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) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darin Johnson[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD with the removal based on the rationale that the subject is "borderline notable". Subject is a basketballer who wasn't drafted at all (rather than just not as high as WP:NHOOPS would require) and is yet to play professionally. I don't see him meeting GNG at present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:HOOPS, never played in league, wasn't drafted, isn't signed to any team. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NBASKETBALL by not having played in a league or ever having been drafted. --Kbabej (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2017 (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. Borderline but with some reasonable sourcing and a lack of anybody motivated to comment on this one, no consensus seems the best option. (non-admin closure) — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Whifler[edit]

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

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

Non-notable. Single reference is LA times article that refers to work done by subject that is unverified/not cited elsewhere. Lorfuzbot (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as he does have some reliable source coverage for his music video work such as LA Times and google news search above shows a few others Atlantic306 (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2017 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Wallace Lincoln[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO; he was an 11 year old boy with no notable contributions whatsoever. Notability is not inherited. Kbabej (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert Todd Lincoln was the only really notable child of Abraham Lincoln. I propose that we merge William Wallace Lincoln, Edward Baker Lincoln, and Tad Lincoln into a single article, Descendants of Abraham Lincoln. bd2412 T 22:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per bd2412. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Willie has in depth coverage in many biographies of Lincoln as well as in scholarship on white house life (and deaths). When people are known and famed only because they are related to another person, it is important not to confuse a dictionary definition of "notability" and WP:N. Similarly, WP:INHERIT doesn't say that notability shouldn't be established using a biography of a relative or another person. Also, an article on Willie and Eddie might be a bit OR, as their lives didn't really overlap and they are often discussed separately, except sometimes when scholarship discussed the effect on their deaths on their parents. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This is quite an interesting case as a lot has been written on Willie Lincoln by academics and other authors, but probably only because he was a president's son. However his death is (unsurprisingly) said to have had an impact on Lincoln's presidency. Equally his and Tad's lives in the White House do seem to have attracted much comment by contemporaries of Lincoln. Whether this merits a separate article for Willie, or the material could simply be included in another article is a difficult call, but I would lean towards it. Dunarc (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sometimes influence goes beyond professional accomplishments - awards or records or publications or whatever. Sometimes a life is simply lived, and that life itself has notability because of its influence on others or on the culture of the day. Willie's life and his death had an influence on the President of the United States, on his conduct of the war, on the First Lady of the United States. He's been the subject of stories and articles and children's books. This reminds me a bit of Christopher McCandless, a person who, during his life, did nothing notable in the eyes of the world. But then in January 1993 a writer called Jon Krakauer wrote about McCandless in Outside magazine, and then in 1997 he wrote the book about McCandless, Into the Wild. Then there's the film based on Krakauer's books and also a documentary about Mccandleuss. So yeah...I think McCandless is notable and that Willie Lincoln is notable. Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are many, many references to Willie Lincoln and his brothers in secondary sources. In life and in death, Willie and Tad - and to a lesser extent, Willie - strongly influenced President Abraham Lincoln and his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln. If notability is reduced merely to professional accomplishments, we'd be deleting Mary Todd Lincoln as well, and that would be ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.174.212 (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think Willie's death (sadly) is the most impact reason to keep the article. The effect his death had on Lincoln is quite note worthy. I think that the death of a child has on a sitting president. That being said it might be better if the article was expanded to include information on how his death impacted the remainder of Lincoln's presidency. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:53, 15 July 2017 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Hill (Greater Victoria)[edit]

Cedar Hill (Greater Victoria) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable ill-defined neighbourhood. Cannot verify sources. NoGhost (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:44, 16 July 2017 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Ramsey[edit]

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

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

In short I planned to source this article however there's next to none sources on her, Searched Google News, Google Books as well as HighBeam[1] however there's barely anything!, IMHO TOOSOON, Fails NACTOR #2 and #3 as well as GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Jade Ramsey (her sister) for the exact same reason - IMHO TOOSOON, Fails NACTOR #2 and #3 as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (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 Wolfeboro, New Hampshire#Education. SoWhy 09:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfeboro Camp School[edit]

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

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

No media coverage and no inherent notability. Fails WP:ORG. It has little to no media coverage, and is not any significant academic institution. It feels promotional, and the article was created by the same author Hyungjoo98, who has written dozens of articles promoting the school. He has received multiple speedy deletion tags on his pages, and has deleted them all. Peapod21 (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of notability, promo. John from Idegon (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wolfeboro,_New_Hampshire#Education, where I merged a ref and where the camp/school is mentioned by name. Not enough reliable sources for a dedicated article. czar 19:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, I have not wrote any promotional material regarding the Wolfeboro Camp School. Secondly, this particular institution has notability as a notable example of a academic summer camp, which has been featured in the mainstream news ex. NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/nyregion/taking-summer-school-to-get-ahead-not-catch-up.html) Hyungjoo98 (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, its written. Now that that's aside, I have to point out the source you listed is about NMH's camp, not Wolfeboro. It mentioned it once in a fleeting notice, and never again. If I were to consider a mention of a thing to be press coverage, everything would be on Wikipedia. The article doesn't talk about the camp's merits, notability, or history, but says that a girl just happened to go there before attending a more notable camp. Please, stop promoting institutions you attend or have attended. It makes a waste of everyone's time. alphalfalfa^(talk) 01:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I could support a redirect, based on the nature of a camp as a geographic feature, not in anyway on the notability of said camp. And sorry, when every single one of an editor's edits concern a particular institution or things associated with it, and virtually all have been either reverted or deleted, the problem isn't with Wikipedia in general, it is with the particular editor, who needs to figure this out sooner rather than later. John from Idegon (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2017 (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. SoWhy 09:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mark Smith[edit]

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

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

The subject does not meet the notability standard per WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC or WP:ARTIST. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article further. I believe that my contribution within the disability arts world was notable and significant. I have included references that show my involvement. This movement helped lead to the creation and form of disability rights legislation in the U.K. So would be of interest to anyone researching this era and subject.

Best wishes

Simon Mark Smith Simon1a (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I do feel a personal connection to this article as the activism of people like Simon Smith helped make things better for disabled people in my country - but that is why I will not be voting either way on this article. While I believe that the movement itself is notable enough for an article (and such an article could certainly refer to Simon Smith), I do have to say to Simon1a that he should not be creating or editing an article on himself as autobiographies and conflict of interest editing are both against Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the edits themselves are not of an appropriate tone for an encyclopaedia article, and the citations are absolutely unacceptable - they are just copied sections of text from the reviews (that is copyright violation/plagiarism) or links to unsuitable (ie, self-published or user-created) sources such as YouTube. Rather than the autobiography of a single person involved in the movement, I would far rather see a decent article dealing with the bigger picture of the Disability rights movement in the United Kingdom. Currently, all we have is a tiny section on Disability rights movement and a pretty negligible/sketchy article at Disability in the United Kingdom). Mabalu (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - worthy cause, but I don't see evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2017 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will Ashley De Leon[edit]

Will Ashley De Leon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Yet another working actor who does not meet WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. No support from WP:RS. IMDB page just shows another working actor paying their dues, and you know it don't come easy. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not contain any references whatsoever. Has yet to meet WP:GNG --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2017 (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. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vir Unis[edit]

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

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

Non-notable composer. It appears he's done some composition for notable films but I can find no evidence that he was a major part of it and more importantly, no actual coverage of this individual under either name. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't appear to meet GNG or any automatic criteria. (no credible indication that he was a major part of any notable film work. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:13, 16 July 2017 (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. Refs added since nomination, Nominator appears to have changed their mind as well. This article seems to need to be worked on, not deleted. (non-admin closure) — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Christian[edit]

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

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

Non notable lawyer. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a great amount work done on the article in terms of refs added, but is she notable. Somebody need to come in and take a look scope_creep (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2017 (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) 22:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Jades (Canadian band)[edit]

The Jades (Canadian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Although this band includes one member who was later famous, the band itself made only one performance and no recordings. Almost all of the history section will need to be deleted because it is a copyright violation of http://www.angelfire.com/rock2/traces/pages/keeperoftheflame.html, which has had this content since at least 2001. Most of the content is not about the band anyway. Although there is mention of the band in reliable sources about Neil Young, they all give the same three of four facts mentioned here, which could be added to Young's article if desired. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What little content we can properly source about this band can be dispatched with one or two sentences in Neil Young, without needing a whole separate standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While perhaps slightly worthy of a footnote in biographical articles of the members, a "band" who had a single performance and no recordings hardly qualifies as a "band", and certainly sustains no notability based on the sources provided. The two references provided are to the same site, albeit different pages, and one page doesn't even mention them. The other the does...that's it; just mentions them. Total failure of WP:NBAND, with a slight exception with point #6. However, there's nothing to go on here as there is no material for the band, no recordings, no writeups, no reviews, nothing. The copyright violation is of course problematic, but would be wiped out by the deletion anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• PS: _Please_ do not relist this. Two weeks of presence on AfD is plenty. Another relisting will not produce anything useful. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2017 (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) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DevTernity[edit]

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

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

Deprodded without improvement. Searches turned up virtually nothing about this conference. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Based on the article this tech conference is unlikely to be notable, and there are no references supporting notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. No WP:RS provided and I could not find any good-quality ones. GretLomborg (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My own searches for reliable secondary sources turns up nothing. Fails WP:GNG. While the conference exists, they have a long, long way to go before they are notable to our standards. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above searches come up with nothing. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:23, 16 July 2017 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Patrick[edit]

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

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

I spent a good amount of time adding new references in the chance that this would pass GNG, but there are very few sources. The subject does not meet any criteria for notability as a biography, not PROF or BASIC. Here's a breakdown of the sources in the article.

