Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday April 15 (Mon) April 14 (Sun) April 13 (Sat) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 2 October	4 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Insufficient discussion. Try renominating a few months later. Sandstein 08:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niccolo Milanese[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The article cites a lot of articles written by Milanese, but I can't find any independent sources about him. – Joe (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there are several articles about Milanese at the end of the entry - from newspapers in different countries - and the organisation he has founded is well known and importante. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidberber11 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davidberber11: Could you clarify which? I looked through when I nominated the article and they seemed to be all a) primarily about European Alternatives, with Milanese only mentioned in passing; and/or b) not independent of Milanese. See WP:42 for a brief statement of Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. – Joe (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These two, for example: https://komentare.sme.sk/c/20393296/britsky-aktivista-unia-vas-mala-lepsie-privitat.html http://www.tovima.gr/world/article/?aid=435776 Davidberber11 (talk) 07:17, 4 October 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 result was keep. There is a consensus to keep the content. Renaming the page or merging it can be done outside of AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iana Kasian[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CRIME. reddogsix (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis of this story being major news. -Mardus /talk 03:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS applies and your argument does not apply. reddogsix (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is notable, because Kasian's death is a rare and very gruesome murder. -Mardus /talk 03:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, please point me where in WP:N or other guidelines that it specifies that a "rare and gruesome murder" or other crime is notable. reddogsix (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability: The topic has received 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. Neither is this routine news coverage. -Mardus /talk 03:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:1EVENT. reddogsix (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From there:

if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.

-Mardus /talk 04:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but, although I find sadness in the event, I do not find the murder of a model in the same league as the items you refer to. reddogsix (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic here is not the murder, it is the person. She obviously fails WP:BLP1E, but often the article gets moved to Murder of .... In this case there is an article on her, and an article on the accused, but Wikipedia really doesn't need both. Abductive (reasoning) 04:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I made the page because 1) death by torture in North America in 2017 is always significant; 2) any modern-day scalping is significant; 3) that which captures the popular imagination has its place in popular culture. Odd how no one seems to care about the validity of the suspected perp's page... just kill the victim's page? N.B.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_murder > not a very long list, is it?
Could be merge, redirect or move? Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to Murder of Iana Kasian. A BEFORE convinced me - beyond the tabloid coverage, this is widely covered (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) - meeting WP:CRIME.Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly adequate coverage. May have to change the title per Icewhiz, though I am not a fan of the "Murder of" titling. But keep one way or the other. Definitely Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article as written is WP:BIO1E; the subject was not notable before she died. I would oppose a move to "Murder of X]], as I don't see lasting significance or societal impact. The content is tabloid-like in nature. The murder is not especially significant or unique; fails WP:NCRIME. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opining that death by scalping in the 21st Century is extremely rare, perhaps entirely unique in NA, so an inherently notable event in modern society, tabloidista aside. I saw only one other case so far this century, and the victim survived. (MA, 2005.) Death by torture in NA is also very rare.AHampton (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per references. Per major news. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Sandwich Fault Zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Illinois earthquake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

Low intensity – V (Moderate)
No injuries or deaths
Lack of coverage from the scientific community
Not listed on the NGDC's significant earthquake database
Fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT

No lasting effects
No depth of coverage

There are slightly more notable events in Illinois, and we do have an article, but this is not one of them. This one also does not qualify to be on the list so redirecting is not an option. The USGS entry for the event tells us that it happened and that the highest reported intensity from several thousand people on the ground was V (Moderate) but nothing more. If there were damage, injuries, or deaths, related detail would be listed under the "impact" section:

M 3.8 - 8km NW of Village of Campton Hills, Illinois – United States Geological Survey.

There is really nothing to salvage with this one. Redirecting to any article (even Sandwich Fault Zone) is not necessary. WikiProject Earthquakes has more than 170 stand alone earthquake lists. I don't see a need to be creating embedded lists in other articles. This article is about a non-event and the encyclopedia won't lose anything with it gone.

Dawnseeker2000 01:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect it to Sandwich Fault Zone. It's significant in that it is a rare occurrence in the area, and it was felt by a lot of people. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether an occurrence is considered rare, felt (non-destructive) events are not notable and it seems a little desperate to want to write about them. Dawnseeker2000 15:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with selective merge to Sandwich Fault Zone (consensus on 2nd AfD), partly as per WP:PRESERVE - this this minor trembler was quite widely covered at the time. Plus, possibly because it does get pageviews [7], showing that it is a useful search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3 options have been presented and all are viable options: Delete, Redirect, and Smerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sandwich Fault Zone; not independently notable. Anything useful could be picked up from the article history, if desired. A simple redirect would work just as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. bd2412 T 20:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Acronyms in healthcare[edit]

