articles of those events.I don't mind the mind the cleanup but it should be uniform. Till that this article should stay--Shrike (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm no. If you dont get the logic feel free to ask, but try not to misrepresent it. K thnx. nableezy - 14:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was meant for Malik.I fixed the indent--Shrike (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence that this event is of an enduring encyclopedic nature at this point. Redirect to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 per nom. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG many WP:RS sources discuss this event not only as news but more thorough analysis for example [1],[2]--Shrike (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG, plenty of sources.BabbaQ (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEYMANN, I have expanded the article with sources and events that have taken place since the shooting. (I have not yet added the excellent sources brought by User:Shrike above). More remains to be added on details of the attack; political context, but article clearly passes WP:GNG. Note also that it is routine practice to add terror attacks when they occur.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is your routine. And please note, WP:NOT is a Wikipedia policy. WP:GNG is a guideline. A violation of WP:NOT cannot be addressed by an assertion that it satisfies a guideline. nableezy - 03:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now has plenty of reliable sources and coverage XyzSpaniel Talk Page 07:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously. Apart from the ongoing defiance of policy, E. M. Gregory's attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ethnic exclusive version of Yad Vashem fails here, because the details on the incident in the new article are already far more comprehensively covered in the specialist article dedicated to this violence List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 (See October 9), which is maintained by myself and User:Bolter21, so both POVs are respected and both editors take pains to ensure the other side's story is duly covered. Thus this is sheer POV-pushing reduplication when not el cheapo forays into quick separate article compilation that looks great on a wiki CV. Please note that in the latter article, all incidents of violence by both sides are set out in chronological context, not according to an ethnocentric bias according to which violence undertaken by Israel is insignificant on wikipedia whereas Palestinian violence must be given intensive coverage. Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This personal attack is inappropriate. It is also inaccurate. I create articles on events in many parts of the world. The articles I create on the murder of Jews are in no way different from the articles I create on terrorist murders of other peoples, such as 2014 Tours police station stabbing, 2014 Kabul restaurant bombing, or 2016 Brussels stabbing. I fail to understand the accsusation that creating well-sourced articles is an "ongoing defiance of policy." As for Nishdani's assertion that creating articles on attacks by Islamist terrorists that target Jews is an "attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ethnic exclusive version of Yad Vashem," it is not only inaccurate; it is foul. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article is similar to other new terrorist attack articles: Notre Dame Cathedral bombing attempt, 2016 Brussels stabbing, 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing, and others. It is, however, far more efficient to create these articles when the attack occurs and sources are usually available as open sources, than to create one like 1996 Paris Métro bombing 20 years after the event when sources and details are more difficult to locate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to note above. Self-citation. Those 3 are all cheapo articles run up in an hour by yourself, like dozens of earlier ones, violating wiki notability policies. They all deal with Arabs, same POV.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Nishdani's assertion ("all... Arabs") is untrue. "cheapo" is his opinion, merely.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia has scores of similar articles, I cited 3 that I created recently, but look at Category:Stabbing attacks in 2016 or Category:Terrorist incidents in 2016 to see that such articles are routinely started and, when taken to AFD (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Tel Aviv knife attack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2016 Paris police station attack (2nd nomination)) routinely kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as part of my deletionist approach to non-prominant terrorist attacks, this attack is not prominant, and has a place in Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present). It doesn't need an article. There is no encyclopedic value to this attack. You can't justify this attack with other articles about attacks in France or Belgium and I do not deny the fact some of those attacks (in Europe and the US) doesn't really need an article but it doesn't matter right now. Amos Harel and Ron Ben Yishai both said that this attack might have copycats, but apart from four days of rioting (after a year of rioting) in Jerusalem, nothing really happened. As we already have an article, talking about the phase of violance in which this incident occured, and generally speaking it was forgotten less than a week after, just like most of the attacks, it has no significance.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat unusual on Wikipedia to maintain a list of events that do not have stand-alone articles. Whereas it is standard policy for articles that, as editors have stated above, pass WP:GNG, to have stand-alone articles, often linked from multiple lists. You, Nishcdani and Nom appear to be arguing for special standards to be applied exclusively to attacks on Jews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Bolter, I and the nominator are anti-Semites. Some might believe that innuendo, but Bolter21 is definitely not a self-hating Jew. This is a policy issue, and ethnic discrimination has nothing to do with it. I don't jump at the numerous opportunities afforded by events to make up cheapo articles on Palestinian victims of Israeli violence. Distaste for the abuse of wiki to such ends, as well as wiki policies on notability (read correctly for durability) explain it- nothing else.As for it being somewhat unusual ìto maintain a list of events that do not have stand-alone articles', um,uh, . .Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, they are documented, despite almost never causing any casualities, minutely. No one has succumbed to the temptation to create Lists of Israeli rocket and artillery attacks on the Gaza Strip, which are just as numerous.Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT put words in my mouth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I DO NOT NEED TO. I construed correctly your last remark:'You, Nishcdani and Nom appear to be arguing for special standards to be applied exclusively to attacks on Jews.'Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that editors new to this page will judge the content and notability on the merits, evaluating notability as per policy, based on the available sourcing and the extent and depth of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that, without much confidence, that new editors will read closely WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:RECENTISM, if only because they have an archaeological value as ancient history and have long ceased to be applied to articles like this.Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again genius, Wikipedia policy trumps a guideline. If this article violates WP:NOTNEWS, and it does, it should be deleted. The end. And you make one more accusation of antisemitism I will seek sanctions against you. That type of cowardly argument might work elsewhere, but Im not having it. nableezy - 14:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to re-read WP:NOTNEWS, which encourages editors to crate "to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", while discouraging articles on routine events, like sports announcements, presumably because ideologically-motivated terror attacks always continue to be discussed. I have, for this reason, recently created articles about events like the 2014 Kabul restaurant bombing, which should have had an article in 2014. Indeed, my very first edit [3] was about a terror bombing that I wanted to know some reliable details about even though it happened in 1906. Now I suggest that since both of you are merely repeating your own arguments, you put down the WP:BLUDGEONS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant current events. There is an ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. This is routine in that context. Finally, Ive seen you cite WP:BLUDGEON a number of times, and ironically every single time you have done so youve done it AfD in which you had both the most volume and largest number of comments. So please, try to be a bit more self-aware. Because citing something when it is critical of your exact behavior only makes you look, well to be blunt, foolish. Oh hey, look leading the pack once more (excuse my edits adding this page to delsort lists). nableezy - 16:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, come on. Your hostile attitude is just so unnecessary. You use insults to make your point come across. It makes all your reasonings invalid. Grow up man.BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying a policy trumps a guideline is neither hostile or invalid. Finishing a comment on insults with an insult is, well, is irony the right word here? nableezy - 05:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just one passing glance at the article, for eyes accustomed to this area, will tell you that this is an article russled up by (a) consistent distortion of sources (b) POV-spinning by consistently leaving out information not conducive to the image the editor who made it wants to concoct. I'm busy on other things but here are just a few examples from a random check. It is clear that the man in question committed an act of terrorism, that does not exculpate wiki editors from giving a comprehensive and neutral account of him, and what he did.

The attack was unusual in Israel’ (The attack did not take place in israel)
Yossi Melman is misspelt
Melman writes:'The attack is under a gag order and Melman says it is not yet known whether or not he was a member of Hamas.'

Notwithstanding this, you ignored it to highlight the meme replication from quick wire services that he is a Hamas operative. We don't know.

You've suppressed all context amply given in the sources you cite:Melman mentions that context:’bearing in mind the intensified, poisonous atmosphere, the lack of diplomatic progress, the expansion of the settlements and the weakening of the Palestinian Authority president.’

The background of the man is given in the Ma'an article: we give it on the list, you suppressed it. There are zero details on his background.
Sources state one of the casualties was a Palestinian from Hebron. You don't mention this. Palestinians aren't significant victims in this mad internecine conflict.

The terrorist was known as the ‘Lion of Al-Aqsa/Jerusaslem’ among Palestinian residents in Silwan, not by Hamas, as you put it over. He won this monicker for his activism in defending Palestinian rights to the Al-Aqsa mosque. Not mentioned. Instead we have this local epithet credited to Hamas ‘Hamas claimed credit for the killings, hailing Hamas member Musbah Abu Sbaih, and describing him as a man known as the "Lion of Al Aqsa’.
'The terrorist published a “will” in which he called on Muslims to act to protect the mosque.' Not mentioned.
’The Hamas militant group stopped short of claiming responsibility for the attack.’(New York Times(Associated Press) is paraphrased as Hamas claimed credit for the killings.
His ‘long police record' is detailed here. That phrase was circulated from an Israeli policed report. No source mentions anything other than (a) a conviction for alleged assault of a policeman, (b) 4 months imprisonment for something he posted on Facebook. You use the police press handout ('suspected terrorist for years', no charge ever brought), and ignore the details, which paint a different picture.