1 is from an open-access, integrative medicine journal, and the info is extracted from a promo-style bio at the bottom of the text.

2 is reliable, but cited her once and does not go into any depth on her biography

3 is her PhD dissertation, and does not establish notability.

4 is the best source here, but does not go into much detail on her. The article discusses the paper she published about vit. D from the integrative medicine journal.

5-7 are articles in a magazine that each cite her for one quote. The magazine is real and seems reliable, but it doesn't do very well for notability.

I would like to point out a comment by DGG on the previous AfD that was settled as "no consensus": [2] No meaningful content to establish notability has since been added. Delta13C (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I feel the Boston Globe article plus the fact that she's a regular guest (can't get the link formatting to work) on The Joe Rogan Experience (16 million monthly downloads per its article) meets WP:NACADEMIC point 7. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Patrick has been a guest on the Joe Rogan show six times by my count. They are friends as stated in her appearances, so I'd be careful interpreting her appearances as independent of the source. The article in Boston Globe helps her notability, but this is one article covering a paper about vitamin D playing a role in serotonin production. IMO, this does not rise to the level of point 7 in WP:NACADEMIC. The bar should be much higher. Delta13C (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Google News Archive s fritzing out lately and I'm having a hard time linking to her search results. But she's mentioned in several sources I found through it. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. (I wish Google would stop breaking some of their most useful features). - Scarpy (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw all of those on previous my search, and I even did a deeper search in academic indices. I incorporated only the reliable sources, of which there are few and they do a poor job of establishing notability. The ones rejected in your list were either press releases or blogs. Delta13C (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should also add [12], [13]. Can you share the results of your search? - Scarpy (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Think Big article does not discuss her in depth, as it just links to a video. The article is completely about microbiota, and in the linked video Patrick interviews two scholars, but she is not an expert in microbiota. The second link is already cited in the article, which I added when I did my search. The results of the academic search were zero. I thought there may be academic commentaries about her research, but there were not. Thus, she still fails NACADEMIC and BASIC. Delta13C (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The first AfD was in 2015, for which I basically argued that her junior career status and vitD work were TOOSOON. In checking again, she seems to have dropped out of academia and works full time on her "Found My Fitness" business and promoting herself and her business on YouTube, Twitter, etc. No recent research papers have been published, according to both her own website and GS. Conclusive fail of PROF. I agree that the Rogan show is not independent. Also, the article itself has some problematic aspects in that it repeats some of her medical claims but sources these to glossy publications, not medical journals. Given her gigantic YouTube presence, she seems to be trying to position herself as a pop-star medical host/commentator, e.g. like Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz. But, given that she has not (yet) been noted in the same way, it is still TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with User:GretLomborg, she has had substantial impact. - Scarpy (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpy, can you be more specific on what impact she made and by how much? Delta13C (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claims made against her status so far seem biased and speculative (e.g. she's aiming to be a "pop-star medical host/commentator" and "appears to have dropped out of academia.") What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. She's been discussed multiple sources and has notable impact as a nutrition educator outside of her other academic efforts. I really don't see why this is a discussion other than that the bias of other editors sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. - Scarpy (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She runs an enormous YouTube channel having ~90,000 subscribers containing a wide collection of videos where she gives lots of advice (much of it medically related, though she has no credentials nor MD) on everything from depression to Alzheimer's to Lyme disease, psychedelic therapies, cancer, cholesterol, longevity, etc., etc. etc. She solicits crowdfunding money for FoundMyFitness, promotes herself and her advice machine across all the major social media venues...Hmm...you're right. I don't know how anyone could conclude that she's trying to be a pop-star medical commentator. The trouble with Hitchens's razor is that it doesn't apply to propositions whose truth value is obvious upon observation. Agricola44 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I think by "enormous Youtube channel" you mean that she has a lot of uploaded content rather than an "enormous" number of subscribers as 90,000 strikes me as being too low for her to be considered a notable YouTube star. jps (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely. Sorry if that was not expressed clearly. The point I tried to make is that her MO of peddling advice on a wide variety of medical issues directly to the general public (here via YouTube) is eminently consistent with one who wants to be, what I referred to above, a "pop-star medical commentator". I agree again that 90K is not very high. YouTube commentators like Josh Axe have much higher subscriber bases, but no WP art. For Rhonda Patrick, it's TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

She has not been discussed in depth by any source, but only has trivial mentions in a few sources. IMO, there is not even enough known about her to know what is not to like. Delta13C (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Not finding a lot about her (and most of the sources seem to be Outside magazine). Not a lot of published work. But there is a small amount here. She seems to be notable, to a very few people. Thus a weak delete, she maybe more notable them I am picking up, but I am just not picking it up.Slatersteven (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One well cited book and paper. Not enough for WP:Prof. Other sources are trivial mentions. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete -- WP:PROF not satisfied and unlikely to be in the future. WP:CELEBRITY not there yet either. jps (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:PROF, WP:CELEBRITY, and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per reasons stated above. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete This person is marginally notable. I respect what she is trying to do in forging a career outside of academia where her PhD is useful, but the article as it was created was promotional from the get-go, and is only getting worse in that regard. We cannot be a vehicle for promotion. I'll also add that in addition to the promotionalism here, she appears to be promoting more and more FRINGEy stuff, and that is only going to make it harder for us to keep this article NPOV, as there will be less and less reliable sourcing even addressing what she is doing. Time to delete this. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hate to jump on the pack, but yeah, not notable, no automatic criteria here. Time to axe this one. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:24, 16 July 2017 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Spurgeon Jr.[edit]

Robert H. Spurgeon Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't believe that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG. He gets mentions in sources such as this and this, but there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. From architectural history perspective, confident that Mr. Spurgeon's 33 houses in southern California does not amount to notability. Edit history suggests an axe being ground, maybe a family history axe, maybe a local history axe, maybe a real estate market axe. --Lockley (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2017 (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Baker Lincoln[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. A three-year-old who gained no notability in his own right. Notability is not conferred from famous relatives. Kbabej (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge William Wallace Lincoln, Edward Baker Lincoln, and Tad Lincoln into a single article, Descendants of Abraham Lincoln. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Wallace Lincoln (same). bd2412 T 22:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Eddie has some coverage in many biographies of Lincoln as well as in scholarship on white house life (and deaths). I am away from my desk and can't say for sure if the coverage is often in depth, but we know more about this person than perhaps any other frontier child from that era who died so young. For this reason I didn't !vote "weak keep" although the evidence isn't as clear as for Willie. As I noted in the Willie's AFD, when people are known and famed only because they are related to another person, it is important not to confuse a dictionary definition of "notability in ones own right" and WP:N. Similarly, WP:INHERIT doesn't say that notability shouldn't be established using a biography of a relative or another person. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As with the Willie Lincoln article this is a difficult call, but is even less clear cut. The big difference for me is that Willie died while Lincoln was in the White House and his death (and to an extent his life) can more clearly be argued to have had an important impact on the Lincoln presidency than Eddie's. As it stands I think the article is useful, but I am not sure if the subject meets notability in his own right. If deletion is decided upon the material should be moved elsewhere, possibly to a family of Abraham Lincoln article. Dunarc (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While Edward Baker Lincoln does not apparently fulfill the additional WP:ANYBIO parameters, he does fulfill WP:BASIC & WP:GNG. His life & his death are an important part of our understanding of Abraham Lincoln and of Mary Todd Lincoln. Shearonink (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- sufficient sourcing for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shearonink. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete or redirect to father. Well-sourced but completely NN, apart from notability inherited from father. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2017 (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. Artists being wrongly listed can be addressed by editing. Consensus is that this is an allowed navigational aid. SoWhy 09:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of progressive house artists[edit]