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

Originally prodded. Prod was removed. This is an indiscriminate and poorly organized list of medical industry acronyms that is 100% unsourced and of which most of the parent articles are redlinks. The list provides nothing that the parent articles cannot, and therefore is not useful. There is nothing here to explain why these subjects are notable, no reliable sources to satisfy verifiability or notability, etc. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see why someone would use this to look up an acronym rather than the search function. Neither do I see people browsing this list out of interest. --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll do my best to furnish some references to the article. The use of acronyms in healthcare is an independently notable and referenced entity. I'll see if I can find some lists of acronyms to act as references for this list also. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not really a list of acronyms (initials that spell words) simply a list of abbreviations. Vorbee (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Happy to give Tom some time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources cover "acronyms in healthcare" as a topic that includes this list. Perhaps a medical directory of some sort does. This fails WP:N. Also, in the intro it says "acronyms commonly used in health care" is a judgement or an opinion by the article's author, not based on reliable sources and therefore fails WP:V and the list could be construed as WP:OR. Then of course, Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information WP:Indiscriminate and it is not a directory WP:NOTDIR. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Steve Quinn we arne't a repository, but I feel this as a topic is notable. IF the list was removed (which I agree is indiscriminate per your above points) would you consider retaining the article as a stub? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tom (LT): Yes. Based on your restructuring of this article, I now agree with retaining the article as a stub or even longer. I mean, the variations on how the safety issues come about could extend this article. In any case, I am now changing my ivote from "delete" to "keep". Steve Quinn (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows this topic to be highly notable, with whole books devoted to healthcare and medical abbreviations: Mosby's Survival Guide to Medical Abbreviations & Acronyms, Dorland's Dictionary of Medical Acronyms and Abbreviations E-Book, Stedman's Pocket Medical Abbreviations. There are plenty of online resources, to supoort such a list, too, Tabers Medical Dictionary, Stedman's online, HANYS Healthcare Acronyms & Terms, etc. With such sources available, verifying glossary entries is a matter of editing, not wholesale deletion. WP supports glossary style articles (MOS:GLOSSARIES) and this is one of them. If editors wanted to restrict to only abbreviations of notable topics, i.e., get rid of the red links, that would be OK, too, but it would make the glossary less useful. --Mark viking (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The MOS discusses glossaries in general, that is true. But the MOS is not a notability guideline or a Core content policy. Per WP:MOS The Manual of Style...is the style manual for all Wikipedia articles...the Manual of Style presents Wikipedia's house style. The MOS is a style guide like the MLA style manual or APA style guide. I am guessing there are instances where a glossary is used in connection to a notable topic; but there has been no demonstration this is a notable topic. The above books are not indicators of notability for this topic. The content of each above book is routine information for whatever field each book covers.

Those books are reference works and do not show how this topic is remarkable, worthy of note, has garnered commentary in reliable sources and so on per WP:N. Therefore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary - that is the function of the above books There is a sister project for that called Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a directory - that is also the function of the above books. This not an encyclopedic entry. It consists only of routine information. The Wikipedia article is essentially a mirror of any one of the above books. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn lots of reliable sources comment on the use of acronyms in healthcare [8], most of which are critical of it. It is an independently notable topic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete -- The choice of which abbreviations (not acronyms) to include constitutes original research. Rhadow (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Rhadow WP:OR isn't a reason to delete an article about a notable topic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, Tom (LT), what I should have said was WP:OR instead of references to secondary sources. Rhadow (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I changed my ivote from "delete" to "keep". The article has been rewritten and restructured by Tom (LT). It is now a prose article rather than a problematic list article. As such, there are sufficient reliable (scholarly) sources that support this topic when viewed from perspective of acronym and abbreviation incongruities, which can result in patient safety issues. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Rhadow (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been significantly improved and meets all guidelines now. -- Dane ^talk 20:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davilex Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of reliable, significant sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing some stuff in a foreign language that may be RS, so am re-listing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 00:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep I don't speak Dutch or French but from what I can tell using GTranslate, these [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (also one in German) seem like reliable sources covering the subject in detail. Maybe someone speaking Dutch and/or French can confirm? Regards So Why 14:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Gamekings is the most prominent gaming outlet in the Netherlands, see also its wiki page. Not familiar enough with the others. I'd also like to point to the Dutch wikipedia article, which includes articles from Tweakers and the NRC Handelsblad newspaper. GameLegend (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maplestrip and Soetermans, how does the Dutch coverage look? Any suggested additions to the above? czar 07:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of Apparata.nl and Sprout before, and these websites don't look bad, but I currently don't feel comfortable saying anything one way or another about them. Gamekings is indeed very prominent in the Netherlands, and though I don't like the outlet, it is probably considered a reliable source. The Dutch Wikipedia article is a bit odd, as we have one for the company and one for its games division. The interview on Tweakers I would consider reliable and useful, the NRC Handelsblad article would also be useful if it were still available. Either way, this should be enough sources for a keep. ~Mable (chat) 11:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Czar, sorry for my late reply. I found this article be Gamer.nl, which is another Dutch language video game website. It's not in the WP:VG/RS, but from my experience it is more serious and adult-oriented than the adolescent target audience by Power Unlimited, which is listed. In the Netherlands' Alexa rankings, Power Unlimited ranks 1215, Gamer.nl ranks 1690. With the other sources, I also would vote keep. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gamer.nl is pretty decent. I would personally definitely prefer it over Power Unlimited if I were looking for Dutch gaming news. ~Mable (chat) 12:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell whether that Gamer.nl story is a repackaged press release or just a bad machine translation (if the former, then it won't be much help for independent notability) czar 17:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shafi Group[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep---This article was unreferenced since 2008. I just expanded the article with 5 new references and 3 external links using international magazines and newspapers. Looked hard enough to find a lot of in-depth coverage. This is a major conglomerate company of Pakistan and a leading exporter of leather goods (leather shoes, handbags, leather jackets) with major brand name clients in Europe and North America. So there was a lot of info and references there that I could use.Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the sources you added. This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited so if sources are discussing Muhammad Naseem Shafi then we should have article on him rather on his group. Greenbörg (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage fails WP:GNG. I can't find any recent significant coverage in notable third party sources - it's just local trade pubs, and dated at that. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per timtempleton Fails WP:CORPDEPTH could not find significant coverage in notable third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I didn't do any searching on my own (hence my weak modifier), I just looked at the references currently in the article. None of them struck me as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. I saw a couple of perfunctory directory-type listings (Bloomberg, Business Recorder), and a couple of shallow pieces in industry publications (Leather International Magazine). The Dawn reference looks like it's an incorrect URL, but in any case, the title of the referenced article doesn't sound promising. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devrim II[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Better to put single line on NUST Pakistan article rather having such article. Greenbörg (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's 13[edit]