I've never seen any of the article in this area you create faithfully reflect the full content of sources. You give a caricature of selective details, and then wait for someone else, if anyone notices, to fix the travesty, while posting intensely in defense of them as you wrote them.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC: "The militant Islamist group Hamas praised the attack and said the gunman, Musbah Abu Sbaih, was one of its members."[4]. And in the AP/Washington Post story to which it was sourced in the article. Please check your facts before you accuse fellow editors of failing to do so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a valid, policy-based argument for deletion. If the article contains errors, they can and should be corrected. Errors are not a cause for deletion, rather, like the rest of your ad hominem attack, they are a form of WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the most annoying drawbacks of the English wikipedia is that AfDs like this one will always end democratically. While a "no consensus" means the article will remain, in reality "no consensus" should determine that the article will be deleted, becuase just like there is no consensus to delete it, there is no consensus to have it. This article does not pass the WP:GNG test, in one spesific point, "independence". This subject does not stand alone, it is just one of the minor escalations since January 2016, in the "Intifada of Invdividuals". Sadly, it seems most of the people who decided to Keep, didn't really talk about the incident within the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but only about the technical sourcing of the article. Malik Shabazz's comment is weird, because he explain his reason to Keep the article with explaination for deleting it.. Bachcell's comment fail to mention the independence of this incident from the Intifada of Individuals, which clrealy it doesn't. Shrike mentioned two analysis articles but they do not give this article more significance - one of the analysis talked about the ambigues gig order and the other said the attack might spark a new uprising - which it didn't. To E.M. Gregory's comment about WP:GNG I"ve already responded above. A not even complete line-comment was made by BabbaQ and Xyzspaniel, which saddens me. So in conclusion, looking at this discussion, there are more arguments against the article, but more "hit and run" comments in support of it, with no regard to the actual subject the article talks about: The Intifada of Individuals, as part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To all the people I"ve mentioned here, please, for the sake of not making this yet another democratic vote, please either revert or change your vote according to the above, or explain to me, why is this incident so special in the Intifada of Individuals, that occured in Israel and the PT for the last 12 months, that it requires an article and not a paragraph in the subject's article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bachcell:, User:Bolter21 refers to a comment by User:Bachcell, and I can see on the page history that User:Bachcell made a comment, but the comment itself appears to have disappeared.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the second comment in the article, still there. Yet you avoided my comment.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I state above. You are proposing a new standard to be applied solely to attacks on Jews; a standard not applied to terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world. Please read WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit, no he is not. And kindly read that yourself. You mentioned BLUDGEON several times in an AFD that saw you have 40+% of edits by count and total size. Again, repeating an admonition that you are a textbook case of is foolish, and thats being kind. nableezy - 18:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, using words like BS and foolish, towards another user just makes you look bad. Nothing else.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im not all that concerned with what you think looks bad. EM Gregory is making an odious argument, one not based on any fact, with an insinuation of antisemitism. That is in fact bullshit, as in trivial, insincere, or untruthful talk or writing; nonsense. nableezy - 19:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you do care. Otherwise you would not respond. Or continue to use words only for reactions. It is the way it is, good luck with that. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a little. Like to the entire comment. Not even a little. nableezy - 23:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it more annoying that users like Bolter21 is argumentative against anyone who does not support his view in an AfD. An AfD is made to reach an overall consensus on an article, not to get to an agreement that delete is the best option. No consensus should not mean that the article is deleted. Quite opposite it is really good that no consensus leads to Keep, so that any concerns can be worked on. It is just pointless to argue or make demands like Bolter21 is doing. It makes his own rationales weaker. BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bolter21 has a POV diametrically opposed to mine. One thing you can be assured of: if we agree, it will be based on rational discussion and policy, not automatic siding with one side or another. Most of those who write keep invariably on such articles - I only know you from I/P AdFs- just turn up, write keep, wave a policy flag and disappear. People who work hard in this area, and Bolter is among the best, both contribute to article construction and listen. Intelligent objections have been made, and people keep saying keep without an intelligible policy at hand. That is why Shabazz's irony is justified. The only rationale for keep for such pathetic articles is that policy is ignored consistently. We know the outcome, but insist that retention means mechanical consensus from those who do not read the sources will trump policy. Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless to argue? Are you for real? You are presented with strong arguments here, yet you refuse to discuss it. When you have a majority of votes, but you refuse to discuss them, you are exaclty exploiting the Tyranny of the majority, because you are confident enough in the number of votes in support of your view point, so you have no interest in spending your time, when you can manipulate the system to work for you, dispite the fact, Wikipedia is NOT a WP:DEMOCRACY, based on the rule of the majority, and therefore I urge you to be challenged by the arguments presented to you by me and the people who argued aganinst the article, and not simply say "meh its your problem" when asked to do so. If you are unwilling to discuss, confident in the fact there is a numeral majority to your position, you shouln't comment in the first place.

This manipulation is very common, when the "majority" side looses interest in argueing, saying things like "there is no point in argueing, we have a consensus". If you will simply refuse to argue, there will be no consensus, and the article, which according to some, violates wiki policies will stay, and it is the unethical thing to do.

Just answer to my question: Can you explain the significane of this incident in the "Intifada of Individuals"? If not, the articles does not pass WP:GNG and should be deleted.

And this whole comment I make, is becuase of the previous destructive results of democracy in Wikipedia, sometimes changing facts with no source, and then defended by people who claim that because there is or isn't a consensus, a reliable source can't be used, and that the consensus/lack there of, is the ruling, dispite the obvious violation of Wikipedia's policy.

I really don't care about this article, it is just a principal. I am sick of seeing democracy ruling here. If you can't answer to the arguments challenging your opinion, your opinion is invalid in this AfD. I am an Israeli citizen, I have no interest in whitewashing the terrorism that effects my country for the last 90 years, so the allegations of anti-semitism, or your allegations that I am "trying new tactics" because people don't agree with me, are quite absurd.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care about this article - OMG man, then why are you assuming bad faith and keep on bickering at any Keep !vote. Your opinions are invalid in this discussion per your comment above and your overall argumentative stand.--18:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)BabbaQ (talk)

The rest of your response is just unintelligible rambling.. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article should always exist when there is too much information for a simple list entry. Having a list entry should only justify deleting an article if that article only repeats information already in a list. Otherwise the effect is to destroy useful information about an incident for which there is international interest. Bachcell (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC). (I have moved this new comment down the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Bachcell. This article has less information that the one Bolter21 wrote for the other page. The difference is only that Gregory adds the usual responses sections, which no one ever reads, and are devoid of interest, insight or information that throws light on the incident.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Nishidani, tell us how you really feel :D Come one, strawman.. strawman.--

BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do us the courtesy of focusing on policy arguments please, for once. This is not an opinion poll.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do me the courtesy and stop using this AfD as an opinion poll then.. if it is like you say. Because from what I can see the only ones that are using this AfD as an opinion poll more than a AfD is you and a few others. Just keeping it real.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN. Article has been further expanded and sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that this is the deadliest attack [5] in Israel since the June 2016 Tel Aviv shooting, which has a stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is determined by number of deaths, this article should be deleted. There were two incidents since June in which one person died. Now two people died, doesn't make it more significant. Gregory, answer the damn question, why is this incident independent outside of the still ongoing Intifada of Individuals?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact that shootings in Israel are not as common as in the US, is notable enough. We have mall shootings in the US and articles for that, that we have one or two articles about shootings in Israel shows that it is not a violation of NOTNEWS but it's a notable event and the expanded article clearly passes the keep threshold. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not about 'shootings in Israel', a misimpression both you and Gregory are laboring under. Most shootings occur in East Jerusalem or the occupied territories, beyond Israel's borders, and the majority are (see the casualty lists) undertaken by the IDF and Israeli border guards.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to Nishdani, Bolter21. As I just explained at another AFD, We do not decide what's notable based on arguments from principle, rather, we follow the sources. If multiple, major, national and international new sources cover a shooting in ways that meet WP:GNG, and major political analysts and news commentators discuss it in depth, it is deemed WP:NOTABLE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, GNG is a guideline which cannot trump WP:NOTNEWS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pr nom. (..and though it obviously fails the usual criteria for notability, I agree with the above sentiments that "the usual suspects" will all vote keep....so it is unlikely to that an admin will actually follow policy and delete it. Sigh. Big Sigh.) Huldra (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's argument was that it should be kept only if "some sustained coverage, which requires time, can be shown" And even the most cursory search [ shows that it has been covered continuously since it occurred [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016. This is patent WP:NOTNEWS material and is a routine attack. The amount of coverage is the same as other attacks of this type and we don't need to create a separate article for this. The lasting effects have not been shown and Wikipedia is neither a directory of attacks on Israel nor a directory of attacks on Palestine. There is nothing to distinguish this from say 2016 killing of Palestinian woman at Tapuah Junction The arguments of WP:HEY are invalid as it cannot trump WP:NOTNEWS. Accordingly redirect or delete. My redirect is essentially a compromise vote. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand both NOTNEWS and WP:HEYMANN, which is the practice of meeting WP:GNG by improving an article with sources demonstrating the non-routine nature of a crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, on the contrary, it seems you have absolutely no understanding of WP:NOTNEWS. HEYMANN cannot trump What Wikipedia is NOT. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG routinely trumps NOTNEWS with attacks in which an ideological or ethnicity-related motive is suspected: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2016 Paris police station attack (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Rajshahi mosque bombing, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Tel Aviv shooting, presumably because such attacks attract extensive and ongoing coverage and analysis. Of course, extremely few of the many, many articles on recent terrorist attacks are brought to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANNcontinuing to expand with recent detentions, closing of printer, investigations of teachers, arrest of soccer coach, murderer's daughter (since released) on charges of incitement. All showing broad impact, consequences, national media coverage of this attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to stop crusading this AfD with your HEYMANN (whic is an essay by the way and not a wikipolicy).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely proper to improve, expand article during AFD. And to notify editors her when WP:HEYMANN has been performed in ways that meet objections raised, such as my recent edits demonstrating impact (arrests) and ongoing coverage coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When people tell you the article does not pass WP:GNG, it doesn't matter how much you will expand the aritlce. Answer to the question already, why is this incident so special in the subject of the Intifada of Individuals?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable because of the impact and event. The size of the shooting, the sustained coverage, etc., as the nominator pointed out. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The size was not that big. There was no major impact at all. We are 10 days after and nothing happend. The size is not big, there are attacks like this one everyday globaly, and even if in Israel it is rarer, it does not make it notable. The sustained coverege doesn't make it independent. There was recently a collapse at a building site and searches were conducted for three days, in the aftermath 4 people died, two of the foreign nationals and there were people pointing fingers at politicians and organizations, yet it is not noteable, it is not an "event" in history, just like this incident. It is not an event, it "just another" one.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've waited for this attack to have some impact that distinguishes it from many other small incidents and it hasn't happened. No lasting impact = no article. It really is that simple. Also add WP:EVENT to the list of policy&guideline pages which are relevant. If this article is kept, one year from now the majority of Google hits for this event will be Wikipedia derivatives. Zero^talk 23:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another instance of an editor holding a shooting in Israel to standards that are not imposed on shootings in the United States or on terrorist attacks generally.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the second time on this page that a shooting which occurred outside Israel's borders, in East Jerusalem, has been described as in Israel. You must have read my correction, EMG. Could you just strike that out: everyone knows it is not true.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another instance of you making things up. Are you at all aware of how many shootings a day there are in the United States? You think we have articles on them? And once again, there is an ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. We dont have an article on each roadside bombing during the Iraq War either. We do have a a list for each year though. Please stop lying about other editors, thank you. nableezy - 20:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. the attack took place at the Ammunition Hill light rail station.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ammunition Hill is also in East Jerusalem. nableezy - 19:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to acquaint yourself with the fact that Israel rules this area as sovereign territory, and that it is in a different legal category than the disputed West Bank, and different again from territory under the control of the Palestinian Authority.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus christ, you said it was not in East Jerusalem. You said there are no light rail stations in East Jerusalem. You said there is a separation barrier in Jerusalem. All of those things are flat out wrong. The only person that has written the words Palestinian Authority up to this point on this page, with one minor unrelated mention, is you. You apparently have no idea what you are talking about, and with that I'm done. nableezy - 02:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is territory where Israel claims sovereignty, and rules as a sovereign state.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors who may be unaware of the reality that this attack like the entire track of the Jerusalem Light Rail are in West Jerusalem, NOT in East Jerusalem. It is on tool place in a central Jerusalem neighborhood on the Israeli side of the separation barrier. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Sheikh Jarrah is in East Jeruslaem. So is Pisgat Ze'ev. And there is no "separation barrier" in Jerusalem. Do you know anything at all about this topic? If so, why are you saying blatantly false things? If not, why are you saying things of which you have no knowledge? Please do not continue making completely false assertions that anybody with even a little bit of knowledge of the topic area can quickly see are wrong, intentionally (aka a lie) or otherwise. Thank you. nableezy - 19:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. The attack took place at the Ammunition Hill light rail station in central Jerusalem. NOT in territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)