List of progressive house artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Indiscriminate unsourced "fan-made" list. Content not suitable for the encyclopedia as original research. - TheMagnificentist 19:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails OR, LIST. Indiscriminate, but probably okay as a category if some criteria could be established regarding the genre. South Nashua (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nominator actually created Category:Progressive house musicians, so I'm confused by this nomination. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are different from articles and don't need sources. E.g. a person who is not deceased is presumed to have the category "Living people". The category addition of "progressive house musicians" is done by referring to the information available on the articles. - TheMagnificentist 02:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that doesn't make sense. It's the same information either way. And it isn't the presence or lack of supporting sources in an article that makes a statement verifiable or OR, it's simply whether those supporting sources exist. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Category:Progressive house musicians: as noted, fails WP:LIST and WP:OR, and similar lists in the past now redirect to their respective category. Note that List of house music artists should also be redirected to a relevant category, probably Category:House musicians. Richard3120 (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LIST is an index of guidelines. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP as an index of articles complementary to Category:Progressive house musicians. The only reason we'd ever delete a list as OR is if its underlying concept is unverifiable such that membership could not be verified by RS for any entries. That clearly is not claimed here as the nominator supports (and created) the corresponding category, yet somehow thinks the same information is OR just because it's presented in a list? That's not a coherent deletion rationale, and if the information is verifiable, then sources exist and the format in which it is presented has no impact on that. If this list has erroneous entries, fix it. Generally speaking, if the category properly applies it should be included in the list as well and vice versa (and if anything, lists can be more tolerant of borderline inclusion because they can annotate where and why sources disagree on a classification). Side note: Whether this should be renamed to List of progressive house musicians to match the category (or the other way around) should be addressed once this is closed. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Postdlf: My problem with this list is that probably 90% of it is indeed unverifiable by RS for the artists' entries. Just looking at the entries under "A", Avicii has "progressive house" listed under his genres despite no references suggesting that (and indeed I think most people would be surprised to see him called a progressive house DJ), and ATB and DJ Antoine are also included despite no references to progressive house whatsoever in their respective articles. I understand your reasoning, but at the moment the article is an unreferenced and seemingly indiscriminate list of DJs of all genres, and it needs cutting down dramatically and proper criteria applied to justify its keeping. Richard3120 (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Avicii article lists progressive house in the infobox. Both Beatport and Discogs list numerous progressive house tracks by Avicii. These are the probable reasons why that artist is included. DJ Antoine is in the proghouse cat and may of been added to the list because of that. I see this artist does have some tracks that are in the proghouse category at beatport. Its both a referencing issue and a criteria determination that needs addressing before deletion. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is useful list similar to dub, downtempo and house artists. I haven't seen a reason for deletion. I can see it needs better references and in the long term possibly conversion into a table with fields, but not removal or redirect. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shiftchange: could you explain please how it is useful if it includes so many artists who shouldn't be on this list? Richard3120 (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Music genres (and therefore who, and who does not produces music in a specific genre) are fuzzy, unlike defined geographical borders, for example. If the article requires improvement in this respect we should have a discussion about criteria for inclusion. We should also move towards some consensus on reliability of sources because there is some contention about using beatport.com. I'm comfortable with having a list that not everyone agrees with but of course we should find sources to support statements. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Shiftchange: No problem – apologies if I came across as aggressive, I was just asking for some clarification on how you viewed the list. You're absolutely right about genres – when editing music articles it's an area I rarely get involved in, but it seems to account for the majority of edit wars on music articles... I find it baffling that people argue over "correct genres" but do nothing to improve the article itself. Anyway, yes, I think we should only include artists in the list who have been called "progressive house" by reliable sources, even though that often means including quite different artists (I can't hear any musical similarity whatsoever between Sasha and Swedish House Mafia, for example, but I can find references that list both as playing progressive house, so they are both included in the list). Discogs and Beatport aren't usually considered RS, so perhaps there needs to be a discussion on that. Richard3120 (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because we don't delete articles for fixable problems. You surmised that 90% is inaccurate, even assuming that's true that still leaves 10% of the current entries. That's work that may not get done for a long time, but that still doesn't weigh towards deletion, and deletion certainly doesn't help development one bit. If it's a notable genre, and if there are notable musicians that verifiably qualify as belonging to/working in that genre, then these should be listed. All else is editing, not deletion, according to policy. postdlf (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Postdlf: that's fine, I just wanted to see where we stand. So you wouldn't object if I (or anyone else) talke an axe to the list and trim it down considerably to those artists we can reliably reference? Richard3120 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's usually best not to drastically change an article while an AFD is pending. But so long as your removals are based on what we cannot source, not merely what we have not yet sourced, WP:PRESERVE is satisfied. It may also be considered reasonable to remove entries from this list (and the category) if the article does not even mention this genre. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, thank you – I won't change anything for now because otherwise it will affect the opinions of other editors who may want to comment on this AfD but will see a completely different article from the one that was put up for deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Progressive house musicians. Also meets WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational aid. For example:

• The list article has received 1,996 page views in the last 30 days, whereas
• The category page has received only 141 page views in the last 30 days.

– Concerns about verification, etc. can be addressed by copy editing the article and adding sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 16 July 2017 (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. There is no consensus to delete this. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Gard treatment controversy[edit]

Charlie Gard treatment controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This (article at the time of this nomination) is really Wikipedia at its worst. NOTNEWS and TOOSOON are relevant here. This is completely 24-hours news cycle driven and most of the article is WP:COATRACK/OFFTOPIC/CRYSTALBALL hype about the investigational treatment that is ~proposed~ to be given to this poor kid. Not to mention the BLP/privacy issues for the kid and his family. Not to mention the gossip about Trump's latest tweeting. Delete and salt. We can create an article on this in a year or two when there is something encyclopedic to say, if there is anything. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with jytdog's reasoning.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• note - I have trimmed to this, which makes it even more clear that this hijacked Wikipedia page is blow-by-blow recording of news. Not what we do here - not an encyclopedia article. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:GNG. This has received widespread international coverage and both Pope Francis and Donald Trump are involved. Apparently, now congressional legislation has been introduced to make Charlie Gard a U.S resident so he can receive this experimental treatment in the U.S.[14] The controversy has been widely discussed regarding bioethical issues such as right to die with dignity as well as parental rights. Clean up and fix the article instead of deleting. --DynaGirl (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That it is "hot news" is irrelevant. You also say nothing about the BLP issues here, which are very relevant. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure I see BLP violations in the previous or stripped down version of the article but I brought the issue to WP:BLPN to get more eyes on it.--DynaGirl (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's time WP:NOTNEWS was taken seriously, particularly for grief-porn gossip like this. Alexbrn (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grief porn. hm. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS Elvisbrandenburgkremmen (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as it seems to be becoming an important, notable, medical ethics case per WP:GNG. As I read it now, it seems to have been trimmed to make it more encyclopedic, and an article will be needed at some point. But it will need careful attention as it is is essence a BLP, and to avoid more, non-neutral day-to-day updates.Jrfw51 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome...Seems an acceptable recommendation if link is maintained in this article. However, I do not agree is OFFTOPIC and CRYSTALBALL to include scientific references from EMBO Journal and PNAS (deleted several times today, WHY??) that are relevant for the case from a medical point of view. Scientific censorship is acceptable in Wikipedia? DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2017‎ (UTC) — DoctorBiochemistry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep WP:NOTNEWS says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" This is getting 4000 hits a day. People are expecting us to cover it somewhere. There are lots of decent news sources dealing with this controversy so I would call it a significant current event. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There's a possibility this might become notable, but the existing controversy definitely is not. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. With around 4000 hits per day it should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not be opposed to merging to the disease article and keeping the WEIGHT there minimal. That, or delete. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it was a mistake to create this article so soon. But now that it was created we can cover it at Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. If it gets too long in about 6 months or a year then it will end up being unmerged. It may get longer because of the Trump-effect. Articles like this can be difficult to write. The line between news and MEDRS can get blurred for new editors. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could close the AFD discussion and move it to a draft page and briefly mention it in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Then redirect the page to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome to the appropriate section. QuackGuru (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's an idea but with something that raises passions like this, as well as with the vocal presence of people who confuse Wikipedia with some kind of semi-gussied-up current-events blog, we need a consensus decision to have something stable. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Depending on the close, you may be able to add it to a draft page with a brief mention in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. With this much recent news new editors need a place to edit. You don't want all the mess added to the Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it doesn't seem like a good option to merge with Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome because it seems most of the reliable source coverage regarding this controversy is not specific to the disease, but rather regarding right to die with dignity vs parental rights etc. It involves bioethical issues regarding who decides (or should decide) if treatment is continued or discontinued. The coverage heavily involves the political issues such as Donald Trump's involvement and the proposed congressional legislation to make Charlie Gard a U.S resident so he can receive this experimental treatment in the U.S. The sourcing also heavily involves religious issues such as Pope Francis' involvement and religious objections to ending life support. None of this would fit well in the Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome article. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, issues such as Pope Francis' and President Trump's involvement and the controversy would be lost if the article were merged to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, but, one can argue that that loss would be a GOOD thing, because all that stuff is disapproved by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON, with the caveat that editors are welcome to undelete once the child has died and there are considered secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The case could very easily find a place in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome it would also add the ethics of life/death that unfortunately have come with this case and condition, to those reading the article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, and make sure a search for "Charlie Gard" redirects there. (Just my humble opinion/suggestion). HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this doesn't seem out of place in List of medical ethics cases or its corresponding template. The substance, the degree of international notice, and the weight of legal precedent being set seem comparable to the Schiavo case and similar. Chris Smowton (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the original Charlie Gard article is an excellent short summary, quite neutral in tone, and is NOT too soon. The parents have publicized their campaign, they have raised 1.3 million Pounds for the US treatment, and organized a 350,000 signature petition just handed in to 10 Downing Street (home of UK Prime Minister May); so they are not going to object to (in fact they would support) a Wikipedia article; whether published before or after death does not matter in this case. The article should be retained in its current format, updated as current events change - eg there will need to be an update to cover the 10 July court case decision discussing new evidence indicating that nucleoside therapy may indeed work (10% chance). User:anthonyb-uk 09:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's received extensive news coverage over a significant period of time and internationally, but it also involves important issues of English law, such as it's likely to be of continuing relevance. Could do with more explanation of legal issues. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • as Jyt indicated we are NOTNEWS,.. however(reiterating what I indicated above), the case could very easily find a place in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, it would also add the ethics of life/death that unfortunately have come with this case and condition, to those reading the article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying not to repeat myself, as others are doing, but I think this is notable for the legal ethical issues raised regarding parental-clinician-court decisions rather than what it adds to the entry about the the syndrome. Jrfw51 (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not "Wikipedia at its worst." The issue is not going away but getting bigger and is on its way to becoming a landmark case. – Athaenara ✉ 14:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is WP at its worst. And "becoming a landmark case" is a 100% CRYSTALBALL claim. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - similar to the Ashya King case and the other cases in Template:Medical_ethics_cases. I don't see what makes this case any different. Smurrayinchester 15:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This is Terri Schiavo's state-sanctioned murder all over again, only this time it's in the UK. We need to keep this article up, per Athanenara and Colapeninsula !  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 15:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an absolutely facile nomination. The topic meets WP:GNG by a country mile, has been discussed in the UK parliament and in the UK Supreme Court, and has involved both Pope and POTUS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an internationally notable legal and medical-ethics issue, the enduring nature of which has been established, so NOTNEWS doesn't apply. The White House and Vatican are involved; there may be an attempt to make the boy an American permanent resident. Charlie Gard treatment controversy and Charlie Gard have had over 42,500 hits since 30 June. A merge with the disease isn't appropriate, because it's about parental rights and the individual versus the state, not about the disease. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, this case and its ramifications are far too important to be treated as a footnote/paragraph in a page about an obscure disease – Athaenara ✉ 16:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Others have put it much better than I, but it is clear to me that this is a case of international significance and importance. It is far from driven by a 24-hour news cycle: this issue has been at the height of controversy for many months and it will continue to be discussed for many more months to come. Specto73 (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has received wide coverage from all over the world Spiderone 17:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to re-iterate - the fact that we are getting !votes giving similarities to "Terri Schiavo's state-sanctioned murder" as a putatively policy-based reason to !keep this article - in other words, that are very clear that this page in WP should be part of an advocacy effort to "save Charlie" - shows that it will be impossible to maintain any kind of neutrality here, especially in light of this being breaking news with no sources that have any distance from the unfolding events. To the extent that there are serious medicolegal and ethical issues here, scholarly sources summarizing them are not available here and now, in the heat of this moment. WP is not and cannot be used as a vehicle for advocacy for any side of this dispute, and people's efforts to do so, exactly violate BLP. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Since you quoted me , I'll respond:

I didn't vote keep to advocate, that's not Wikipedia's place. I voted keep so that we can report the reliably - sourced facts in this case, and because it's important and has world-wide ramifications. I would not and will not use Wikipedia to advocate anything , that would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view . Reporting the reliably - sourced facts (via reliably sourced information ) would not.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 19:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:KoshVorlon you have now simply misrepresented what you actually wrote which was, in its entirety *KEEP This is Terri Schiavo's state-sanctioned murder all over again, only this time it's in the UK. We need to keep this article up, per Athanenara and Colapeninsula !. It is almost impossible for a !vote to be less policy-based and more advocacy-based than that, complete with all-caps, bolding, exclamation points, and nonencyclopedic reference to a related case. This kind of fundamental violating of the principles and policies that allow Wikipedia to function at all (first ignoring WP policy in !voting, and then misrepresenting that !vote), are again why we should delete this article - topics like this are not encyclopedic fodder while they are unfolding. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog So, it looks like you didn't read my statement very well, I made a declarative statement then said keep per the reasons given by Athaneara and Colapenisula, both of which, especially, Colapenisula's , is very much policy based. Yes, I have a POV on this article and on Terri Schiavo's article which is why I've been observing a voluntary TBAN on both articles.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 20:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply but I will not continue this. We have both said our piece. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I googled Charlie Gard, and was very very happy to see that Wikipedia had an article on it. Much better quality info and a better overview than the "news" sites. DlronW (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject (Charlie) has now become notable. If treatment is successful he will become a James Phipps, who as a child was used as medical guinea pig and helped to advance medical science. Aspro (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I decry the way our society has turned this case into a huge issue, but nevertheless that is what has happened. This is a big event, with repeated headlines across multiple newspapers over an extended period of time. We should cover it. Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I dislike this article, the news coverage and the way the issue has been handled in almost every way, except by GOS and the courts themselves.

That said, I cannot see any way in which this article doesn't meet WP standards for inclusion. Delete it for reasons of basic human decency (which isn't a thing on WP), but there is no WP policy reason to delete it, and that's what we have to base this decision on. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Important case involving parental rights. Been front page in several newspapers and has attracted comments from U.K. parliament, the Vatican and the Whitehouse. Hence not low key. However perhaps changes to current article be suspended until after on going court case has been decided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.223.243 (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2017 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Shiny Planet[edit]

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

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

This series is not notable. There are no BSP-specific references in the article. The series had a short lifespan and doesn't have enough coverage or success in Christian media. LABcrabs (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2017 (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/2017 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 19:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There may be information out there about Big Shiny Planet, but as it stands, none of the four references are anything to do with the company, and the list of artists are presumably the artists whose music was used in the teaching materials – they were not signed to or affiliated with BSP in any way at all, so it's misleading to list them here. Richard3120 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you. For example, taking just BarlowGirl, only one song was featured on Big Shiny Planet (BSP): "Grey". In contrast, the band's Secret Keeper Girl (SKG) devotional sampled about a dozen of songs and at least three were connected to the teachings. I have to question the entire raison d'être of the BSP article. It was very short to begin with and I wouldn't be surprised if BSP itself was behind it and other BSP mentions on Wikipedia. --LABcrabs (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2017 (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) 22:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karmjot Uppal[edit]

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

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. One published book without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One link to Amazon doesn't an independent source make. This is borderline a speedy delete. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Teenager, who compiled book of quotes and published it by himself on Amazon. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2017 (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) 22:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivals of European Public Broadcasting[edit]

Rivals of European Public Broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was declined for WP:G1, perhaps not unreasonably, but is one of a number of nonsensical articles created by the same editor. It is unclear what the subject is, unsourced, and tells us that "Rivals of European Public Broadcasters were Beating The 5 Majority Broadcasters in European Union were BBC,ARD,NPO,ITV,SRG SSR these Broadcasters Were all 5 other than European Broadcasters otherwise Main Rivals Contains Pillages more than €10,000,000 Revenues Allowing for Producing Programs". Perhaps it is supposed to be an essay? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is hard to understand, and I'm not sure it describes an actual topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article fails WP:NOTDIR as it is a simple listing of competitors (of European Public Broadcasting) in addition to not making any sense as already mentioned. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:47, 9 July 2017 (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. A move to the hoax museum should be asked for on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Abner[edit]

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

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

Probable hoax article. See Talk:Henry Abner#No external record of any of these novels for unsuccessful efforts to substantiate the article's content. Deor (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Henry Abner (without leaving behind a redirect), as this has survived for long enough to be included as a subpage to our "repository" of hoax articles. From the talk page discussion it's clear that the subject is not mentioned in any of the sources that were checked. I've pesonally tried verifying two of the references, without success. – Uanfala 18:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. I'm new to Wikipedia, and not quite sure how this works, but I've been spending some time this weekend looking at this and thought it would be useful to list what I've found. If this is the wrong place or way to do that, please let me know.

A) There is no record of any pre-2016 book by a Henry Abner on worldcat, the British Library catalogue, Amazon, or Abebooks. This includes all of the supposed novels listed.

B) The 'Crime, Mystery, & Gangster Fiction Magazine Index' of pulp fiction authors contains no mention this author existing.

C) None of the 'references' that can be verified of the article contain any reference to an author called a Henry Abner. (Full details on article's talk page)

D) None of the references that have been checked make any reference to the short stories they are cited as discussing.

E) Two sources, in particular, are repeatedly cited: 'Sampson, Robert (1988). Yesterday's Faces' and 'Gerould, K.F. (August 3, 1935). "Murder for Pastime". Saturday Review of Literature: 33.' Both have been checked and neither contain any reference to a Henry Abner, or the supposed works presented in the article.