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

This article does not prove that the organisation meets WP:ORGDEPTH it presents the organisation as a humanitarian charity but the principal aim is to promote the sikh faith by hiring speakers and also make grants to humanitarian relief organisations. The main source sikhnet is affiliated as it promotes the organisation on its web site here Most of the article is about the founder and not the organisation. Domdeparis (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of meeting GNG. As nom says, "Most of the article is about the founder and not the organisation." power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Spiro[edit]

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

Other than authoring an obscure textbook and having supposedly been featured in a Time article about his music, this individual is not notable. I assert that even with these, he fails notability in his fields: dentistry and music. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete This article is not a notable subject for Wikipedia. Does not meet WP:Notability NerudaPoet (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject's work as a musician, which the Time magazine article discusses, does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC in terms of significant coverage and impact. The subject's claim to notability in the fields of dentistry and anesthesiology is also rather weak. Google Scholar searches doesn't turn up anything beyond his textbook Pain and Anxiety Control in Dentistry, which, granted, is cited only by at least 5 papers. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC on that basis. Mz7 (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 06:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Chen[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Chen has been in a lot of shows, but never in a leading or anywhere-near-leading role. Many of her roles, even the more recent ones, seem to be very minor ones, without even names ("Asian Beauty"; "Cheerleader"; "Waitress"), or in TV ads. Her most prominent role was probably her recurring role on Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, where she was part of an ensemble cast and appeared in 16 episodes; but even there, she was pretty far down the cast list.

The references are poor; there are only three. One is to a now-404 Yahoo TV directory entry; Yahoo TV was a non-selective list of actors and what they appeared in (like IMDB, writ small), and not any indication of notability. Another one is to her personal wedding registry site! The only more-or-less good source is a now-404ed page on her (archive) from a sometimes-updated web site that seems more blog than news. [14].

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production? This is the closest factor. She has appeared in multiple shows, but none of the roles appear to be significant. I point out the Studio 60 appearance above, that's probably the closest one to meeting this, but even there, that's only one role, not "roles".
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following? No.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment? No.

I actually liked her in Studio 60, as well as her one-episode role on Californication, but I don't see notability here.

I was going to PROD this, but the article's been around for more than 10 years (coinciding with her appearance on Studio 60, so I suspect greater things were expected that just never materialized), so I thought I'd make this more prominent rather than risking it just get deleted without a hearing. TJRC (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of notable roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Helle[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a small-town (pop. 2K) mayor, not referenced to enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. As always, every mayor of every town does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists -- but four of the six references here are primary sources that cannot assist notability at all. And while the other two sources are reliable source media coverage, they aren't enough media coverage: what we require to make a mayor notable in a town this size is evidence that he's considerably more notable than the norm, by virtue of having garnered an unusual volume, depth and/or geographic breadth of coverage. And further, one of them reveals what I suspect is the real reason for this article, even though the body text doesn't explicitly say so: his candidacy in a future state legislative primary. But as always, that isn't a Wikipedia inclusion criterion either: a person has to win the seat, not just run for it, to get an article from a statehouse election. So there's just not enough substance, or enough sourcing, here to deem him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orders of magnitude below the level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Spencer (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with mostly primary and WP:ROUTINE sources. Won no major individual awards, played long enough in a well covered or league, or drafted high enough to be presumed notable per WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN player fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 23:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATH (no significant honors etc) as well as WP:HOCKEY. Shearonink (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. -- Dane ^talk 20:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia Nelson[edit]

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

Biography seems to exist only to draw attention to the subject having posed naked as a six year-old. Fails WP:GNG. The editor who created this article appears to have retired. Contested WP:PROD. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep -- This nomination is a clear instance of what happens when we ignore the advice of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When half a dozen cabient ministers go on record about images of someone, and the press covers the controversy, in detail, then that individual measures up to the inclusion criteria of GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy is already covered in the appropriate article. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woah!

The link nominator offered did not have to be an old-fashioned uni-directional link. It would have been far more useful to have used a wikilink to Polixeni Papapetrou#Controversy. That is the article about Nelson's mother. It was Nelson's mother who published controversial photos of her, a decade ago. But Nelson was far more than a mere photographic model.
Nelson is still quite young. Nevertheless professional editors decided she could write authoritative comments on the controversial topic of the online shaming of girls and young women. I am sorry, but I don't think there is any question that this is a strong notability factor. Further, I don't think there is any question that it makes no more sense to shoehorn coverage of young adult Olympia Nelson's publicatons into her mother's article than it would make to shoehorn the article on Stella McCartney into the article on her father, Paul McCartney, or the article on Adam Cohen into the article on his father, Leonard Cohen.
Nominator says that Polixeni Papapetrou#Controversy already covers everything notable about Nelson. Okay. This is just a single paragraph. Not only does it leave out all coverage of Nelson's notable recent views, it only briefly mentions one of the politicians who offered notable comment on the original photos, where the existing article on Nelson cover the notable comments of four cabinet members.
This make nominator's assertion that only one paragraph of coverage is "appropriate" essentially a radical informationectomy.
Nominator, could you please return here, and see if you can explain why the single paragraph in the article on Nelson's mother is the "appropriate" amount of coverage of Nelson? 23:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Geo Swan (talk)