lol, that was a response to the entire track of the Jerusalem Light Rail are (sic) in West Jerusalem which is blatantly incorrect. There are, as best I can tell, 9 light rail stations in East Jerusalem. And Ammunition Hill is also in East Jeruslam, part of the occupied Palestinian territories and not "in Israel". That really is not relevant, but you should try to acquaint yourself with the topic a bit. nableezy - 19:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that one impact of this very recent terror attack is the arrest of Palestinians for celebrating this attack, including the perp's daughter and "Soccer Coach Arrested After Posing With Banner Supporting Jerusalem Gunman" [[7]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The arrest of Palestinians" is not a significant impact, given the fact some 8,000 were arrested last year.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. This incident can be revisited in a year or so to see whether it meets Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria, as can any of the many incidents of violence between Israelis and Palestinians in the various 'List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict' articles. A good Wikipedian would be willing to wait until there is actual evidence of lasting effects. I wasn't going to vote but I was persuaded to do so by E.M.Gregory's behavior, which I think is counterproductive. If the article is to be kept there is some background information on the shooter in [8]. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article is not from a RS; but there is indeed copious sourcing, including discussion of the unusual nature of this attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lol, youve added Arutz Sheva all over the place, but Maan is not a reliable source? Thats been settled at RS/N, sorry to say for you, and it is indeed a reliable source. But to the point, since you love repeating this, try reading it. WP:BLUDGEON. You currently have 23% of the edits by size on this page and a whopping 27% of the edits by count. So, please, instead of citing WP:BLUDGEON to others completely unaware of how you are a textbook case of it, try reading it. nableezy - 19:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an RS. If it were not, I would not have provided it. Not only is it an RS, it's an RS that could enhance the breadth and depth of the article for readers. There is nothing unusual about Israelis and Palestinians shooting and killing each other. One of the reasons WP:NOTNEWS policy should be strictly enforced on ARBPIA articles like this, articles about incidents of violence where insufficient time has passed to allow a proper assessment of compliance with Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria, is that they attract editors who don't even try "to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict." Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see most of those !voting Delete gives a IDONTLIKEIT rationale. All from "pr nom." and then just copying a rambling text about how those who are !voting keep can not be right simply because !voting Keep is wrong without any reasoning for that stance. To lasting impact on an incident happened recently, do you own a magical ball to see in to the future with?. To rationales such as WP:NOTNEWS and that the coverage is routine? Routine? Of course an attack of this kind gets coverage. It is very weak... weak.BabbaQ (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Lawrence (actor)[edit]

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

A largely uncited BLP of an unremarkable actor that does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:PORNBIO. Award listed is not significant and well known. The article is cited to directory listings and other non RS. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little in the way of external links and those in the article are either deadlinks or barely mention the subject. No available evidence subject meets N of WP:PORNBIO or any other threshold. X4n6 (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability per WP:PORNBIO. The only thing close to a reliable reference is a porn trade press article about the subject's wedding. Independent searches for RS coverage yield republished press releases. Nowhere near passing WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO, bereft of independent and reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actor, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rofo[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a band, which makes vague promotionally-toned claims to passing WP:NMUSIC ("to great success", "a big hit around Europe", etc.) but completely fails to quantify or source any verifiable evidence that those things are actually true. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they can be nominally verified as having existed; they must garner reliable source coverage by which their passage of an NMUSIC criterion can be confirmed. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any coverage. I found a Dutch wiki article for the band that doesn't have any sourcing either. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: their "great success" around Europe appears to consist of a no. 34 hit in their native Belgium, and that's it. I suppose that passes the criterion of WP:NMUSIC of having a hit on a national chart, but if that's the sole verifiable thing we can say about them I'm not sure it's even worth a one-line stub. Willing to change my mind if somebody can dig up some sources from their home country. Richard3120 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 22 October 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. Tone 19:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pikaba.com[edit]

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

created for high degree of promotions, nothing else! Light2021 (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatantly promotional. If you check the PR-like description in the intro, you'll see even the source says it's a quote from the CEO. Several of the sources are not in fact verifiable. Basic WP:BEFORE doesn't show me anything, though it also brings up hits on people's names and the word "pikaba" itself - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam; 'nuff said. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:41, 17 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Key Howard[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. No major roles and no secondary source coverage that I can find. agtx 20:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable source coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, could not find sources supporting WP:ENT or general. Gab4gab (talk) 10:30, 19 October 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. SNOW close. Not a viable nomination. (non-admin closure) Wikidemon (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yo (app)[edit]

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

created for high degree of promotions, nothing else! Light2021 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even the most casual look at the refs shows extensive third party coverage. If you find the language too promotional, then feel free to edit the entry. It doesn't look blatantly spammy to me. Hairhorn (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- press coverage, mashable like references, they can write about anything in general. trivial mention in big media, once in a lifetime thing! wikipedia can not become directory for apps. if they are just apps, not notable till now. it has no time limit, probably in future it can be. right now it is just promotions. even intentions of writing such article is questionable! Light2021 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This simply isn't true, to the extent to which I can tell what you're saying. For example, the entry references two Guardian articles, both of which are entirely about this company, they are not "mentions". This easily passes the notability guidelines, regardless of what anyone's intentions might have been in creating it. Hairhorn (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator) per the extensive coverage cited in the article. Not written to promote the subject, but in response to said coverage. Here's some more, from more recently, that aren't in the article: [9] [10]. Sam Walton (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. As an admin know better than me about these things. No different than Indian Startup like coverage. Getting funded. Covered by media once. Business Insider and Yahoo not even credible for citations. Who write those articles, no one knows? are they even real journalist? Like Indian startup cases: about funding, investors, story script given by none other than company officials for publications as they are funded. and eventually a failure. get money, get press, and fail. good to build the name. For such things wikipedia will become grand host for every funded company who gets even slightest amount from any kind of investors and get coverage instantly. There is nothing wrong with Notable startups. But these are not one of those.

Keep based on the sources already on the article. This is one of many cookie-cutter nominations by the nominator, who sadly has repeatedly shown an inability to comprehend basic wikipedia guidelines and policies when it comes to companies. It is becoming disruptive. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and here comes the repeated response. where your "keep" policy failed with many deleted articles now, which shouts about few non-notable and no depth of coverage. You must read this : Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper.Light2021 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, it's the Kim Kardashian of software, famous for being famous. But nobody really pretends it was anything other than a stupid joke in the first place, and in that sense it was notable. Blythwood (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you believe it to be promotion, feel free to edit the article to change the prose or tone. Not to mention the fact that your reason is the exact same (word for word) as your last six nominations... I agree with User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR here. TheKaphox T 21:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this AfD discussion should be ended per WP:Snowball. TheKaphox T 21:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper Light2021 (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both links are irrelevant. It is clear from the amount of keep votes that it should be ended per the snowball clause. TheKaphox T 21:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources already in article, as well as those listed above by Samwalton9, indicate that this company meets WP:GNG. Wikipedia essays and Signpost editorials do not negate Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and here comes the repeated WP:GNG policy. where your "keep" policy failed with many deleted articles now, which shouts about few non-notable and no depth of coverage. You must read this : Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper Light2021 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage by reliable sources sufficient to meet the GNG. The nominator's repetitive linking to the same essay and the same Signpost article is not persuasive. Instead, it is irritating and counterproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going on citing just one thing " WP:GNG" every time for any arguments I see on AfD, is there anything substantial you need to discuss or just Paases or meets WP:GNG, and the discussions are over? It is not even Irritating but useless for discussions for depth analysis. Light2021 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light2021: Perhaps as a relatively inexperienced editor, you misunderstand what we do here at Articles for Deletion. Our job is to evaluate whether or not the topic meets the GNG or the various special notability guidelines. If we agree that the topic meets one of those guidelines, then we keep and improve the article. If we agree that the topic does not meet the guidelines, we delete it. Period. End of story. So, when you criticize other editors for focusing on the GNG, that is like criticizing a chess player for attempting checkmate. It seems illogical to me. Please rethink your approach.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. Yo. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going on citing just one thing " WP:GNG" every time for any arguments I see on AfD, is there anything substantial you need to discuss or just Paases or meets WP:GNG, and the discussions are over? It is not even Irritating but useless for discussions for depth analysis. Light2021 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I examined available sources before !voting. The topic meets GNG. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Your remarks do not persuade me to change my !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my part, given enough to think or discuss about. If that is what Wiki community decides, I will definitely accept that. But please give discussions not just easily passes GNC remarks. Does not even help me understand what is there to be notable about this one? I have gone through every coverage this company has. Nothing is there. Only press and script given to media for Once in a lifetime coverage. There are no "sustainable coverage". Light2021 (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors "Keep going on citing just one thing, WP:GNG, every time" because it is the relevant notability guideline, and at AFD we are charged with assessing an article subject's notability. Articles need to be assessed according to this guideline, so yes, it comes up a lot. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You think and demean my discussions every-time, I will spare my time elsewhere or doing better work. If my ways seems inappropriate to you. I will leave it to others to respond to your discussions. I will not waste my time on your discussions ever now, as you intend to demean others by citing policies and nothing else. No real value is added, but merely commenting on how I am making discussions. Consider it my last response to your comments made on me. I am tired responding to your citing of GNC. Have you read that yourself what that is actually? Wikipedia is not Gossipedia, Newspaper, PR host or any such platform for any of these company pr people. You can make this platform a non-sense piece like any other blogs or so called news is available these days Online. Flooded with articles of non-notability and promotions. For you only Wikipedia:The Last Word Light2021 (talk) 06:19, 17 October 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. Tone 19:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collarity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

created for high degree of promotions, nothing else! Light2021 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; advertorial on an unremarkable private tech company. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the passing mentions puffed up in the text are what I could find too - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 18 October 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. Tone 19:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

800razors.com[edit]

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

created for high degree of promotions, nothing else! Light2021 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources already on the article. This is one of many cookie-cutter nominations by the nominator, who sadly has repeatedly shown an inability to comprehend basic wikipedia guidelines and policies when it comes to companies. It is becoming disruptive. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and here comes the repeated response. where your "keep" policy failed with many deleted articles now, which shouts about few non-notable and no depth of coverage. You must read this : Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Light2021 (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ample significant coverage in RS to meet notability guidelines, including Advertising Age, Baltimore Sun, CBS, and USA Today. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

like this, please read those article, don't go by the website :)

"Razor company offers Brian Wilson $1 million to shave beard"

"Brian Wilson offered $1 million to shave his beard" - 2 times

Local news: Local startup in the battle for razor customers

Such coverage make anything notable? Encyclopedic Notable? We should make this News Paper/ or Gossipedia I guess! for all those companies in the world. Light2021 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That coverage is literally of a PR push by the company - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My own WP:BEFORE turns up the PR push that Safehaven86 highlights, but nothing in the way of actual news coverage - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a company whose obvious PR methods are both people sponsorships and then also PR campaigns, both of which are noticeable in these links listed by not only having someone sponsor and advertising their company, but then also to state what else there is to say about said advertising; the entire article is in fact a damn advertisement, from "product information to "reviews and quotes" to then to the symmetrical PR sources, simply because the news sources reviewed it, is not saving it from the exact PR it is, in that it literally says "the benefits of this company and why you should buy and use it!". Once we actually start taking literal advertisements seriously and consider them anything but advertising, is when we're damning of course and yet not taking any actions about it. Everything here is exactly what was planned and that's advertising, something that is obvious because the account was clearly an advertising-intended account, and unsurprisingly, was never used again and nor was this article itself. Therefore, by actually seeing there was advertising in the article and sources, we should not be making it worse by then actually offering PR and advertising sponsorships and other company-initiated information, because that's only damning it. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO on an unremarkable e-commerce company; nothing stands out about it apart from its marketing stunts. That is not enough to get to encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. . The coverage is entirely PR. PR is never a source for notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 19 October 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. A divided discussion. However, the "keep" comments have not only a numerical advantage, but also better, more policy-based reasoning. MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cymbal (app)[edit]