F) No google search of the titles of the short stories by me or a couple of other editors has yet turned up any positive id of their existence.

G) Some claims about the existence of the stories are flatly counter-factual. Most notably, the 1925 editions of Flynn's do not contain the short story attributed to them, and no issue of Flynn's contains any reference to a Henry Abner.

H) The article was predominantly the creation of a single author (PulpFan35), who originally included an image of a different author before later changing the article image to the present one.

I) The present article image appears to be a doctored image from this source.

It's my feeling that the article contains no notable factual information and should be deleted.Landscape repton (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: J) Two more of the references have been checked and found wanting. The full archive of Publishers Weekly is text-searchable and contains no reference to a Henry Abner in any edition. New York Libraries ceased publication nearly two years before the supposed edition cited by the article. Details on the talk page of the article.

At this stage, every reference cited to attest to Henry Abner as an author has been found to be misrepresented, and contains no reference to such a figure. These constitute 19 of the 25 footnotes. Landscape repton (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 20:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a hoax. His alleged first novel, Death Wears Yellow Garters, is a title Raymond Chandler made up in his essay "The Simple Art of Murder"[15][16] (though Rae D. Magdon was inspired to use the title much later). None of the other writing claims hold water either. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep :Original poster of the aforementioned Imgur album here. Apologies if my formatting is incorrect, as I'm brand new to Wikipedia. I can assure you that Henry Abner Sturdivant was indeed a real person. Our family records back up the claims about his personal life, law enforcement career, and death. The images I posted in the Imgur album were scans of newspaper clippings personally collected by the family. Several of these newspaper articles are verifiable by checking the archives of the respective papers. I personally found a number of references to the Sturdivant family (and their service as chiefs of police of both Washington and Atlanta, Georgia) within the historic archives of the Atlanta Journal Constitution (here's one example abstract, the full articles are unfortunately behind a paywall: abstract). The Washington newspaper archives are significantly harder to track down, as they seem to only exist in mirofiche form within the Washington/Wilkes County library (and the last few times I tried to access them the viewing machine was not operable). I can also verify that portrait of HA Sturdivant posted here is from the family archives. It was indeed created from the newspaper photo, but was done so at the time of Sturdivant's death, for use at his funeral. Apparently, it was the only professionally taken photograph of him that was accessible or possibly that was ever taken. As far as the writing career goes, it was all news to us (Sturdivant's ancestors), as I mentioned in the Imgur post. We were happy to learn about something exciting and new about our ancestor, but from the looks of things here it might seem that the information given to us has not been the most factual. Bramicles (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if he was a real person. The problem is he's not a real, notable person, certainly not as an WP:AUTHOR nor as the police chief of Washington, Georgia (pop. c. 4k today). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image's use on this page is still odd. It was uploaded by a user named TheJanosCorporation as their 'Own Work' on Nov 1 2016. That's almost two months before it first appeared on Imgur by a user named Bramicles on Dec 29 2016. Landscape repton (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion is the first participation on Wiki by User:Bramicles. Carrite (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems clear that a lot of information in this article is incorrect. Eagleash (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. I find the presentation of investigation on the talk page to be compelling. Carrite (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having looked through the various investigations here and at the talk page, it is a reasonably safe bet that this is a Hoax. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:37, 16 July 2017 (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. Notability of the subject is clearly established. (non-admin closure) — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Fink (psychoanalyst)[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG, PROF South Nashua (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Dr. Bruce Fink is the foremost interpreter of Lacan in America. He is the author of six books on Lacan (which have been translated into many different languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, German, Polish, Croatian, Greek, Turkish, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese). His books have been published by top-notch academic publishers like Harvard University Press, Princeton University Press, Polity etc. Here are links to some secondary sources which establish his importance:

• i) Interview One with Psych Central
• ii) Interview Two with Freud Museum
• iii) Lacan Online cites him as the author of one of the best introductions to Lacan
• iv) Review of Fink's book Lacan on Love in the journal Radical Philosophy
• v) Review of the book Lacan to the Letter in International Journal of Baudrillard Studies
• vi) Research article published on his work in the journal Filozofski Vestnik
• vii) Interview with him in the journal Contemporary Psychoanalysis

He has also given talks on Lacan and conducted workshops with Lacanian psychoanalysts are various places:

• Toronto
• Pittsburgh
• Portland, Oregon.

This is enough to establish his notability per WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLAR Mohanbhan (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this is what Google Scholar shows. The very first book in the list has been cited 769 times! He is notable beyond dispute. Mohanbhan (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. South Nashua (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. South Nashua (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. South Nashua (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mohanbhan. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mohanbhan. No question on this subject's notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2017 (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. The redirect's target's AfD can proceed at its own pace. GoldenRing (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Vidis[edit]

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

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

Looks unremarkable and fails pornbio. If the program is notable then redirect there. Otherwise delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for those involved in the creation of pronography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kiki's American Adventure - There does not appear to be enough readily-available sourcing about the subject here for a stand-alone article at this time. Guy1890 (talk)
• Redirect to Kiki's American Adventure. This article fails WP:PORNBIO on its own. --Kbabej (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am striking my 'redirect' vote above. Having looked at Kiki's American Adventure, I do not think the film is notable enough to stand as an article on its own either. I think this article and the film's article should therefore be deleted. --Kbabej (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have nominated Kiki's American Adventure for deletion here. --Kbabej (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kiki's American Adventure. Even if the show is non-notable as well, as long as the article exists, it's a valid redirect target and if it happens to be deleted, the redirect will be deleted as well anyway. Regards SoWhy 09:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per SoWhy. - TheMagnificentist 12:27, 17 July 2017 (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. Much of the discussion is spent on discussing the POV of the article, which should happen on the talk page - also, whether the plot was indeed driven by ISIS or not is not really related to notability. Anyhow, it seems like most of the opinions are keeps so going for that Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson[edit]

2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Single event with no historical significance or lasting notability. Texbook example of WP:NOTNEWS. Another article created by an editor with a history of creating articles that reflect negatively on Muslims or Islam. CrispyGlover (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Crispy; just fyi, it is common courtesy to notify article creator when an article is taken to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really a big enough event to warrant an article- Almost all the sources are not actually about it. Maybe merge/add a mention of the event under some other article - do we have a 'sectarian violence in Sweden' page this could go on? --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 17:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be misleading. This attack was directed remotely by ISIS, it was not confined to "sectarian violence in Sweden", but, rather, is one of a number of ISIS attacks on Shia communities and mosques worldwide, now sourced in article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In light of these sources and your points, It's clear to me that this ought to be a Keep. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Amusingly, Trump's assertion last winter that this attack was "under-reported" was probably true at the time, but the attack has since undergone several rounds of international coverage: 1.) in response to Trump's remarks, 2.) as part of a wave of international coverage of Islamic violence in what had hitherto been regarded as the peaceful Swedish utopia by an international media that was genuinely shocked by the 2017 Rinkeby riots in February, 3.) as the trial got underway in March 2016 and when it concluded in early June, 2017, 4.) in the context of the May 2017 attack on a mosque near Stockholm, and 5.) in late June 2017 when an arrest in Germany made it clear that this was indeed an ISIS attack. (That last round of coverage prompted me to write this article. Well, that, plus my horror over course of several years as what I still think of fondly as the idyllic old port town of Malmo descended into third-world levels of crime, smuggling, lawlessness, poverty, and gang violence.) And oh yes, after being acquitted by Swedish courts on all counts, the perp is back in jail and facing a second trial that will inevitably produce a new round of international coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgot to mention that ISIS quickly claimed this attack, describing it as the Islamic State's first attack in Scandinavia. The claim was dismissed at the time. But it was true and is now part of this attack's notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you need to read the source about the arrest in Germany more carefully. IF proven, it proves that someone in Europe contacted the perp and reported to Amaq AFTER the event. If proven it would show that ISIS have 'reporters'/ verifiers in Europe. There is no suggestion in the source of active involvement in planning the event. Pincrete (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC) … … ps could you please provide a source that the original accused is "is back in jail and facing a second trial", because the source given mentions a different person accused of 'reporting' for Amaq, it says nothing about the original accused. Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nom's assertion that this attack is a "Texbook example of WP:NOTNEWS" with "no historical significance or lasting notability." serves to demonstrate Nom's utter failure to perform WP:BEFORE, while the remainder of his skimpy justification for deletion demonstrates the WP:IDONTLIKEIT motivation of this nomination. In fact, this is the inverse of a NOTNEWS event; there was hardly any coverage when this attack occurred, a tiny blip in coverage a couple of weeks later when ISIS claimed it as an historic first, then, starting about February 2017, a steady drumbeat of international coverage as I detail in my note above.Note also that there will be a second trial and that no coverage in Swedish or languages other than English has yet been added to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per extensive national and international coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no keep/delete opinion at present, however the article title is very PoV. The present legal position is that this is not terrorism and therefore cannot be ISIS related. The most recent sources do NOT claim a relationship to ISIS, they merely claim that an individual in Germany has been arrested for 'reporting' and 'verifying' on behalf of ISIS after this -and other - attacks occurred, by contacting individuals on social media. ISIS involvement is therefore at present very questionable. Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In factwhat sources state is that after a Swedish court acquitted the perp despite the fact that he had ISIS flags and similar all over his personal computer and online footprint. then, in June 2017 an ISIS operative was arrested in Germany and German police released information showing that the ISIS operative was in regular contact with the terrorist who committed the Malmo arson attack before the attack took place and immediately after the event. Perp claimed to be carrying out the attack on behalf of ISIS and teh known ISIS operative immediately claimed credit for the attack online via Amaq News Agency. It's all in article linked fomr page. Here's a snippet form the New York Times story "this does show that they clearly have someone, who is one of their guys, and who is getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our name."E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the man in Germany is accused of is contacting AFTER the event to verify, not "being in regular contact with' as you claim: Mohammad G. contacted his source after the attack to confirm details of what had happened, according to the statement. .... Another expert says: There was an assumption all along that at least a small chunk of ISIS media is run by people in the West,” said Amarnath Amarasingam, ..... “This is an interesting confirmation of something people always suspected. So it’s quite important. ... running a media operation for ISIS does not mean running a terrorist operation for ISIS. Nor is there anywhere any suggestion that the original perp has been or will ever be re-tried (is that even possible in Swedish law?).