Lack of effective compliance with WP:BEFORE In 2013, when Nelson was in grade eleven, the editors at the Sydney Morning Herald, a leading Australian newspaper, published an article Nelson wrote, entitled: "Dark undercurrents of teenage girls' selfies: Pouty self portraits have turned boy-girl relations into a cut-throat sexual rat race". The article says this op-ed was widely republished. What it doesn't say, but should say, is that scholars who were looking for articulate young women who commented on the pouty selfie craze, quoted her, cited her, summarized her.
Nominator claimed the article should be deleted because it "seems to exist only to draw attention to the subject having posed naked as a six year-old." Well, heck, the influential 2013 Sydney Morning Herald article doesn't even mention that she ever posed naked. A nominator who complied with Before would know this. Geo Swan (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retired contributors? The nomination reports: "The editor who created this article appears to have retired..." Clarification please - is our nominator arguing the article should be deleted because the article creator is no longer around?
If so, I direct their attention to WP:OWN. Once they click "save changes" the indiviudal who started an article was no more authority over it, and no more responsibility for it, , than any other member of the wikipedia. Geo Swan (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, I provided a link to where the controversy is covered in the photographer's article (which is the appropriate place for that information). I did not say that the section could not or should not be expanded or that its current size is appropriate. I did not say that the article should be deleted because the creator of the article has retired. I was noting their retirement in case someone felt that an editor who creates an article about six year old nude models need to be looked into more closely. I only noticed this article at all because it used as a source the personal blog of a creepy Australian fucker obsessed with naked children. I have no comment on the Sydney Morning Herald article because, well, heck, the link does not work for me. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above refers to "the controversy". But I already pointed out to WLC that Nelson was at the center to two completely separate debates: (1) the morality of publishing naked photos of children, even if the parents were the photographer, and published the images in an art magazine; (2) the phenomenon of girls only a few years past puberty, publishing alarmingly sexualized self-portraits. The second debate took place five years after the first, and HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH NELSON's MOTHER.
World's Lamest Critic writes: "I only noticed this article at all because it used as a source the personal blog of a creepy Australian fucker obsessed with naked children."
Woah!
Are you really saying the real reason you nominated the article for deletion was so a creepy paedophile couldn't cite it in his creepy blog?
Isn't that a clear lapse from WP:NOTCENSORED? We don't delete neutrally written, properly referenced material, because our emotions are engaged in an off-wiki debate. Are you saying you were first triggered to delete the article so a creepy paedophile couldn't cite the wikipedia? That is what it sounds like you meant.
Here are some other choices, when one finds a creepy paedophile, or white supremacist commenting on the wikipedia:

Sigh, walk away;
Check the wikipedia article, confirm it is neutrally written, and properly referenced.
if good faith contributors accidentally included passages that they didn't realize would seem salacious to a paedophile, rewrite them, or simply remove them, explaining why on the talk page.
You should only have considered deletion if you made a reasonable good faith attempt to independently confirm that the topic of the article measured up to our inclusion criteria, and you then concluded the topic of the article did not measure up to our criteria.