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

created for high degree of promotions, nothing else! Light2021 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please explain to me how the article fails WP:PROMO or WP:NPOV. TheKaphox T 20:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- press coverage, app store links, crunchbase, angel list, like references. trivial mention in big media, once in a lifetime thing! BBC article is hardly about this app. wikipedia can not become directory for apps. if they are just apps, probably in near future it can be. right now it is just promotions. even intentions of writing such article is questionable! Same arguments with all the spam Wikipedia has become. one coverage , just one coverage in popular media is not that tough, when there are online version present. All such media need to write articles about anything they come across. Even such writers depends on such company to write about them. one coverage hurts no one! Light2021 (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unsurprisingly, you're giving the same argument as countless other AfDs you have nominated. Firstly, both app store links are simply to cite the release dates presented in the infobox. This is the same as the articles of many other social media platforms, such as Instagram. I don't see how CrunchBase and AngelList somehow mean the article is promotional - they are only used as references for the financial investors. Having little mention in "big media" does not mean that an article is promotional. Irrespective of that, there are four valid references to news outlets such as Forbes, the BBC and CNET. I am also unsure of what you are referring to by "once in a lifetime thing". Everything else you have said in your response is irrelevant. The AfD discussion is to discuss if/how the article violates WP:PROMO - it is not a forum for you to vent about Wikipedia. TheKaphox T 21:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you really read BBC article or just mentioning here because the website is BBC? I doubt your research and study here. Please read: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Light2021 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have read it, and whilst the coverage within it is minimal, it comes from a very notable source. None of the links you have presented so far are relevant, because you have failed to explain how the article is WP:PROMO or WP:ARTSPAM. The onus is on you. TheKaphox T 21:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You read it, still asking what is there to Keep this article? Minimal BBC? There is nothing there. Light2021 (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        So the fact that it is not extensively mentioned in the BBC is a reason to remove the article? No. Don't be silly. TheKaphox T 22:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! read this from WP:GNG : Notable topics attract attention over a sufficiently significant time period

Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION.

If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Light2021 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a basic WP:BEFORE turns up plenty of WP:SIGCOV, including in Forbes, Tech Times, and CNET. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

highly doubtful whether you even read those articles or keep citing WP:BEFORE or WP:GNG for every argument of AfD. you missed to mention Minimal BBC article :) do not just read which website they belong to.. read what is there written actually Light2021 (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can convince people with the merits of your arguments, or you can resort to personal attacks on those who disagree with you. Unfortunately, you appear to have chosen the latter approach. It is highly unlikely to help you effectively convince others of the merits of your point of view. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see Personal Attack. Citing sources and guideline links only. like WP:GNG : Notable topics attract attention over a sufficiently significant time period

Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION. Light2021 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted "highly doubtful whether you even read those articles" as a personal attack, or at the very least a significant failure to WP:AGF. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it is about Cymbal (app) and not about me. Any other thoughts or discussions are welcome! as per WP:AGF :) Light2021 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Forbes source is by a staff writer and is 17 detailed paragraphs long. That is clearly significant coverage and Forbes is a highly respected business journal. I read every word. The CNET source is also strong and discusses the software in detail. On the other hand, the BBC source is a passing mention in an article about Instagram, so is of little value in evaluating notability. The totality of the independent coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only Forbes covered this one. Just one Source can not make anything Encyclopedia Notable. and CNET? is there any better Press Release available. CNET? is it even a journalistic platform? or Even I can go and write about myself there or ask the author to brag about me for any kind of products? Online version for such media is always questionable, as they are highly unreliable and written to get Daily chunks of articles on their website, they can write about anything in this world. Does not necessary to be notable! BBC is mentioned to mislead people, as people only look for website link and discussions are over. Where are the discussion about " New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION" Light2021 (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light2021: You are wrong about CNET. Very wrong. It is a reliable source for technology topics, with professional editorial control and a good reputation. It has been in business for 22 years. Your statement that anyone can get news coverage there just by asking and that they are highly unreliable is false. Please point to consensus on the Reliable sources noticeboard saying that CNET news coverage is not reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article does not have a promotional tone, and the topic meets WP:GNG as per coverage in CNET, Digital Trends and Forbes (see also page 2 of the Forbes article, and note that it is written by a staff writer for Forbes, not a contributor.) More coverage would be ideal, but these sources (found from a brief search) demonstrate that notability is met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW KEEP based on the above discussions. This AFD was one of a string of cookie-cutter nominations by the same user. It is disruptive. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this is terrible advertorial coverage. When the same particular phrase is used in all coverage, it's clearly PR push stuff, not organic coverage of a newsworthy thing - David Gerard (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Could you provide any evidence that CNET, Digital Trends and Forbes were compensated by Cymbal to publish these articles? Per the actual definition of what comprises an advertorial, these do not appear to be such. Also, these articles do not state "paid content", "paid advertisement" or such at all, as advertorials often do, which various publications state as disclaimers in order to maintain journalistic objectivity. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that - I claimed "it's clearly PR push stuff, not organic coverage of a newsworthy thing". The additional specifier is yours. Clear churnalism is not a suitable basis for claims made in Wikipedia's voice, even if you think you can make an excuse to include them - David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: Will you please explain in detail why you believe that the 17 paragraph article by a Forbes staff writer is "churnalism" and not independent reporting? Did you find a press release that was closely paraphrased by the Forbes writer? Do you see strong evidence that this is not independent reporting? If so, please present that evidence and I will change my mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard:: I pledge to also reconsider my !vote if you provide evidence, as Cullen³²⁸ has requested. Looking forward to your evidence! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes article is not questionable. If only "ONE" Article makes a wikipedia page, then we should make this a newspaper or magazine. Can you cite any other references similar to Forbes coverage for being Encyclopedic notable. as per David, he never said every article is non-notable. But one article is not enough to establish the notability. On that note the coverage is already with Forbes. Why do you need to write same thing on Wikipedia. It is not Press Distribution channel. Light2021 (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising, WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT, considering everything the article lists is exactly PR and PR-based, such as focusing heavily with its clients and business partners, to then listing the company's own information, that is blatancy and this alone for advertising the company itself; there is also no sensible SNOW Keep here because the Keep votes are then not actually acknowledging this or showing any considerations of it; the listed links here are then also consisting of exactly this, so it makes no sensible defenses or claims of saying "PR, it's not PR, but here are some PR sources to make it better". Once we start blatantly acknowledging PR exists but refusing to take actions because of this, it shows how we cannot be trusted and assured to remove advertising when found and needing deletion, this is the case. Examining all of this then shows there would not be any clear signs of confirming an assured substantial and non-PR article, therefore we should and shall not make any compromises. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable application / startup company. I don't see much coverage beyond launch / funding publicity. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This short article does not have a promotional tone at all, not even a trace. It is written in an objective and unbiased style, and is entirely free of any sort of puffery. It would benefit from expansion, rather than deletion. Also the age of a topic is not associated with notability. See WP:ITSTOONEW for some examples that delineate this line of reasoning. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 07:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to clarify what exactly "per above" means because there has been exhaustive analysis, including showing the PR and advertising sources and information (which goes to the blatancy of republishing company PR), and there is no inherited notability from named mentions. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 25 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thoth (video game)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. It has (allegedly ) only been released a few days - not nearly enough to gather any notability. No refs at all. Fails WP:GNG. If there was a suitable category this would qualify for speedy deletion Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've gone through and found some sources for this to establish at least a baseline notability. — foxj 20:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC).·[reply]
Keep: per above by first vote.--Blaze8724 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC) User is part of an advertising-only account rampage. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Sources include: Rolling Stone, Indiegames (considered reliable per WP:VGRS), Hardcore Gamer (considered reliable per WP:VGRS). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 17 October 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Masreliez[edit]

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

Delete: does not meet threshold for notability as an actor. Quis separabit? 18:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does meet the threshold for notability as an actor. Has appeared in more than 60 films and per WP:BEFORE, the Swedish article has plenty of sources. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of reliable sources in the article. We do not keep articles that do not have reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been updated with a RS, using quite a lengthy biography ref'd from the Swedish article. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A certain lack of WP:BEFORE here - when the article was nominated it already contained a reference from a print encyclopedia (Vem är det) which has an article about the person. The reference was not correctly formed and so it looked as if the source was a website, but that would not be reason to delete the article. In any case, he also has a biographical entry in Nationalencyklopedin, now added. --bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reasons as given by bonadea above. /FredrikT (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; meets WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:46, 23 October 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. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fylgia Zadig[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Does not derive notability from relatives (including Bengt Eklund, Sigge Eklund and Fredrik Eklund). Quis separabit? 18:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When there is an article in a print encyclopedia (in this case Nationalencyklopedin) notability is assumed. It might also have been a good idea to glance at the Swedish-language version which lists a number of sources, some of which would count as reliable for the purposes of en.wiki, and where there is also a long list of roles she has played, supporting notability per WP:NACTOR. (I am not suggesting that sv.wiki is a reliable source in itself, to be clear.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reasons as given by bonadea above. /FredrikT (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:56, 17 October 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Torres (author)[edit]

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

I've found no evidence of notability per WP:SCHOLAR, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. Subject (more widely known as Phil Torres) has certainly been active, but hasn't received significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. 8 peer reviewed articles, and two book published, the latter has received some praise but this article currently cannot become any more than a promotional "about the author" blurb at best, and currently seems at least WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry.