The whole quote you give a 'snippet' of is "“We’ve all assumed that they are reading news reports, and then saying, ‘Our guy did this.’ But this is interesting because this does show that they clearly have someone, who is one of their guys, and who is getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our name” .... "in our name" does not mean done by us nor with our involvement. … 'One of their guys' refers to the verifier, not the perp … this is a single speculation by a single individual at this stage. However you are happy to present it as fact in WP's voice both here and in the article and the title. Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• go back and reread. they were in regular contact before the attack, an attack that security services and security analysts are taking as demonstrating not only that the speedy, post attack Amaq claims that have been as regularly initially doubted as they have been speediy verified, are actually the consequence of ISIS inistigated, inspired and directed attacks that Amaq and other ISIS websites claim witamazing speed and accuracy because they were in contackt with the attackers. PINCRETE, we can all see that you WP:DONTLIKEIT, but you WP:DISRUPT discussions when you repeatedly make claims without reading the sources carefully.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if what you say were true (which it plainly isn't), when did an - as yet untested - allegation, become an established fact to be stated in WP voice. Guilty until proven innocent? Pincrete (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would an uninvolved editor please read the above and verify whether this source does indeed confirm that .... "the subsequent arrest of an Amaq News Agency operative in Germany demonstrated that the attack was directed by the Islamic State" . The edit has BLP implications in that it effectively claims that a person is guilty, whom a Swedish court has found innocent and a person in Germany is guilty who has not yet been tried.Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we keep the talk on whether to change the name confined to said article's talk page, instead of here?--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Diamond: I think this discussion between Pincrete and Gregory is more about whether or not the sources are being expressed accurately and appropriately in the article. There looks like there could be serious BLP issues and false claims made in the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is that really relevant to the discussion of notability? --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the talk page. /Julle (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Diamond: it depends. If you read into the incident as it stands now, the arson was not terror related (or at least has not been confirmed by RS). Do you consider an act of arson that caused no casaulties, minor damage, and had no long-term WP:LASTING impact as notable?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still see it as notable due to the accusations of ISIS involvement, and the Trump link.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my own defence, I was concerned that false claims made here (eg "The perp is back in jail and facing a second trial that will inevitably produce a new round of international coverage") and in the article (that there is now proof of ISIS involvement), could affect the outcome of this discussion. Having made that point, I will continue on talk.) Pincrete (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The evidence for this being an ISIS terror attack was tested in court and found wanting. This hasn't been treated as a major event of international importance in Malmö, where it happened. I see few sign of lasting relevance. But that's always difficult to see so soon, of course, so I could be mistaken. /Julle (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You MISSED the recent international news story, sourced her to a major story in the New York Times that emerged AFTER the trial ended demonstrating that this was an ISIS attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that I missed it as that I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't label something an ISIS attack based on an in court untested statement from a prosecutor, reported in another language in a newspaper on another continent. I wouldn't call that verified, nor – at the moment – verifiable. /Julle (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2017 (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. With the exception of the article's creator, unanimous agreement to delete, mostly based on WP:NOTNEWS. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Basirhat communal violence[edit]

2017 Basirhat communal violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apart from WP:NOTNEWS, the article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of sources which includes opinion pieces as well. Jionakeli (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands. I'm rather uncomfortable with us having an article entirely about a negative aspect of a living person especially when that person is a minor, the "crime" in this case is unproven, and the incident seems recent enough that the details are probably still unknown. Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (I'm creator of article) (1)Article rewritten and re-titled, hope it addresses Vanamonde93's concerns. (2) The article's subject is notable, the subject's impact is serious, one person has died already and reverberates nationwide, and permanent and ongoing, relates to chain of events related to Freedom of expression controversies, such as Charlie Hebdo shooting, Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy etc.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. --regentspark (comment) 18:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Page has been moved to Souvik Sarkar Facebook post controversy by its creator. Ajf773 (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated according to move. Jionakeli (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style." The subject of the article in question is certainly not WP:NOTNEWS

I think you missed "Who's who" point. Also 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Jionakeli (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Who's who" is not related as subject of article isn't Souvik Sarkar, the post is part of a series of violent attacks on FOE in various countries over the years, considering that it has been reported internationally, and has resulted in one at least one death. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any connection of it with "series of violent attacks on FOE in various countries over the years". If "Who's who" not related then why the title itself mentions Souvik Sarkar? You added this source of "police arresting a person for sharing a fake image from a movie as the image of the communal violence" for this edit. It is WP:CHERRY. Jionakeli (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't see" is OR, A TOI and it as a FOE issue, compares it with other such FOE issue,[17][18]