I am sorry to say the record strongly suggests you either made an inadequate effort to measure Nelson's notability, or that you looked no farther than the paedophile's blog page. You placed a ((prod)) on this article on September 27, asserting, " Biography seems to exist only to draw attention to the subject having posed naked as a six year-old. Fails WP:GNG..." The contributor who removed the prod wrote: "rv a prod that's clearly untrue. The article makes two claims to WP:N. They may be valid or not, but please don't insult other editors as being unable to count." I think they were correct, there were two claims to notability, not one as you claimed. Yet, the AFD you initiated five hours later uses the exact same wording as your prod.
Surely you can see how this strongly suggests that, not only did you fail to read the article closely enough to recognize that the article does contain TWO claims to notability, it also looks like you couldn't even make the effort to read the explanation for removing the prod, and give it some consideration, prior to initiating the AFD.
I too found something to do with the wikipedia on an alarming blog. Formerly there was a sockpuppet master who was able to talk the rest of us into entrusting him with administrator authority -- twice, using two different sockpuppets. I read that he hung out on some particular white-supremicist hate sites, and I googled those sites, searching for wikipedia. I did not find the wikipedia-trashing comments I had read he had made. I did find a white supremist denouncing the wikipedia, because it didn't even have an article on Andrea Amati, who he characterized as the inventor of the violin.
So, I was in situation somewhat similar to you, and your ppaedophile. I did something positive however. I started an article on Amati. Geo Swan (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few things here, one Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper, two a republished op-ed is NOT evidence of significant coverage and three she is only notable for ONE EVENT. Also if editors could please refrain from creating multiple headings as it makes it hard to follow any discussion. CommotioCerebri (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator CommotioCerebri is wikihounding me. Over 75 percent of their edits are either reversions of my edits, or are otherwise about my contributions. This comment is not a policy compliant not-vote, but is an act of harrasment, and should be totally discounted. For the record, NELSON could hardly be a one event individual, when the extensive coverage she earned in 2013 nad NOTHING to do with the controversy of 2008. Geo Swan (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, you appear to have chosen to participate in this discussion immediately after our unpleasant interaction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sana Dua. After I asked you on your talk page to back off, you started badgering me here. I am sorry to hear that you feel another editor is harassing you. Maybe you should stop harassing other editors. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge and redirect It was her mother's controversy, not hers, so merge the further information in this article into the mother's article and redirect to there, and trim off all the other not (yet) notable stuff. Subject is a single event, and not yet notable in her own right. TOOSOON for her own article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Aoziwe, excuse me? In 2013 hse was the subject of multiple' television and radio interviews. She was profiled, multiple times. This coverage had absolutely nothing to do with her mother. So, why are you saying coverage of her should be redirected to an article on her mother?
  How closely did you look at the article? Did you perform your own web search? I am sure if you spent a minute with google you would find the coverage of Nelson in 2013, which is not focussed on the controversy in 2008, is very significant, would probably have been enough to establish notability, all by itself, even if she hadn't been at the center of a controversy in 2008.
  The article needs work. I only started working on it yesterday. I added a link to a page where the Australian Broadcasting Corporation published about the segment of a public affairs show profiling Nelson. The article on the program quoted some of the notable people who they sought out for opinions on Nelson. The 2013 video link has expired, but the article about the show seemed to me to imply the entire show was devoted to Nelson. So, when a television network devoted considerable airtime, maybe an entire episode, to Nelson, can you explain why that coverage does not establish notability? If you do that web search you will see that the ABC coverage was not the only TV and radio coverage of her.
  Yes, ideally, the article itself should have linked to the other TV and radio coverage of her from 2013 -- her second bout of notability that had nothing to do with her mother's photos. But, please remember, our deletion policy tells us we don't delete articles that are weak, when the underlying topic is notable. Our deletion policies tell us that weak articles on notable topics are supposed to be flagged for improvement, and improved. Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The facts of the matter are these: "Encouraged by her parents, she sent an essay on the subject to The Age newspaper in Melbourne". The publication of that essay in The Age (and sister newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald) amounts to something closer to a letter to the editor than an op-ed. Yes, it garnered a bit of attention at the time because she was a 16 year old critiquing the behavior of her peers. That's it. It may become noteworthy if Olympia Nelson goes on to something notable in the future, but to prop it up with breathless claims that "the article about the show seemed to me to imply the entire show was devoted to Nelson" shows a complete lack of perspective about this article. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World's Lamest Critc, I am not "hassling you" now, when I say I think this comment shows you STILL haven't made the effort to comply with BEFORE, and conduct a thorough web search. You dismiss her op-ed as something that should have been publishished as a letter to the editor.
I simply can't believe you could have written this if you had seen how widely cited it was, how many adults made comments like: "Reading the incredibly eloquent op-ed of teenager Olympia Nelson last week, it struck me how much the sexual expression of teenagers has shifted in a relatively short time.". In a previous AFD discussion you wrote something seriously off, in response to an explanation, from me, that you and I are not reliable sources, and that we rely on the professional judgment of professional journalists and editors, not the personal opinions and judgements of wikipedia contributory.
Your response then was that I didn't know you weren't a professional journalist, in real life. Similarly, here you are asking the rest of us to ignore the judgement of The Age's editors, and discount the notability of the essay, based on YOUR JUDGEMENT that it should have been a letter to the editor. I wouldn't care if you claimed you were secretly a Pullitzer Prize winning journalist. So long as you are participating here, where you could be anyone, your judgements count for nothing, same as the rest of us. Every day a professional journalist is on the job, their judgement calls affect their careers. They are potentially one bad decision away from never working in journalism again, or not getting that next desirable job. But, even if I knew you were a professional journalist, that would not tempt me to invest your opinions with the respect we give reliable sources.
As you should know, the wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedians who would be RS, if published elsewhere, can't publish a new idea here. They have to publish that new idea somewhere else, and trust that another wikipedia contributor will see fit to summarize it here, if it is going to appear here.
Second, even if I knew you were a professional journalist, you could hate some of the restrictions of your job, and want to do all kinds of things your day job as a professional journalist wouldn't let you do. For instance, you wrote above that you first came across the wikipedia article when it was on the blog of a creepy paedophile. Practically everyone hates genuine paedophiles. There must be some professional journalists who hate having to cover stories related to paedophilia; hate covering them when the paedophile is at large, hate covering their arrests, trials, sentencing, imprisonment or release; and hate covering anything to do with their victims. A professional journalist might come to the wikipedia precisely to get away from things like covering creepy paedophiles.
In fact, she originally did submit a shorter version as a letter to the editor, and the editors chose to encourage her to expand it into the first of several op-eds. Does getting an op-ed published in a major paper convey notability? I say the answer is yes. Does it convey more notability if you are still in grade eleven? I say yes. Er, I missed this at first -- her dad works at The Age, which erodes some of the notability of her being published there. But they still have an obligation to only consider publishing op-eds from the teen-age children of employees when their work meets their professional standards.
The main notability of her essay on selfies is from how widely cited it is. Her other essays did not capture the attention of other RS, and they didn't write about her, so they convey much less notability.
There are all conclusions you would have arrived at yourself, if you had properly complied with BEFORE.

As to whether the entire 2013-09-23 episode of Australian Story was devoted to Nelson -- look here, I believe it establishes the entire episode was focused around Nelson. It sez: "Melbourne schoolgirl Olympia Nelson is only sixteen, but she's no stranger to controversy. She's grown up in an unusual but talented household as the daughter of an art critic and acclaimed photographer Poli Papapetrou. Olympia and her mother have had a long creative partnership. But in 2008 an unclothed photograph of Olympia aged six generated national controversy when it appeared on the cover of the magazine 'Art Monthly'. Even the Prime Minister bought in. Now Olympia has weighed in from an unexpected direction by publicly challenging the popularity of 'selfies' – often explicit self portraits posted on social media. Her robust analysis of the selfie trend and issues around girls, sexual expression and self image was published by The Age Newspaper, setting off a new debate... "

Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a whole lot of puffed-up nothingburger. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator: Geo Swan is pushing to keep this so hard and has made many walls-of-text posts both here and on my talk page.~~, I suspect he has a conflict of interest~~. Note [15]. This is all trivial coverage of a minor, puffed up so it doesn't meet a surface reading of WP:BLP1E. It should be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've mistaken AfD for ANI. If you have a complaint against another editor, because you think they have some sort of undeclared COI, then that's the place to voice it, not here. If you're here, then don't make snide, unanswerable digs at another editor - stick to discussing this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my remarks, hopefully to your satisfaction. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators know they are not supposed to just count noses, that they are supposed to evaluate the arguments offered, and they are authorized to completely ignore comments that are not based on a wikidocument or long established convention. Yes, as a courtesy to you, I left you a note on Talk:Power~enwiki, requesting you to step up your game. I could have addressed the same concerns about your initial lack of an reference to wikipedia policy to the closing administrator.
You did come back, and expand your initial comment with one tidbit of policy-based justification -- BLP1E. Please regard my thanks for this gesture as proportional to the effort you put into fulfilling your obligations.
Sadly, BLP1E is clearly inapplicable. BLP1E applies to individuals known only for a single event, while Nelson is known for multiple events. Nelson is known for the very widely cited op-ed published in 2013; she is known for the images of her naked her mom published in an art magazine; she is known for going on record and defending her mother's decision in answer to criticisms from the Australian Prime Minister, which I would count as a third event. When her op-ed was published, in 2013, The Age did not even mention the images published in 2008. She didn't mention it either. These were very, very clearly separate events.
With regard to conflict of interest, I don't even live in Australia, and had never heard of Nelson, before I encountered this AFD. Geo Swan (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Call to relist, although I am the only keep, so far.
- Nominator does not seem to have made any edffort to comply with BEFORE, and seems to have acknowledged that he or she decided to try an delete the article because he found a creepy person was linking to it. Nominating something for deletion, without actually reading it, just so a creepy person, off-wiki, can't link to it, sounds like a clear lapse from NOTCENSORED.
- Power~enwiki's BLP1E assertion strongly suggests they didn't read the article, as Nelson has two events, separatted by five years, that have nothing to do with one another.
- CommotioCerebri edit history shows this wiki-ID was created solely to impede my work, so their delete should be discounted.
- Aoziwe's merge also seems to be written by someone who didn't read the whole article. Only one of the two major sources of Nelson's notability has anything to do with her mother, so a redirection to her mother's article just doesn't make sense.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, you have completely misunderstood and/or misrepresented the situation. One reference used in the article was the personal website of some creepy Australian fucker who is evidently obsessed with naked children. It was this use of that site as a reference that caused me to look at this article in the first place. I do not know who might be linking to this Wikipedia article off-site and I am completely unconcerned by it. That is not why I nominated the article for deletion. Please read more carefully. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan. I have reread the article, now a third time. I had also done my own searches. Over all I think it is TOOSOON for the subject to have their own article. I suggest one more "event", or one more significant "follow up", would put her over the line. The "op-ed" material is certainly notable in an article on that subject, but two events, both of which seem to have been covered for the either voyeuristic content or sensational content do not seem to add up to ongoing notability at this time. I did not get back to your earlier comment because I do not see the point in getting into debates for which there might not be any common ground to build a consensus upon. Yes the person does seem to have potential and I would hope it eventuates, but not an article just yet. The redirect is to cover the first event, which is really related to the mother. The second is a single event for the subject at hand, not yet having ongoing notability for that person. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking additional efforts to review the references for this topic.

I think you are mistaken to focus on events. It is not events that make topics wikipedia notable, it is coverage in reliable sources.

For instance, a soldier might commit an extraordinarily brave act, or an extraordinarily perfidious act – which didn't receive any RS coverage, or received only brief mention, in his or her local paper. It wouldn't matter how extraordinary wikipedia contributors found his or her act, if we couldn't use RS to verify the event.

But, if a well respected columnist picked his or her story up, years later, and their coverage of it got other reporters to cover it, that individual would then meet the criteria for notability, without any new events.

Our nominator discounted the notability of Nelson's widely cited essay on risque selfies, saying it was something that should have been a letter to the editor – while not acknowledging how many other writers reported their reactions to her essay, and how many scholars grabbed at a chance to quote an actual teenager, an intelligent and articulate teenager, say interesting things about risque selfies. It is not my personal opinion that the essay was interesting and significant that makes Nelson notable. Rather it is the documentable impact it had, as proven by all the RS who cited her, quoted her, or paraphrased her.