Note, there was an AFD in 2007 for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Torres, which may or may not be the same subject. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Torres (author) from earlier this year. LadyofShalott 23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedied as G4 - this is a straight-up recreation of the text deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Torres (author), and speedied after another recreation. This is also the same person (though different article text) deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Torres, which many of the "delete" voters found so implausible they wondered if it was a hoax. I've also salted all three titles. Also his alias Philippe Verdoux. What are the appropriate warnings for someone who keeps creating and recreating an AFDed article? - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is strong consensus that we shouldn't keep this article, with a majority favouring deletion. The general consensus is that the topic of the article is ill-defined and the content of the article is primarily politician gossip rather than cyber conflict. Editors who want a partial merge are welcome to ask me for a copy of the article history. Deryck C. 11:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 US Russian cyber conflict[edit]

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

This reads more like a news article and it's speculation at this point. There is no confirmation the United States will do anything in relation to this "alleged" cyber conflict by the Russians. Perhaps if this actually becomes a thing a better article can be created in the future, but for now this appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON Andise1 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing has truly happened yet and I doubt anything will come of this. Pinguinn 🐧 19:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just gossip, defiantly too soon Seasider91 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mainstream media have reported extensively on this, VPOTUS directly quoted and involved, lead security people, etc. It's smoking for sure. At least hold it through the election as leaks continue to be published daily and are exceptionably notable. Its not partisan. A month after the election, if there is no credible evidence that the U.S. actually responded, can consolidate most all the articles listed in the "see also" section. Rick (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Democratic National Committee cyber attacks. I believe the topic at large has garnered enough coverage to be included, speculation or not, it is speculation in major news outlets and real published statements from real politicians. That said, right now the current page just seems to cherrypick some quotes related by the subject matter and toss them on the page. The name also seems arbitrary, and until the definitions of the event seem more clear, I would recommend a merge to the closest related topic, with the current name likely as the section heading. As of now, the US defines this controversy as related to "the recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona." These topics are currently covered on the DNC hack page, although if the US increases the scope of its accusations, then the overlap of the topics would no longer be perfect, and I can see this topic (even vaguely defined) as needing its own independent place. Yvarta (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I might actually recommend the merge be to a section named "Governmental reactions." Yvarta (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Selectively Merge~~ to Democratic National Committee cyber attacks. The content is useful but it's WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article. "Governmental reactions" section is a good idea vs "Cyber conflict" which appears to be OR. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively Merge to Democratic National Committee cyber attacks. The article violates WP:POV, as the blame on Russia is being disseminated solely by the campaign of Hillary Clinton, and those providing her with aid, comfort, and seek to advance her agenda (Barack Obama, DHS, NYT, WaPO, etc.). Just because Donna Brazile says the Wikileaks are "postmarked from Russia" don't make it so.Hidden Tempo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Paranoid fluff. — JFG ^talk 04:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article is about cyber conflict between USA and Russia. It involves strong, direct, and fully public statments made between top spokespeople, VPOTUS, POTUS and the POTRF (President of the Russian Federation.) The topic is not about current U.S. election politics. Its about 2016 cyber warfare between two major powers that very much transcends and will exist outside of the US election. The VPOTUS has directly accused Russia of cyber warfare and promised retaliation. The POTRF has directly denied those allegations. Currently, the article should be focusing on the available evidence did they, or didn't they, and how? In time the VPOTUS promised US response is quite likely to emerge. The article is not bound by the topic "the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak" and can't really be shoehorned in there. In addition to DNC hacking there are the 1258 emails sent or received by then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ^[1] In addition there are 2,060 emails sent from or received by Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, including full transcripts of her paid speeches for Goldman Sachs^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] The focus should be much more on the hacking vs. the leaking. (The hacking is hard, the distribution/leaking is relatively easy.) Who is behind the hacking and how, and what is the covert and official positions of both governments? Cyber war rules of engagement are being established here. Long ago large countries became well armed for cyber war, this is the first time its strongly risen above the radar, the US has asserted that Russia "pushed the button here". Lets hope sophisticated countries don't commit stupid acts of provocation, or bravado, and any reaction to such idiocy are laser focused, highly contained and proportional. Rick (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to RjLabs - might you be saying you think the topic currently deserves its own topic because the overlap is imperfect? In that case, perhaps the article is better staying in its current location, with a link from the DNC page, perhaps actually in a "governmental reactions" section or something similar. I personally don't think I'd agree with "this is the first time [cyberwarfare has] strongly risen above the radar," though, or that the event currently has any extra special import beyond its news coverage. China, for example, does this government-sanctioned "cyberwarfare" stuff all the time. But that said, I agree that strong words between politicians and political bodies tend to be notable, as they tend to garner the press required to pass the notability threshold, as with this case. There are major problems I would say with picking a title, but that isn't a problem for AfD per se, and could be tackled on the topic's talk page. I imagine the editors on the DNC hack page might also have viewpoints to add on that, and so it might be good to have that discussion in a place they would more easily encounter. Yvarta (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - looking more closely at the sources provided by Rick, note I disagree with making a umbrella topic for all recent hacking related to the US election. That topic seems a bit ridiculously broad, unless a "Whistleblowing and leaks in the 2016 US Presidential Election" was being used to help people navigate to individual events, or included distinctly separate events in a list format. Yvarta (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete::: Not one single government or non-government entity has provided evidence suggesting Russian involvement with the leaks, nor have the leaks themselves been denied, and considering Wikileaks decade long, 100% accuracy for leaks, it makes no sense to dedicate an entire Wikipedia page centered around gossip and slander originating only from one political campaign and it's supporters - Wikipedia is not a propaganda arm for partisan politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheezay (talk • contribs) 09:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above is false. User was found to have vandalized 2016_Democratic National Committee email leak. See the history page. Article is not U.S. party politics whatsoever. It's about the official finding that a foreign country, Russia, has interfered with the U.S. election process, and what the U.S. response will be. Rick (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should wait until an actual cyber war occurs. The thing about Assange losing his internet connection is OR (war is hell, right?) Geogene (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per WP:CRYSTAL on second thoughts, as this is for now an alleged conflict. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This looks like a synthesis at this point. Unless there are good sources about this subject as a whole, I would suggest to merge content into Cyberwarfare by Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, suggest leaving article intact through at least 30 days after the election. Article is getting 200-300 page hits per day per wmflabs.org. Added additional cross references today showing the array of who has been hacked in 2016 (much more than just the DNC, so it doesn't shoehorn into that article well at all). Looks like Obama's email was hacked & materials released, and Kaine & Brazile are announced as also hacked as of today. That's quite an extensive collection of servers / email accounts broken into. Hillary mentioned 17 US agencies concurred that all of this is Russian State hacking but would like to see better documentation (definitive statements from each U.S. agency or a collective release) on that before adding. There are several more well published sources here, so can bring those in over time.Rick (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Rename to Russian cyber operations in the United States. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it might be of relevance to this deletion discussion that the likely next president of the USA (Hillary Clinton) stated that the following:

It is pretty clear you won't admit that the Russians have engaged in cyber attacks against the United States of America. That you encouraged espionage against our people. That you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do. And that you continue to get help from him because he has a very clear favorite in this race. So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.

^[8]

I also want to note that people calling it cyberattacks doesn't mean that it actually are cyberattacks, however notable people calling it such is notable in itself.

Also I doubt that it could be called "cyber conflict" because it seems like those are rather one-sided cyber attacks. Not sure if "attacks" is the right word here though and whether merging or moving would be a good idea. --Fixuture (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this certainly adds notability to the subject, and yes, this page should probably be renamed or content merged, rather than outright deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added a substantial new section on the Talk page Need to report Russian side accurately. Suggest dialog on content issues be placed on the Talk page, and have this dialog be restricted to delete, move, etc. Highly recommend reading the current article and equally important, the Talk page. The two backgrounder pieces on the Talk page are particularly valuable. Ambitious editors could extract several points from each and add to the article as it evolves. Rick (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Carissimo, Justin (4 July 2016). "WikiLeaks publishes more than 1,000 Hillary Clinton war emails". The Independent (UK). Retrieved 5 July 2016.
^ Bo Williams, Katie; Hattem, Julian (2016-10-12). "WikiLeaks pumps out Clinton emails". The Hill. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
^ Campanile, Carl (2016-10-08). "Wikileaks releases excerpts of Hillary's paid speech transcripts". New York Post. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
^ MICHALLON, CLEMENCE (2016-10-08). "Wikileaks releases transcripts of Clinton's Wall Street speeches". Daily Mail. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
^ Derespina, Cody (2016-10-10). "Wikileaks' Podesta Email Release Reveals Massive Clinton 'Hits' File On Sanders". Fox News Channel. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
^ Rosenberg, David (2016-10-11). "'Hillary often lies, Chelsea a spoiled brat'". www.israelnationalnews.com. Arutz Sheva. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
^ http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37680411
^ http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-third-2016-presidential-debate-230063

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've looked at the current page, and I'm baffled by the focus on Ecuador and Assange in the first section. How on earth is that related to Russian hacking, besides the fact that Wikileaks was the publishing arm for the some of the leaks? (hardly shocking, as Wikileaks is the most high-profile leak site available, and a natural go-to for hackers wanting highprofile press). But Wikileaks is not the only outlet that published this information (see The Smoking Gun and DCleaks), and so the current focus seems absurd - like starting an Edward Snowden leak page with a massive section on The Guardian. To clarify, according to current press Wikileaks and Russia are unrelated, excluding their coincidental involvement with silly season in the US this year, and their leaders' stated political preferences. I am half tempted to simply delete all the embassy information for being off topic (and for falsely insinuating that there is some Wikileaks/Russia conspiracy), so we can better clarify what this page is exactly supposed to focus on. Yvarta (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment - Need to restrict discussion here to delete/merge. Since above is about content copied above and responded on the Talk page.Rick (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to contravene WP:NPOV a core content policy. The content reports opinions rather then demonstrating evidence in support of the topic. It also uses WP:SYNTHESIS when implying the John Kerry had anything to do with the Ecuador embassy cutting off Assange's internet connection. There is no evidence that John Kerry was involved and he has denied having anything to do with it. Also, why is this in this article? This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and there has to be some far reaching tangential connection to make it fit - so this demonstrates wp:synthesis as well. Because this is such a bad fit for this article it appears to be a WP:COATRACK

Also, the article cherry picks comments by assorted people to support its view. The title of the article has a titillation factor and is WP:OR in this context. There is no stated U.S. - Russian cyber conflict in evidence, based on all the sources presented. This is mostly he said, she said, and they said. And the article is quite one-sided, weighted toward some attacks on US entities. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Lastly, a few of the sources presented above (in this AfD) are some of the worst in regards to reliability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:08, 24 October 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. postdlf (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Type T2 tankers[edit]