• Comment - I find WP:CHERRY after reading all the sources. There are sources such as[19]. Jionakeli (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Vanamonde93, I see you urged the creator to move the article to a non-BLP violating name; they didn't do that. I moved it to 2017 Basirhat communal violence, without a redirect, obviously leaving a whole lot of dead links; I'd appreciate your help in solving that issue. I agree, BTW, that the title was unacceptable, and I'm baffled that User:Yogesh Khandke didn't comply immediately; perhaps they need to be notified of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did this title violate BLP guidelines? Be kind enough to explain. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used to "Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy" as model. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know: bad choice. Lars Vilks is a notable person, and an adult to boot. He's not a schoolboy who is accused of having posted something on Facebook. Should have listened to Vanamonde. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Someone needs to fix this deletion discussion page since it points to a non-existent article. --regentspark (comment) 21:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one of the problems with fixing BLP violations, User:RegentsPark: 2017 Basirhat communal violence. If you know how to solve it, go for it. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a clear violation of the Wikipedia is not news policies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for closing administrator - The article has been renamed to 2017 Basirhat communal violence from Arrest of Souvik Sarkar. The delete votes came before that. Drmies who moved the page didn't use the appropriate title. If any editor searches as "Baduria communal riots", This has been going on for days passes WP:EVENT: Kartik Ghosh; Facebook Baduria.Marvellous Spider-Man 15:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, not all delete votes came after the move. You can ask Drmies for the appropriateness of the page title. The article as it stands is WP:CFORK. There are no sources relating this to "Events relating to freedom of expression" or "Cultural depictions of Muhammad". Few months ago there were similar incident of riots over facebook post in Odisha on April 7, 2017: Communal violence over Facebook post in Bhadrak; Communal tension erupts after offensive Facebook post on Hindu deities and the event is still being covered after 2 months: OHRC seeks govt report on Bhadrak clashes; Clash-hit Bhadrak gears up for celebrations Jionakeli (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply- Keep your political agenda to yourself. Don't bring your POV dispute here by showing links to some other article. You can create article about Bhadrak riots to please yourself. Did you create article about lynching of Mohammed Ayub Pandith yet? as you created other articles about lynching. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not lecture me on what to create and what not to. I didn't ask you to keep your political agendas to yourself when you selectively made comments on AFD. The links aren't unrelated because violence over facebook posts are not new in India and it happened irrespective of caste or creed.Jionakeli (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Marvellous Spider-Man, two admins considered the title to be a BLP violation. If the creator had listened, these page moves wouldn't have been happening during the AfD, and it's possible that it might be under a different name. Personally I don't care for the title one way or another, whether this one or "Baduria communal riots"; you and the creator could have been involved in that, but the creator chose to replace one BLP violation with another. The current title comes from one of the sources, so it can't be all that wrong, unless of course you know better than the sources. As for your "note" to the closing admin--I've already placed that note, but thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I've gone through wp:BLP one more time after your remarks. Especially privacy of names, considering the emphasis of the subject being a juvenile by you, reliable sources haven't "intentionally concealed his name" and his name has been "widely disseminated" in reliable sources, also WP:CRIME and the issue of victimisation doesn't apply, because incident related to person who put up the post, has been discussed as a victim of continuation of violation of FOE,[20][21] we have an article about a juvenile in a similar situation Rimsha Masih blasphemy case, please say why this article be treated differently. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD is not the place to discuss this, but I'll tell you that the opening paragraph of the larger section (WP:AVOIDVICTIM) and the BLP1E section give us admins more than enough latitude to consider the original name a violation. You should have looked at the policy when you were first asked about it. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read then and am re-reading now. (1)WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't apply imo, it says "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization", as I've mentioned it above, neither the content nor the tone of article indicates victimisation of the FB poster, just as Rimsha Masih blasphemy case doesn't seek or perpetuate victimisation of Rimsha Masiah, (2) wp:BLP1E, "Subjects notable only for one event", would apply if Sarkar had been the subject of the article, which he isn't, his Facebook post was. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that latter argument, which is pure nonsense, were accepted, you shouldn't have a problem with taking the name out the first time around. Plus, you're wrong: it's the controversy, not the Facebook post that's the subject of the article. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Please maintain decorum and keep this debate civil, please do not attack personally, we are all here to contribute constructively to this project, to the best of our abilities. As creator and major contributor,[22] imho it is controversial incidents related to teenage boy, Souvik Sarkar's FB post that are the subject of this article, incidents such as the burning of his house, his arrest, demands that he be handed over for stoning to death, posters demanding that he be hanged, arson, damage and looting of public and private property, violence against individuals and the killing of one person Kartik Das, all in protest of his post, also that Sarkar is a victim of an attack on his FOE, victim of society and the government, and this has been considered bad for democratic society... (sources for above statements provided in article, as inline citations) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for telling you that you're wrong. Stop playing the victim here. Drmies (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that there is discussion related to merging on this article's talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The demands for stoning to death, to be hanged are all "alleged" reported by few primary news sources. The event is not limited to a single facebook post of a morphed image[23]. The Citizen (India) gives a good insight[24]. An investigation has been ordered to find "who had created the trouble and who spread the rumours"[25] so unless you have sources that support your views, these all are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article 2017 Baduria riots already covers the event. I don't see a need for a separate article on the same event. Jionakeli (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2017 (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) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Thompson (Canadian)[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a journalist and non-winning candidate for political office, with no strong or well-sourced claim of notability for either endeavor. Journalists do not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist, but must attain certain specific standards of achievement and sourceability for an article to become earned -- and non-winning candidates for office are not notable for that fact at all, but may have articles only if they already cleared another notability standard for another reason. But the referencing here is based mainly on primary sources (his own WordPress blog, press releases, YouTube videos, a directory of his own writing on the website of a publication he wrote for, etc.) that cannot support notability at all -- while the fewer sources that are acceptably reliable ones entail two pieces of the routine level of purely local coverage that an election candidate is simply expected to generate in that election's local media, one glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article that isn't about him, and one article in the publication he wrote for, which is thus not independent of him. So none of the sourcing here is good enough to get him over WP:GNG, and nothing claimed in the article hands him an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of enough quality sourcing to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Subject has not received enough national attention or achievement to be notable yet. ThePortaller (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed/Delete. Not a notable subject. No outstanding achievements that qualify under WP:NOTE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable failed political candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not seeing anything particularly good here. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:42, 16 July 2017 (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. SoWhy 09:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI[edit]

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

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

A local activist. An article is deliberately overloaded with references. Those I looked into, do not even mention him. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Dear ArtHistorian1977, ::Please see, the following news paper, journal and television links for the subject's notability. 
1. http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/

2. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-conflict-ridden-kashmir--55615

3. http://www.millenniumpost.in/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-kashmir-161286?NID=324516
4.  https://web.archive.org/web/20160504121401/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/tourism-ministry-honours-mushtaq-pahalgami/184695.html 
5. https://www.upstreamjournal.org/2016/07/le-cachemire/

and

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF2PEYXWAKw

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1CXYd7W5I

(Also see the complete list of 111 references cited below as 'Full list', which fully meets the core Wikipedia policy values of NPOV, Verfiablity and notability.. and let me know exactly which one do you think dosen't mention the subject Mushtaq Pahalgami/Mushtaq Ahmad/Mushtaq Ahmad Magrey) regards, Samar khurshid (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete Hi all, I had created this page (Mushtaq Pahalgami) in 2014 and it had gradually built it over the years. I was trying to merge it with another page that belongs to the organization that this person represents (Himalayan Welfare Organization, Pahalgam). This article got deleted by mistake and I have thus created this new page with the same name and content. There are certain refernces that appeared in more than 1 sources on the same day, hence the repetition, would be very grateful if the community could kindly approve for publishing. Thanks and Regards, Samar Samar khurshid (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article is filled with crappy reference spam, and presents no clear case of notability. The page title is also mis-capitalized. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Please take a look at the following news paper, journal and television links for the subject's notability. 
1. http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/

2. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-conflict-ridden-kashmir--55615

3. http://www.millenniumpost.in/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-kashmir-161286?NID=324516

 4.  https://web.archive.org/web/20160504121401/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/tourism-ministry-honours-mushtaq-pahalgami/184695.html 

 5. https://www.upstreamjournal.org/2016/07/le-cachemire/

and

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF2PEYXWAKw

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1CXYd7W5I

(Also see the complete list of 111 references cited below as 'Full list' which fully meets the core Wikipedia policy values of NPOV, Verifiablity and notability.. and let me know exactly which one do you think dosen't mention the subject Mushtaq Pahalgami/Mushtaq Ahmad/Mushtaq Ahmad Magrey) Samar khurshid (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (continuing my argument ..) The references I have used have been well accepted by the wider Wikipedia community since 2014 and most clearly mention the activist's name Mushtaq Ahmad Magrey/Mushtaq Pahalgami. Kindly point out the references that do not. Also, the page was accidentally requested for deletion by me, a single author/contributor, and I have requested that it be restored. I have made that appeal to Wikipedia and I make that appeal here on this forum too. References that are repetitious in fact only highlight how wide even the local protests/interventions/action-programs of this person are covered in the media, hence arguing in favour of notablity. Samar khurshid (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The following references clearly establish that the subject Mushtaq Pahlgami is a prominent local activist, who has receives state awards for his social contribution and as can be seen, the news has been carried by a very large number of significant local news papers/news networks.

1. "Tourism Ministry Honours Mushtaq Pahalgami". Greater Kashmir. 2015-03-14. Archived from the original on May 4, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-15.

"Tourism Ministry Honours Mushtaq Pahalgami". Greater Kashmir. 2015-03-14. Archived from the original on May 4, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-15.

Regards, Samar Samar khurshid (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. User Samar khurshid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account whose sole interest in editing Wikipedia is to promote one person and an organization that person founded. His first edition was deleted on August 6, 2014 as per the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mushtaq Pahalgami; he then re-created it a few weeks later on August 30, 2014. Nearly three years later, after he blanked it and tagged it for deletion a few days ago, I deleted it per WP:CSD G7 as sole-author request. He re-created it again a few hours later with this all-caps title and left a message on my talk page complaining that I had put it up for deletion (which I had not). As Arthistorian wrote above, it is "deliberately overloaded with references" while the ones checked "do not even mention" the article's subject, and as Power~enwiki also noted, it's "filled with crappy reference spam, and presents no clear case of notability." Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. – Athaenara ✉ 06:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:*Dear Athenara, with all due regard, I did not complain that you put the article up for deletion, I said, with all due respect that you acted on my request to delete the article, for which you may please refer to your talk page again. The fact that I do not edit other articles on Wikipedia does not make the page/subject Mushtaq Pahalgami 'promotional' or 'non-notable'. The claims in the article are supported by references from more than 25 different sources and presents a clear case of all three; NPOV, verifiablity and notability.

I am a working professional with little time to get involved with too many pages, but as somebody from the region from which the subject comes, I feel compelled to bring to public record and notice, the enormous efforts at Environmental Conservation, made by the subject and his organization. I must state again that the subject Mushtaq Pahalgami, is a very well recognized activist, whose social and political endeavors have been widely covered by not just local Urdu and English newspapers and news channels but also by respected national portals like Millennium post and Down to earth.

Please see, the following news paper, journal and television links for the subject's notability.