I'd also like to ask you about the 2013-09-23 episode of Australian Story – she got an entire episode of a long running documentary show, that broadcasts in prime time. Did a million of people watch it? Or mere hundreds of thousands? Other media profiled her. She appeared on other television shows, and radio shows, for interviews. Are you sure you don't recognize this establishing her notability?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, per clear consensus. bd2412 T 20:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J.M. Frey[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for multiple problems since 2012 and it seems time for the community to weigh-in. In summary, it is a CV, full of OR, and has no real RS. The ref list consists of FaceBook fanpages, press releases, promo from her publisher, etc. The only independent source is a review of one of her books in Publishers Weekly, but that is pretty weak, since this is a trade publication that reviews around 10,000 books per year (much of what is published). The article for this book, Triptych, has many of the same PROMO problems. Finally, it was written by a SPA whose 1st edit was creating this article. Agricola44 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I cleaned up the article a little. Her writing has been reviewed in RS, but I would like to see more coverage of her. Squeaks by for CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable author whose works have been covered by places such as Publisher's Weekly. She meets all WP guidelines for authors.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to state what other factors you believe render her notable?...because coverage by Publisher's Weekly isn't one of them. To repeat what's in the AfD statement, PW is a trade pub that reviews around 10,000 books per year, i.e. a large fraction of the world's books that are published. Agricola44 (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agricola44 PW doesn't review EVERY book or even a large fraction of the world's books. The United States alone, in 2013, published 304,912 books. If we add other English speaking countries like UK, Australia, NZ and Canada, that bumps it up to 540,646. In addition, PW does review books in Spanish, which would bump up the number to 620,177 if we include Spain, Argentina and Mexico. 10,000 books is a lot of books to be reviewed, but they are hardly reviewing a large fraction of the "world's books." Therefore, getting critical attention for her writing shows she passes CREATIVE because PW has to decide which books to review out of this huge pool of books. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into snobbery here and I know you work at a library, but 300K or 500K or whatever number we pick as the "total" is misleading. What I referred to was "serious books" (for complete lack of a better term) and I think it is fair to say that 10,000 is a large fraction of the serious books that are published per year. I would assume, though I have not checked, that your figure of 300K includes, for example the gajillions of ISBN'd coloring / children's / craft / hobby / knitting / etc books published every year, the mega-gajillions of ISBN'd vanity books (Bowker assigned ~700K ISBNs to self-publishers in 2015), ISBN'd "for dummies" books, ISBN'd "how to" books, self-improvement and amateur psychology books, etc. etc. I'm sure some of these are reviewed in PW too, but I think "review" is taken here to mean a selective review in a topic-specific publication, not a trade review in a publication that only does reviews. We clearly disagree, but I would just point out that one of the ramifications of your argument is that, if what you say is true, then we have 10,000 articles on notable authors we should be creating every year. Agricola44 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage by Publisher's Weekly absolutely is an indicator of an author's notability. The magazine is a highly respected source of reviews and coverage of the publishing world. Next thing you'll be arguing that coverage in the New York Times isn't an indicator of a subject's notability b/c the NYTimes covers 1000s of people each year.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's a very misrepresentative argument. PW's very purpose is very focused: trade review of current books. It is relatively non-selective in what appears there (10,000 reviews/year) and it is targeted to a relatively small segment of society: those in the "book business". Most people outside this small world have never heard of it. Conversely, NYT is a mainstream news source, arguably among the half-dozen most important news sources in the entire world, covering "everything" and read by hundreds of millions of people daily...and, as such, is extremely selective. And I agree with your second point. For example, anyone sufficiently notable to have an obit or review in the NYT is sufficiently notable for WP (with the converse being obviously not true). In the end, Frey's notability claim seems to rest mainly on a single obscure work that was reviewed as a matter of routine course in a trade publication. For reference, I'm currently in a slugfest arguing "keep" over at Cassie Jaye AfD, where I maintain the opposite is true. Like Frey, notability seems to hinge mainly on one work, but unlike Frey, this work has been the subject of many reviews in mainstream, i.e. selective news sources. I think I've said about all there is to say. Best wishes, Agricola44 (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs significant cleanup. However, there's enough to meet notability, and I see no other reason for deletion. 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Power~enwiki (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 20:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singer 2018[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, fails WP:GNG and WP:RS The Banner talk 21:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reliable sources. And these programme will record on December of 2017.特克斯特 (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources should also be independent sources, not sources provided by Facebook or the production company/future broadcaster. The Banner talk 16:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner:@Boing! said Zebedee:These are the reliable sources. Singer 2018 and Singer 2018(2). The director and the news said it will broadcast and it had already in preparation since June. 特克斯特 (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No independent, reliable sourcing. The Banner talk 14:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not sources provided by Facebook or the production company/future broadcaster You see again, it these sources provide by Facebook or the production company/future broadcaster? 特克斯特 (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your own source (through Google Translation):"Singer" director Hong Tao interview: the second quarter has been in preparation and Recently, the "singer" director Hong Tao in Hunan Satellite TV news network interview, said "Singer 2" has been in preparation.. So no independent source, as that director is clearly involved in the program. Please, read WP:RS. The Banner talk 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that the director cannot involved in the program? If he is not involved in the program, then it is not a reliable sources. And this news Sina have reported to the audience it will held it.(I have given the link)特克斯特 (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the interview with the director (or any other employee involved in the program) is not an independent source and because of that not a source conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 18:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If in your says, Singer2017 this page also should be deleted? The sources also involed the employees.特克斯特 (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep just an other fanatic deletion mission from The Banner178.197.231.36 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16 The Banner talk 19:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:TOOSOON it's not too soon to have this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are enough sources and notability for the article. -- Dane ^talk 20:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I still think that it should be kept, many Chinese mainland people are attention in this TV program. The notability is enough for this program特克斯特 (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If WP:TOOSOON is a concern this article can be moved to draft for a few months, but eventually it will be moved back to mainspace. The previous 5 seasons have been huge in China and to some extent throughout East/Southeast Asia especially in the Sinophone world. Timmyshin (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. self-sourced promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Rachel Thomas[edit]

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

Obviously an entrepreneurial person, but does not appear to have independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP requirements. The promotional piece on the University of Sydney website doesn't count. Boneymau (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO. She has 2 pop-med books but they're not widely held, according to WorldCat. Sources are completely inadequate in that they're all related to her. Agricola44 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Aiono[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. [16][17][18][19][20][21] From nl.newsbank.com, "Aiono happy to be with Utes", "Snow College's Aiono won't join Utes until '10", "Murray D-lineman committed to Utes". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First team all-American (even for junior college) seems to me to be an easy pass.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junior college accomplishment is not a sign of notability. The college notability of athletes rules are meant to exclude indiscriminate inclusion of college athletes. Aiono does not meet football notability requirements, which are abysmally low. He is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since passing the GNG. gidonb (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, although the junior college achievement does not demonstrate notability IMO. Lepricavark (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per the above sources. Smartyllama (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Velankar[edit]