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

List that's a copy-paste from its single source; almost all entries are red links, the balance are redirects. The list requires that historic names be used, which significantly diminishes the value of the list. WP is not a catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for many reasons. Firstly, capital ships are generally assumed to be notable. Secondly, a list of names is acceptable to copy from anywhere, as there's no other reasonable way to express Abiqua .. York than a list of the said names. Thirdly, a list which contains redlinks of ships in a class is useful, as it indicates which ships still need articles. Fourthly, the names can hardly be anything but "historic", as the class was built and used in World War II, though an extra column for later names would be useful. Fifthly, Wikipedia quite rightly has Lists of lists of ships, including for instance a List of Liberty ships (transport vessels) from World War II, which in turn contains lists like List of Liberty ships (A–F), which contains redlinks like SS A. P. Hill and many others. None of these things speak for deletion. That the article could be better formatted (like the Liberty ships lists would be a fine start), better referenced, or better introduced - these things are all true; but AfD is not about editing and formatting. Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. This isn't a list of capital ships. "Other stuff exists" isn't an argument for keep. -- 16:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  - Comment. "'Other stuff exists' isn't an argument for keep" is trite, and doesn't apply in any discussion about ships in Wikipedia any longer. That was fair to say when Wikipedia's coverage of ships was just beginning but has been over-used. --do ncr am 16:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "capital ships are generally assumed to be notable", these are not capital ships, here is the definition from the lead of Capital ship - "The capital ships of a navy are its most important warships; and are traditionally much larger than other naval vessels. A capital ship is generally a leading or a primary ship in a naval fleet.", these are not warships, and are not a leading or primary ship in a naval fleet, about 500 were made during WWII. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, you're right about that. All the same, lists of ships are welcome here; I can't believe we'd wish to remove the Liberty ships, and the Type T2 tankers were comparable in size to them, in some cases bigger, (and given the critical job of a tanker, in importance too). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list could be better presented by giving a brief history of each vessel, as per the various lists covering the Empire ships. There is WP:NORUSH to write the articles on the individual ships, and the redlinks do show the progress of the task. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the list appears to be well defined, useful, and within policy. The list components appear to be notable. The fact that most of the entries are redlinks does not seem to me to be a valid argument for deletion, on the contrary, the list alerts the reader to the fact that many of these articles have yet to be created. Gatoclass (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its a list not an article, if its within policy it should be kept. Some of the redlinks may be able to be linked. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i hope the other T2 tanker pages are better sourced than this one - USNS Bull Run (T-AO-156) (i promise, randomly chosen), only one reference to what looks like a fan page/memorial page - see website creator's ancestor page. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentComment: Well here's another then. NavSource Online: Service Ship Photo Archive USNS Bull Run (T-AO-156) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of other articles is irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple: WP:SOFIXIT then! here's a source that links to pages which give good info on such things as dimensions, engine details, tonnages, port of registry, Official Number, Code Letters etc. etc. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the sources that show their existence, i will not take up the invite to improve the tanker articles, but will scuttle back from whence i came as this looks like a consensus keep will be the result. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - it seems the nominator has not done his/her due diligence on this one. This list is obviously within policy and long-established practice - there are dozens and dozens of lists of various types of ships. List of battlecruisers is an example of what this list can someday become. The fact that the list only contains perfectly acceptable WP:REDLINKS and redirects is irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs work and could use more detail but is a valid "list" of type of ships. Kierzek (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And the article now has an ((under construction)) tag and is being improved. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per others, and per my comment above about "other stuff exists" no longer applying. --do ncr am 16:29, 21 October 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. I think we can all agree this article was never meant to exist in article space and the creator Alangi Derick has now recreated it in a more appropriate spot. I'll delete this as a WP:CSD G2. A Train^talk 17:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Community User Group Cameroon[edit]

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

Delete OR move to Wikipedia: Wikimedia Community User Group Cameroon. 1900toni (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want the page deleted. Please can it be considered? We need the information to go out there about the group. Thanks.

Userfy, move to WP space, or delete failing that. It's great that this group exists but this article is clearly in the wrong namespace. A Train^talk 16:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I have moved it already to Wikipedia: Wikimedia Community User Group Cameroon. Is there anything else to do? Or is it not the correct name space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alangi Derick (talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on where Wikimedia User Group pages are supposed to reside, [[User:Alangi Derick|Alangi Derick], but now that the page author has agreed to move it out of article space I think this AFD is now moot and I'll close it up. A Train^talk 16:59, 16 October 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. Removing a speedy deletion tag and replacing it with an AfD notice is not a proper way of challenging a speedy deletion nomination, which is apparently what was the intention. In any case, the article clearly qualified for speedy deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selim Masud Muhtadi[edit]

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

Reason Selim Masud (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The autobiographer had both challenged the speedy deletion on the article Talk page and deleted the CSD tag to place this AfD instead. Both are now on the article; the CSD should presumably take precedence and proceed as there is no claim to notability on this unsourced autobiography. AllyD (talk) 15:51, 16 October 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. This is a Snow keep as there are many sources online. The article may need some expansion but as noted, the nomination reason as "unremarkable unsolved disappearance" is not valid. It also falls under notability for criminal acts which makes it notable. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Eloise Worledge[edit]

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

Unremarkable unsoved disappearance. TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of any significant ongoing coverage of this case.TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. the disappearance of Eloise Worledge is one of the most famous missing person cases in Australian history, certainly in Melbourne's history. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. At present there is a single reference. Simply not good enough.TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When homicide cold-case detectives began reinvestigating the case in 2001, they were surprised to discover the picture of Eloise was instantly recognisable, more than 25 years after her disappearance". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep The case is covered throughout several decades worth of sources by doing a simple Google search. Sure, the article needs some expansion and/or copyediting, yet it does not at all seem worthy of deletion.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 16:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 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. Tone 19:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Fong[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO (notability) - TheMagnificentist (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely fails WP:MUSICBIO at the moment. Neither of the two sources for the article appear reliable. A Train^talk 16:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC entirely. Karst (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Rurouni_Kenshin_characters#Yukishiro_Tomoe. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yukishiro Tomoe[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. It is a fully in-universe fiction article better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything verifiable to List_of_Rurouni_Kenshin_characters#Yukishiro_Tomoe and then redirect this article there. There appears to be nothing referenced to a reliable source here. A Train^talk 16:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Rurouni_Kenshin_characters#Yukishiro_Tomoe per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect. The entry can always be expanded on the characters list but with nothing pointing to reliable sources there isn't much to merge, and the editor can always go back to an archived copy of this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Rurouni_Kenshin_characters#Yukishiro_Tomoe. As this article is nothing but overly detailed, unsourced plot summary, there isn't really a whole lot of value to merge. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:32, 19 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout Day[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENTCRIT Kleuske (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. My searches turned up stuff not on the page, such as ABC News [11], and, especially this [12] Washington Post article, "Why #BlackOutDay took over social media."E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article cites coverage from Buzzfeed, ABC News, and the Daily Dot, which I would suggest meet the bar for significant coverage in WP:GNG, and it's probably a borderline case for WP:EVENTCRIT off the back of that coverage. I could be persuaded otherwise. As a minority-driven event it's probably worth affording it some leeway to counter systemic bias. A Train^talk 16:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 22 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marģers Krams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

last AfD had no participants. Fails WP:BIO. No inherent notability in being ambassador. Limited coverage just confirms held role LibStar (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being an ambassador on its own is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ambassadors are not automatically notable, and my searches [13], [14] brought up nothing beyond evidence of a professional diplomat doing his job.E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lucknow#Media. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Lucknow My Pride[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This mobile app has received significant coverage in multiple, secondary sources which are independent of the subject (see the 3 refs given in the source, and there are many more). So it meets WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article for, say, tourism in Lucknow? This looks like utter trivia to me and would do even if it had 100 sources. Surely, one sentence in a larger article would be more appropriate, along with a redirect. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lucknow per WP:PRODUCT: Topic seems to be notable, but it is such a trivial one to have a standalone piece for. It should also be noted that almost all of the coverage is related to the launch of mobile-app, there is nothing about else. So it could very well be argued to be a case of one-event notability. It should better be merged with parent article and a sentence or two can be easily inserted somewhere in there. Anup [Talk] 15:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable app. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (no need to merge/redirect) This is patent WP:NOTNEWS. An app was launched but the coverage is only about the launch and nothing else. If we go by WP:WEIGHT, this would find no mention even in a page like Lucknow. My suggestion here is to delete this with no need for a merge/redirect. (An extra redirect hanging around uselessly is an extra page to patrol). If this receives a bit more coverage in the future, someone can add a sentence to the Lucknow article and the searching engine crawlers will do the rest of the job. But right now there is no such need. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Lucknow § Media. This mobile app was launched by the city government of Lucknow, in efforts to preserve "the cultural heritage of Lucknow" and encourage tourism. As such, a mention at the Lucknow article is in order and of value to Wikipedia's readers. Here are some sources too: [15], [16], [17], [18]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Lucknow#Media per above sound analysis. I don't see the point in denying the merging of one line which actually received some reliable coverage (the argument that "a redirect is an extra page to patrol" is just too silly to be taken into account). Cavarrone 08:35, 23 October 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. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Clay vs. Willi Besmanoff[edit]

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

Not notable non-title fight. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my and other arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena. Give the well-sourced stub a chance. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent sourcing. The article is only just begun, but already the sources are there for a full expansion. Please see the arguments deployed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena. Spicemix (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is short but impeccably sourced and it's one of the 61 fights participated in by one of the most notable boxers in all of history. Only the most pedantic reading of WP:EVENT could possibly exclude a Muhammad Ali fight. A Train^talk 16:39, 16 October 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. Arguments are fairly weak however nothing's been refuted nor discussed so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Clay vs. Alex Miteff[edit]

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

Not notable non-title fight. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my and other arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena. Give the well-sourced stub a chance. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Exceptionally well-sourced article about a Muhammad Ali fight that went on to be the focus of an Emmy Award-winning Rod Serling film. Only the most pedantic reading of WP:EVENT could possibly exclude a Muhammad Ali fight. A Train^talk 16:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per arguments above. But again, this a very well resourced article of some historical/archival relevance, obviously because of Ali. X4n6 (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per arguments already made. I don't think NOTNEWS applies here. Spiderone 12:27, 23 October 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. Arguments are fairly weak however nothing's been refuted nor discussed so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Clay vs. Alonzo Johnson[edit]

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

Not notable non-title fight. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my and other arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena. Give the well-sourced stub a chance. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is short but very well sourced. There is no question that an encyclopedic article can be written about a Muhammad Ali fight, one of the most important (and extensively written-about) athletes of the 20th century. A Train^talk 16:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A terrible stub but the sources are copious. It might be good for a morning's entertainment to take one of these early Ali fights and to build the article out as far as it could go just to demonstrate that it could be done in a worthwhile manner. I wish that the creator would make "better fewer but better" of these type of pieces... Carrite (talk) 04:29, 23 October 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. Arguments are fairly weak however nothing's been refuted nor discussed so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Clay vs. Donnie Fleeman[edit]

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

Not notable non-title fight. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this proposal should be withdrawn until a decision has been made on Bonavena etc. It's not helpful having multiple discussions going on out of synch. Spicemix (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my and other arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena. Give the well-sourced stub a chance. I also agree with the above comment. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ali was an immense global figure, better known throughout the world than anyone when in his prime. These fights are the events in his life that made him what he was, like a director's films, a writer's novels, a general's victories. Per WP:GNG the sourcing is reliable and non-trivial. The editor has a track-record of creating excellent content, and this is clearly a fine article in the making. Spicemix (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well-sourced article that satisfies all the demands of the GNG. Could even be expanded upon and improved. Muhammad Ali is one of the most written-about figures of the 20th century -- if more sources are desired they could be found with trivial effort. A Train^talk 16:52, 16 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crowne Plaza Abu Dhabi Yas Island[edit]

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

Not notable. It's a hotel. No references. Nothing special about it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a tourist or travel guide; nor an exhaustive catalog of buildings. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; Wikipedia is not a hotel booking site. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, see WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:MILL. We are not a free webhost for the for-profit Intercontinental hotel brand; we are a charity. This is merely one of six hotels on a small resort island that is off the main tourist trails. I don't see how it's special or notable in any way. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this hotel to have its own Wikipedia page. Amin (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 22 October 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 I've mentioned elsewhere, the NOT NEWS guideline seems to depend upon how the people at the afd choose to interpret the situation. Most of the ones that come to afd could be rationally argued in either direction. In this case, the local decision is apparently to keep. DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Rajdev Ranjan[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This murder case has received great deal of coverage in national media. Meets WP:GNG. Don't go by the present article size. Just use your search engine. --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ONEEVENT notability. A person is shot-dead and media published news-reports. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper. I do not think there is one single coverage of subject when he was alive (I tried to find one here). Anup [Talk] 15:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with Anupmehra on it being a One Event case. CyanoTex (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Anup is right in saying that the reporter didn't receive coverage when he was alive. That's why we don't have an article on the reporter himself, it was his murder (on 13 May) that received wide coverage. Here's the most recent article (2 October). If you check Google News you will find 100s of results for the subject. Please consider them too. --Skr15081997 (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The so called recent article is published by the group where he worked. That's not independent enough for counting in wide coverage. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: check India Today, The Indian Express, Firstpost, The Indian Express and Firstpost. These are independent of the reporter and cover the subject in great detail. --Skr15081997 (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. plenty of good sources are available, it has received plenty of attention. the article is small and badly written but that is not relevant in comparison to notability guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel the need to elaborate my !vote a little. It is argued that not "person" but the "event" in which he was shot dead is notable. Thus, I opened WP:NEVENT and found this:

WP:LASTING: no evidence.