1. http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/

2. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-conflict-ridden-kashmir--55615

3. http://www.millenniumpost.in/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-kashmir-161286?NID=324516

4.  https://web.archive.org/web/20160504121401/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/tourism-ministry-honours-mushtaq-pahalgami/184695.html 

5. https://www.upstreamjournal.org/2016/07/le-cachemire/

and

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF2PEYXWAKw

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1CXYd7W5I

(Also see the complete list of 111 references cited above which fully meets the core Wikipedia policy values of NPOV, Verifiablity and notability..and let me know exactly which one do you think doesn't mention the subject Mushtaq Pahalgami/Mushtaq Ahmad/Mushtaq Ahmad Magrey)

The argument besides notability, is that the page got deleted after having run for three full years, accidentally when I put up a request for deletion by mistake. I was trying to merge and transfer some content between the deleted page and a related organizational page. The mistake is mine and the subject must not be dealt the punishment of deletion for that! Further, The content and referencing of the page had been acceptable to the wider Wikipedia community for 3 full years, during which the subject's wider social credibility came to be associated with the wiki-page, whose deletion is bound to have serious financial implications for the subject's organization and it's credibility.

It is in this light and spirit that I have humbly and most earnestly urged the Wikipedia central admin and the wider editorial community to either re-consider the deletion of the old page or allow the new page on the subject to be published.

The fact that Pahalgam in Kashmir, form where the subject comes is a far flung area, with very little political representation and access to civic amenities and education, makes it all the more incumbent upon all of us to allow whatever little efforts are being made, to be brought into public notice, for wider appreciation and encouragement. I thus appeal to the collective wisdom and conscience of the Wiki-community to both, stand by the rules of notability and purpose as enshrined in Wikipedia's rules/guiding principles but to also allow a fair and impartial hearing to this case, keeping in mind the right to access to information and representation through information-dissemination .. of every individual citizen and subject in every part of the world, particularly so of those who come from under-developed and backward areas. I would rest my case by saying that rules are meant to make things simpler, not complicated, and as Martin Luther king Junior would have it, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' .. and if the 5 people arguing here fail to do justice to the cause and subject concerned here today, it shall be a collective failure on our parts to the cause of justice in general, and to Wikipedia's wider commitment to impartiality and truth. Most humbly, Samar

Samar khurshid (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - no improvement since the last deletion at AfD. long list of references dont support notability. Editor is a SPA. Flat Out (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The assertion is factually incorrect as after the deletion in 2014, due to a lack of supporting references/notability issues, the page was subsequently re-created with a substantial and acceptable list of references on the 11th of July, 2014 and was published and running till 9th of July, 2017, when it got accidentally deleted by the creating editor, that is me. It is in this context that I have re-created the page now and urge and appeal to everybody to re-consider the deletion or allow restoration of the page accidentally deleted by me on the 9th. For notability, please see just these 5 news paper, journal and television links for the subject's social significance and eminence ( besides the complete list of 111 references cited above and let me know exactly which one do you think doesn't mention the subject Mushtaq Pahalgami/Mushtaq Ahmad/Mushtaq Ahmad Magrey).

1. http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/

2. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-conflict-ridden-kashmir--55615

3. http://www.millenniumpost.in/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-kashmir-161286?NID=324516

4. https://web.archive.org/web/20160504121401/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/tourism-ministry-honours-mushtaq-pahalgami/184695.html

5. https://www.upstreamjournal.org/2016/07/le-cachemire/

and

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF2PEYXWAKw

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1CXYd7W5I

All of which fully meet the core Wikipedia policy values of NPOV, Verifiablity and notability..

Samar khurshid (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I very strongly feel that the fact that the page was fully functional for 3 years and got deleted accidentally by the creator is not being paid attention to in the debate. This is not a case of routine creation/deletion and thus merits and exception. Also, since the page has represented the Subject Mushtaq Pahalgami for as good as 3 years now, a period for which it was considered perfectly notable and acceptable to the wider Wiki-community, deletion on grounds of notability is not fair. Deleting/non-restoring it now will not only cause him undue and unfair loss of social credibility but will also incur him and his organization financial losses that those involved in the decision, shall be responsible for, a matter which we may then be compelled to pursue with Wikipedia's alternative dispute resolution channels.

I have also attached a complete list of 111 references supporting the subject's notability, a list which is not only 'long' as claimed above, but also very varied, including links where the subject was covered by reputed National and International journals and portals. Unfortunately, the list is also not being paid due attention to, only making our case of unfair argument, stronger.

Please see, just these 5 news paper, journal and television links for the subject's notability, verifiablity of the subject and NPOV (reporting from varied sources) before you decide (and let me know exactly which one do you think doesn't mention the subject Mushtaq Pahalgami/Mushtaq Ahmad/Mushtaq Ahmad Magrey).

1. http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/

2. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-conflict-ridden-kashmir--55615

3. http://www.millenniumpost.in/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-kashmir-161286?NID=324516

4. https://web.archive.org/web/20160504121401/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/tourism-ministry-honours-mushtaq-pahalgami/184695.html

5. https://www.upstreamjournal.org/2016/07/le-cachemire/

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF2PEYXWAKw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1CXYd7W5I

Samar khurshid (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:No legal threats. – Athaenara ✉ 14:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat withdrawn, appeal for just and conscientious intervention made again. Samar khurshid (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and stop spamming this page with links. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes Against Autism[edit]

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

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

WP:ADVOCACY for an unremarkable charity. Significant RS coverage not found; just passing mentions of athletes supporting it. Subject is not mentioned in Autism Speaks, so it's not a suitable redirect target. The first AfD closed as no consensus in 2006. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delere for lacking indepth sources. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - No authoritative references support notability. External references listed: 1 - hijacked by Chinese retail website, 2 - dead link, 3 - 403 error, 4 - no mention of subject, 5 - short reference, possibly a press release, 6 - archived press release, 7 - essentially the same press release, also archived, 8 - DNS error. --Rpclod (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not nearly enough coverage or other secondary sources to establish notability. ThePortaller (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per many perivous editors words, fails to meet WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm inclined to set the bar pretty low for a charity, as such topics are not necessarily the most likely in the world to gain extensive coverage until they meet a certain threshold of cultural currency. However, in this instance we do not have so much as a single source (let alone an independent RS) that provides even incidental coverage of the topic. Indeed, not even a single flawed, non-RS source is even used in the article at present to even attempt to pass for sourcing, and the entire content of that article is a bare bones description of the charity's purpose and a list of athletes affiliated with it, all in less than encyclopedic tone. Simply does not pass GNG at present. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:47, 15 July 2017 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Nohir Uddin Ahmad Nuh[edit]

Sayed Nohir Uddin Ahmad Nuh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sourcing has not significantly improved since Melcous tagged it for notability and BLP sources five months ago. The cited sources are a self-published website, two pieces by the same author and publisher (a shrine set up by the subject, so not exactly arms-length), and the homepage of an obscure newspaper. I'm not sure what we're supposed to see at the latter, but it's used to support the statement that the subject "has traveled more than 20 different countries". Searches of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and various Bangladeshi newspapers found no reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahidiah Kalimiah Darbar Sharif, another article by the same author. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2017 (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. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1Forge[edit]

1Forge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only sources are from 1forge itself. The cbs8.com ref is a press release via newswire that accuses a competitor of orchestrating a Denial-of-service attack. Such an accusation making up the bulk of an article cannot stand without substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please postpone deletion until I find more sources. Is it possible to allow me 72 hours to improve this before you make the deletion decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd0492 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All mentions are incidental or self-published, and pages main author appears to have a WP:COI. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing here establishes notability and nothing more found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, none of the sources are independent. The Newsire article specifically credits 1Forge. And I can't find any more sources. --Hirsutism (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, mentioned only in passing in most sources cited. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, besides, it isn't notable. NikolaiHo^☎️ 06:07, 14 July 2017 (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. GoldenRing (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramencon[edit]

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

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

non notable convention.The references appear to be a mix of PR and notices, and there's no reason why a local convention would have anything else. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Note: I am the creator of the article. While the sourcing is not the strongest, we have coverage from local (The Times) and two statewide sources (Inside INdiana Business, Chicago Tribune). I believe with this mix, Ramencon meets the minimum for notability, but weakly. Esw01407 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - As the article creator suggested, the sourcing is not the best, but the coverage the convention has received from the Chicago Tribune (a well-regarded newspaper) makes me inclined to think that the article passes our notability guidelines, if barely. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- "the first anime convention in Northwest Indiana" is hardly a claim to notability, and significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - very small convention with no significant coverage from RSs outside of the local newspaper. Cjhard (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is not enough local or even state coverage to establish notability, especially in the lack of a claim to significance. ThePortaller (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I've removed the egregiously-excessive annual details. There's not a good case for notability here, but no other case to delete the article other than a lack of notability is presented. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Normally I abstain from qualifiers, but I find myself agreeing with Power~enwiki a little bit. The mentions aren't real great, but I feel they just get in through the GNG. NWItimes, a Tribune article and another Tribune mention is good enough for me. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I'm sorry but I just don't see this passing WP:GNG, the coverage doesn't really go that in depth on the subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2017 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Bahadur Rawal[edit]

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

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

Non-notable journalist.Only coverage about an incident where he was subject to a thrashing by army personel along with several others.Won a non-notab. award.Articles by him are present, about him are absent! Winged Blades ^Godric 10:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 9 July 2017 (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 Wolfram Research. SoWhy 08:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceWorld[edit]

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

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