WP:GEOSCOPE: no evidence.

WP:INDEPTH: reasonable coverage (mostly "recent").

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: nope, I rather see WP:ROUTINE coverage.

WP:SENSATION: yes, confined to a region (for a week or two).

I'm open to amend my !vote if anyone could address issues listed above or explain in simple words how after failing above criteria it is a notable event for encyclopedia. Anup [Talk] 08:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep as the murders of journalists tend to be notable. For example, here's from a recent coverage (Sept 2016):

The CBI took over the case from Siwan police which said Ranjan's killing was part of a premeditated conspiracy.

If a conspiracy is alleged, then there may be more information as to who was behind the conspiracy; why was the journalist targeted; what impact did the murder have on the journalist profession?

I would say keep for now; if there are no developments in the next three to six months, then renominate. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep - I am usually pretty strict with WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. This one however, seems to have some recent on going coverage which is involves some Indian politicians as well. See 17 Oct, 7 Oct, 28 September. I would prefer to actually wait for 6 months before renominating this. If the coverage ceases, then I would be glad to go with a delete. I guess this is best closed as a "no consensus" at this point. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve article, which is now paltry although the sources found by searching his name appear to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:05, 20 October 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POWER OF WORDS[edit]

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

Unremarkable album. No indication of Notability per WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was a platinum selling album in Japan per a search at the RIAJ website. If anyone knows how to turn the search result into a useable reference I can do the translation. I'm having trouble sourcing the information, but her Japanese wiki bio says it ranked number one when it was released. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should be updated, but as it stands I agree that it meets notability. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:55, 20 October 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.I.R. (Aiuchi Rina album)[edit]

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

Unremarkable album. No indication of Notability per WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; charted on Oricon (which we accept; see WP:Record charts) and this seems to be cited. Per WP:NMG#Albums, this makes the album notable. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current version of the Oricon source doesn't provide ranking details. A search at shows it was certified gold in Japan in October 2003. So this satisfies WP:NMUSIC. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:57, 19 October 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 11:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be Happy (Rina Aiuchi album)[edit]

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

Unremarkable album. No indication of Notability per WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is the direction I'm leaning, as the article says it reached #3 on the Oricon chart, and the Japanese Wiki article adds that it was certified platinum. I'm trying to hunt down sources to verify those two facts, but prima facie that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the Oricon listing and it didn't mention chart position - do you have one that does? 'Cos top 10 Oricon is clear keep - David Gerard (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment David Gerard, Oricon's search page seems to only allow searches back to 2005, which doesn't help us with this 2001 album. But the RIAJ website allows older searches. I assume you can read Japanese, so if you search here for the album's title you can see it was certified gold in January 2001. I don't know how to turn this search result into a useable reference within the article though. The fact that it went gold is enough to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. As it was released on the 24th January and went gold within the same month, I think we can take the Japanese Wikipedia article on good faith that it ranked pretty highly in that final week of January too.

Looking at her list of albums at the Oricon site, none of her pre-2006 albums have any ranking details. But Rina Aiuchi discography says they were all top ten. I note that two of her other early albums POWER OF WORDS and A.I.R. are also currently at AFD. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I can't read Japanese, I skim by on Google Translate and knowing a bit about music charts :-) If the claim is verified, that's excellent. (I didn't know Oricon only went back to 2005, might be worth noting somewhere on WP:CHARTS.) We don't necessarily need a specific online link to make the claim, though I know sometimes people link search engines and note the search needed to get the result - David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Athomeinkobe's verification of the fast gold status - David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin (gay slang)[edit]

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

A slang word. Fails verifiability - only referenced to a TV show review which doesn't actually mention the word. (For what it's worth, Dictionary.com doesn't list this meaning of the word; the closest it lists is: "An actor who wears a tuxedo as part of a crowd scene".) Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could be wrong but, without having seen the series, I have a feeling that the character could have been called a "penguin" on account of strutting around in finery—was he wearing a tuxedo at the time? I ask because, if so, that's an age-old use of the word. I don't see any support for this online. Largoplazo (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in reliable secondary sources as far as I can tell. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited source does not contain the term, nor suggest that it spread any slang terms. I couldn't find reliable sources. Cnilep (talk) 02:43, 17 October 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 14:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis (country singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Chase (talk | contributions) 13:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. See AllMusic. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of top 10 singles of Australian origin in 1980[edit]

(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)

Delete. Two lists of all singles of Australian or Canadian origin to reach the top ten in their own native country in one specific year. This is not, in and of itself, a useful topic for a list -- while we permit lists of #1 singles by country, there's nothing inherently defining about a song peaking at #2, #5 or #10. And for added bonus, the sources cited don't even properly verify the claims -- the only reference in the Australian one is to the sales page for a book of historical Australian sales charts, with no on-site capacity to directly verify the claimed placements, and the only reference in the Canadian one is to the results of an RPM database search, where the search term results in only the charts for January 1980 actually showing up (and none of the listed singles appear in any of them, because January isn't when they peaked). There's also an arbitrariness problem here -- why just the top 10, why not the entire top 40 or the entire top 100? And we don't have lists like this for any other country in any other year, so I just don't see the value in these existing in isolation. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No need for top 10 singles lists except for the top 1.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 04:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note - Kent's not just a book of historical Australian sales charts, it's the book of historical Australian sales charts, compiled by the guy who literally did the Australian charts at the time. It's a gold-standard reference for Australian music; that it's not online doesn't affect that in any manner, and claiming so detracts from your nomination. I'm inclined to concur on the rest of the nom, however - David Gerard (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "claim otherwise" at all. Referencing doesn't have to be exclusively online by any means — but if you are doing a citation to print-only content, like a book or a magazine article, your citation still can't contain a convenience URL to a webpage that exists to sell the book, such as a sales/promotional page on its own dedicated domain or in an online bookstore. If the weblink doesn't explicitly verify the content being cited to it, then the weblink just shouldn't be there at all — there's nothing wrong with a print-only citation that offlinks nowhere, while linking the reference to a promotional advertisement for the book makes it look like the purpose had more to do with augmenting sales of the book than with being genuinely informative. I never questioned the validity of the book, just the usefulness of linking that reference to a "buy the book" page that doesn't offer verification of the content being linked to it. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't an article about the subject. This is a commercial interest trying to use Wikipedia to advertise. I don't find this list useful, regardless. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- At least this is not cluttering up category space, but which "top 10"? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage in a single book isn't sufficient coverage for creation of an atypical list category, it seems to me. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atoms Family[edit]

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

Group on a non-notable label with no charting singles or albums. I only found two brief reviews of one of the group's album, but nothing which shows substantial coverage. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference in the article is not independent. My search for coverage in reliable, independent sources came up with nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find no evidence that this group meets WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:46, 17 October 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. not a sufficient case for deletion. But it is not clear to me where we should draw the line for these articles. NOT NEWS depends entirely upon how the people at afd choose to interpret the available material. . DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Mukilteo shooting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTNEWS John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has been through a AfD as early as August. I see nothing that has changed that would justify an AfD so soon again. It has good sourcing, noted article subject. NOTNEWS does not apply here. I would suggest speedy keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide evidence that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply, i.e. some discussion of this event in reliable sources other than news reports? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search and the article itself provides that. I have nothing to prove. NOTNEWS does not apply.BabbaQ (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself only cites four news reports from the same day, so WP:NOTNEWS very much does apply. Repeating an unsubstantiated opinion doesn't turn it into a fact. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, exactly so why do you repeat it. It does not make it right.BabbaQ (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Nomination fails to make the case that 'not news' justifies deletion. No evidence presented that it is original reporting, or that it's routine coverage of sports, announcements or celebrities. Enduring notability is indicated by the ongoing coverage after the event. Wikipedia:JUSTAPOLICY explains why this nomination is an argument without an argument. See also WP:INTHENEWS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to some of that ongoing coverage? The sources cited in the article are all from the day after this shooting. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Must I? There's a link right at the top of this page. I will give you the links if I must, but why do you even need to ask? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is obliged to do anything, but I don't see any evidence of lasting coverage from the links at the top of this page, so it would help if you could provide some examples of sources that go beyond simple news reports. I understand that sources won't necessarily include this exact phrase, so others probably exist. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a minimum of due diligence for the nominator, prior to starting an AfD discussion, or !voting. See WP:BEFORE, based on the Deletion policy and the Notability guidelines: "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.". Now, here you go:

List of citations
*Non-local coverage: 3 Killed in Shooting in North Seattle. The New Nation (Dhaka, India) July 31, 2016 Johnson, Gene. Shooting at Seattle-Area Party Leaves 3 Dead, 1 Wounded. Sunday Gazette-Mail (Charleston, West Virginia), July 31, 2016 University of Washington identifies student killed at party. Associated Press. Boston Herald. July 31, 2016 Statement From Gov. Jay Inslee Regarding This Morning's Shooting In Mukilteo States News Service. (July 30, 2016) The Latest: Documents: Shooter read gun manual before attack. Associated Press.Washington Times. August 1, 2016 Man charged with murdering 3 at suburban Seattle party Associated Press. Oregon Live. August 2, 2016 Ongoing coverage: Elisa Hahn,Dash cam footage shows Mukilteo shooting suspect arrest. KING TV. August 5, 2016 Bellisle, Martha. 'My friends might be dead' - 911 tapes of shooting released. Associated Press. August 9, 2016 Survivor of Mukilteo shooting released from hospital Seattle Times. August 15, 2016 Sullivan, Jennifer Decision on death penalty in Mukilteo shooting months away.KOMO News. August 22, 2016 Crow, Nadia Benefit concert raises money for Mukilteo shooting victims' families. Q13 Fox. August 26, 2016 Suspect initially claimed fatal Mukilteo shooting was an accident September 3, 2016. Associated Press. Seattle Times. Krueger, David. Kamiak beats Bishop Blanchet on emotional night honoring Mukilteo victims. The Seattle Times (Seattle, WA). September 3, 2016 Man texted, 'I'm killing everyone' at party, documents say. Associated Press. Fox News. August 19, 2016 Man pleads not guilty in fatal shootings at house party.Associated Press. Minneapolis Star-Tribune. August 22, 2016. Rozier, Alex. Mukilteo Strong Alliance launches Tuesday night KING TV. September 20, 2016 Influence on proposed laws Father of Mukilteo shooting victim urges lawmakers to ban assault weapons. Ted Land, KING October 9, 2016 Assault-Weapon Ban.The Seattle Times (Seattle, WA). September 12, 2016 Hamlin, Kelsey. UW researcher backs proposition to ban assault rifles. September 26, 2016. UW Daily. With Mukilteo killings in mind, state attorney general asks state to ban assault weapons September 7, 2016. Bellingham Herald Groover, Heidi. After Mukilteo Shooting, State Attorney General Proposes Ban on Assault Weapons. September 7, 2016 Cornfield, Jerry. Tired of waiting, Ferguson wants ban on assault weapon sales. September 21 2016 Assault weapons aren't the problem. Yakima Daily Sun. September 9, 2016 Influence on other subsequent events: Hefley, Diana. Teen arrested after alleged threats to shoot Kamiak students Everett Herald. October 12th, 2016 King, Rikki. Records show Brier cop was fired for performance issues. September 1, 2016 . Everett Herald. Clarridge, Christin. Brier police officer shocked he was fired for responding to Mukilteo shooting. August 18, 2016 Small, Joanna. Brier residents respond to firing of cop who left city limits to respond to Mukilteo shooting. August 17, 2016. KIRO 7. Cox Media Group. Records: Officer wasn't fired for responding to Mukilteo shooting Associated Press. Seattle Times. September 2, 2016 Mandel, Eric. Manson, Dori. Former Brier officer fired for more than just Mukilteo response August 19, 2016. MyNorthwest.com. KIRO Radio.

List of citations

*Non-local coverage:

- 3 Killed in Shooting in North Seattle. The New Nation (Dhaka, India) July 31, 2016
- Johnson, Gene. Shooting at Seattle-Area Party Leaves 3 Dead, 1 Wounded. Sunday Gazette-Mail (Charleston, West Virginia), July 31, 2016
- University of Washington identifies student killed at party. Associated Press. Boston Herald. July 31, 2016
- Statement From Gov. Jay Inslee Regarding This Morning's Shooting In Mukilteo States News Service. (July 30, 2016)
- The Latest: Documents: Shooter read gun manual before attack. Associated Press.Washington Times. August 1, 2016
- Man charged with murdering 3 at suburban Seattle party Associated Press. Oregon Live. August 2, 2016
Ongoing coverage:
- Elisa Hahn,Dash cam footage shows Mukilteo shooting suspect arrest. KING TV. August 5, 2016
- Bellisle, Martha. 'My friends might be dead' - 911 tapes of shooting released. Associated Press. August 9, 2016
- Survivor of Mukilteo shooting released from hospital Seattle Times. August 15, 2016
- Sullivan, Jennifer Decision on death penalty in Mukilteo shooting months away.KOMO News. August 22, 2016
- Crow, Nadia Benefit concert raises money for Mukilteo shooting victims' families. Q13 Fox. August 26, 2016
- Suspect initially claimed fatal Mukilteo shooting was an accident September 3, 2016. Associated Press. Seattle Times.
- Krueger, David. Kamiak beats Bishop Blanchet on emotional night honoring Mukilteo victims. The Seattle Times (Seattle, WA). September 3, 2016
- Man texted, 'I'm killing everyone' at party, documents say. Associated Press. Fox News. August 19, 2016
- Man pleads not guilty in fatal shootings at house party.Associated Press. Minneapolis Star-Tribune. August 22, 2016.
- Rozier, Alex. Mukilteo Strong Alliance launches Tuesday night KING TV. September 20, 2016
Influence on proposed laws
- Father of Mukilteo shooting victim urges lawmakers to ban assault weapons. Ted Land, KING October 9, 2016
- Assault-Weapon Ban.The Seattle Times (Seattle, WA). September 12, 2016
- Hamlin, Kelsey. UW researcher backs proposition to ban assault rifles. September 26, 2016. UW Daily.
- With Mukilteo killings in mind, state attorney general asks state to ban assault weapons September 7, 2016. Bellingham Herald
- Groover, Heidi. After Mukilteo Shooting, State Attorney General Proposes Ban on Assault Weapons. September 7, 2016
- Cornfield, Jerry. Tired of waiting, Ferguson wants ban on assault weapon sales. September 21 2016
- Assault weapons aren't the problem. Yakima Daily Sun. September 9, 2016
Influence on other subsequent events:
- Hefley, Diana. Teen arrested after alleged threats to shoot Kamiak students Everett Herald. October 12th, 2016
- King, Rikki. Records show Brier cop was fired for performance issues. September 1, 2016 . Everett Herald.
- Clarridge, Christin. Brier police officer shocked he was fired for responding to Mukilteo shooting. August 18, 2016
- Small, Joanna. Brier residents respond to firing of cop who left city limits to respond to Mukilteo shooting. August 17, 2016. KIRO 7. Cox Media Group.
- Records: Officer wasn't fired for responding to Mukilteo shooting Associated Press. Seattle Times. September 2, 2016
- Mandel, Eric. Manson, Dori. Former Brier officer fired for more than just Mukilteo response August 19, 2016. MyNorthwest.com. KIRO Radio.

The purpose of AfD is not to rope somebody else into doing this research for you. The proposer is expected to make at least a halfassed effort to find out if the nomination has a snowball's chance, and not waste the time of other editors shooting down a nomination that is dead on arrival. Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions spells all this out in even greater detail, so that AfD discussions don't need to re-post that entire package of advice and and explanation all over again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a civil question, to which I expected a civil answer. Once again, can you please identify any reliable secondary sources containing significant analysis of this event, rather than routine primary sources such as news reports about what happened on a particular day. Be selective about it rather than hide such sources among the many primary news reports that you dumped above. And you seem to be confusing me with the nominator, who I am not. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I recommend an intervention with the nominator, who has used an argument from WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to start this deletion discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there interventions for tripping over WP:AADD? Nominator does seem to have made multiple nominations in the last month that consist of "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". We can ask, please, would everyone follow the advice on that page, and the instructions at WP:BEFORE? Me included. We all make mistakes; I have made mistakes, and I will make new ones. Hopefully new, and not repeat too many old ones. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is easier said than done. Please review this diff for WP:BEFORE adequacy. Comments? Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a run of the mill shooting incident to me, no evidence of ongoing or international coverage. Seasider91 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Did you look for recent coverage? I found coverage from five days ago, October 11, in Google news, [19]. Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep Has ongoing coverage after two AfDs. Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. There's no reason to suspect that coverage will abate in the future, and WP:NTEMP anyways. GNG met, WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply to exceptional events like this. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really an exceptional event? The impression that I get from the other side of the Atlantic is that shooting incidents killing three people are all too commonplace in the United States. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just badgering. Please. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm discussing, not badgering. Please respect the right of other editors to question statements in discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I voted for the article's deletion in the previous AfD on the basis of a perceived lack of notability, and I was about to vote for its deletion again. But considering a list of references has been provided to prove the coverage is, surprisingly, still ongoing, I am now vouching for this article to be kept. It will definitely need more work, but I guess that's what the list of references is here for. Also, I agree with Dennis Bratland that the nominator has failed to provide a case for the article's deletion beyond the mere mention of WP:NOTNEWS and nothing else, which I personally find weird, but whatever. Parsley Man (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!!!!!! I just created an account now to add to this. I don't even know if I am doing this correctly. I am the stepfather of Jacob Long that was killed in this story. I want the story left as is. This is a death penalty eligible case and it will be followed closely by many people. It will be used for decades for legal cases that come up later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingaboard (talk • contribs) 05:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. This is not an apt case for an Afd. The ongoing coverage and the past sources I have reviewed provide enough scope for sustained notability. Like I said, not an apt Afd candidate. Lourdes 06:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Z Stouch[edit]

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

WP:BLP, with a decidedly advertorial/résumé slant to it, of a local law enforcement officer with no particularly strong claim of encyclopedic notability. Of the six sources here, two are primary source meeting minutes which do not assist in establishing notability per WP:GNG, one is a WP:ROUTINE table of raw election results on the county's website, and the three that are actually to real media coverage aren't about the subject: all three are about criminals, and two of them merely provide glancing namechecks of Stouch's existence while the third doesn't even do that. And for added bonus, this article was "peer reviewed" by the subject himself literally just five minutes after it was created -- which means even the original creator has to have a direct conflict of interest of some kind, because how else could Stouch have known it was here that quickly? (Plus "peer review" isn't about the subject verifying the article's accuracy or not; it's about established Wikipedians verifying the article's conformity with our rules and standards about sourcing and formatting and notability.) None of this is enough to make a township-level law enforcement officer notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An elected law enforcement officer in a township of roughly 10,000 people does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and the references in the article come nowhere near to meeting the General notability guideline, as Bearcat explained. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not even close. There is no defensible rationale for inclusion in any Wikipedia guideline or policy I am aware of, and the reasons for removal are many, as touched upon above by Cullen328 and Bearcat. Marteau (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politician way below the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. This is a PR page of a head LEO of a district of about 10,000 residents. We have always deleted articles about small-town sheriffs, and I see no change to that consensus. This badly fails WP:POLITICIAN; this is a run of the mill, local elected official. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:43, 20 October 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 Corvallis School District. No need for AfD for this, Redirection of nn primary school is not a controversial operation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoover Elementary School (Corvallis, Oregon)[edit]

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

Elementary schools aren't usually notable on their own. Support redirect to Corvallis School District. MB298 (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Girlvana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A page on an unremarkable film series that does not list any sources; no significant RS coverage can be found.

The 2010 discussion closed as Keep due to the awards. The awards, however, do not overcome the lack of RS per WP:WHYN. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our core content policy Verifiability requires that we base our articles on summarizing what reliable, third party (independent) sources say about a topic. Like the nominator, my search for such sources failed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete absence of GScholar and GBooks hits underscores the lack of significance of the claimed niche awards. This perpetually unsourced article has also never included any sources or references indicating that the claimed awards meet the NFILM standard of "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". If they did, there wouldn't be a complete void of independent reliable sourcing for its winners. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't enough coverage in reliable third party sources to write an article per WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also a delete per WP:DEL7 as the "awards" are sourced to primary sources and there are no reliable sources where this info can be verified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added since nominated; award-winning. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added are directory listings and award material; these are not RS for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sources listed now are still not actually convincing, what is then listed is also not convincing for its own convincing article; this is best mentioned elsewhere, not at its own article. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable series.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 22 October 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.