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

Ther eferences merely mention him as one of the people involved in information issues. There's no substantial coverage DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass the notability standards for Wikipedia. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. He is a Right to Information activist in India now there are thousands of RTI activists he is just one of them and neither is his organisation notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus - This is almost perfectly split 50/50 for keep vs redirect. As per the comment at the bottom, best to close this as snow close, no consensus and revisit later if needed and not to belabor this for a full week. Summary: both 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting and Stephen Paddock will be standalone articles for now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Paddock[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

This is the biography for the suspect in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. An attempt was made to redirect to the main article on the event, was reverted, and so here we are. It's not quite an AfD, but it's not quite a merger, since the section on the individual in the main article is probably of equal or higher quality, and it's not clear that anything substantial in particular would need to be merged. Subject does not appear to be notable for anything other than this single event. GMG ^talk 19:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care that this discussion concerns material with implications for the recently deceased and their living family members.

Keep - per WP:Notability--Metalhead309 (talk)

I don't believe this falls under those grounds. He is only notable for this event, as WP:1E states is not viable for an article. 404House (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting WP:1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Da_Metalhead309 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant yes, but highly significant? On par with Lee Harvey Oswald or John Wilkes Booth? Unlikely. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defeedme (talk • contribs) [reply]

On par with Nidal Hasan perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - There is nothing of significance or interest in this persons life up until he committed mass murder. I see no reason to have a page dedicated to him, other than for glorification of his memory.Yevad (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, depending on its size, or keep the article, but do not delete the history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting per WP:1E; most of the biographical information is already there. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, this is a bit redundant looking back on it now, and I was the one who did the undo whilst not logged in. Woops. 404House (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Since he isn’t known for anything else, basically we have two articles about the same event. Objective3000 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – WP:1EVENT. Since he died, there will be no trial or other content to cover in an encyclopedic way. Neutrality^talk 20:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E as everyone else suggests. ansh 666 20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Redirect per WP:BIO1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and move content to Draft:Stephen Paddock. Paddock will likely gain more notability in the future, per most other perpetrators of mass-shootings of this scale, but that time is not yet. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTABILITY KingAntenor (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would you prefer not to have Paddock's bio in Wikipedia? It's sort of like having an article on World War II, and not having an article on Hitler because he has already been covered elsewhere. And ... no photo of course per Wikipedia:Non-free content. This entry was researched and created roughly at the same time as the expansion of section "Perpetrator" in the article 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. Please look at timestamps. And, here's what WP:1E says: In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Poeticbent talk 20:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His bio is already, word for word, in the article about the shooting. This is just a short WP:content fork. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again. These two entries are not at all similar. The biography article is a calmly-told and concise account of Paddok's life. Meanwhile, his description in the parent article is mostly about his life in connection to the crime committed by him. Poeticbent talk 15:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler would have been notable as a politician without WWII; Paddock has no notability outside of the Las Vegas shooting. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event is unfortunately significant, this individual's role is significant, and given his wealth, his defense contractor ties, his bank robbing father ... there is going to be a lot of biography. Some of it will be of considerable political significance, and frankly, if pundits rush to use this as an excuse for gun laws, then the public will be well served by seeing how immune the shooter would have been to them by virtue of having the money and connections to get any license he asked for. We have more than enough now to have a separate article - because otherwise, we overwhelm the article about the shootings with this personal information, which as it strays into biographical detail produces some unwelcome associations people will be complaining about. Wnt (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I meant. Please note that 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting#Perpetrator is already completely out of proportion to the significance of the event itself, and the number of victims. Poeticbent talk 20:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While WP:WI1E, it states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". The same way we have an article both for the Virginia_Tech_shooting and for Seung-Hui_Cho, we should follow that standard here. --Rockstonetalk to me! 21:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, best speedy. There is nothing at this time to take this past the 1E event. There is nothing to say that if down the road it becomes apparent that there is more, it can be forked at that time. It's worth mentioning that most of the keep arguments seem to point to the event, not the man, or are just red herring comparisons to Hitler. Wouldn't it be better to concentrate our efforts on one article now, and move content later if it becomes more appropriate. At this point, every detail we know about this fella is pertanant to the crime and could be covered there just as well as here. The test IMO is there any reason we'd be talking about this fella if he hadn't gone postal? John from Idegon (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The operative word here is "media coverage". Please note, the entire 4th paragraph in section Perpetrator of the parent article contains information of no relevancy to the actual shooting and should be moved here as a whole because of it. Poeticbent talk 21:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Agreed, the individual in question was not really notable enough to be considered distinct from the event that resulted in his demise. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E as everyone else suggests. Whiteguru (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, since the shooter is dead, no further analyses in secondary sources regarding his trial etc., will be possible. Since Wikipedia articles require such analysis, and presently what little "analysis" there is is entirely related to his motive, the shooting article is the place for this. Abductive (reasoning) 21:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the event and the individual are both notable, just like how there is an article for both the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and Omar Mateen 86WikiEditor (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
definitely redirect On first thought, the article should be a keep in a real encyclopedia but Wikipedia is very specific that they don't want bios of killers or murder victims (instead having a "Murder of Joe Smith" articles instead of "Joe Smith"). AGrandeFan (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep, because of historical significance- most shooting terrorist act in USA, there is going to be a lot of biography, because of Sourse For NOT FINISHED investigation, because of source for foreigner Wikipedias, because of RESPECT for 100 thousand Americans- simple people,family members and friends of victims ,that NEED this perfectly Wikipedia information.Please, Please! --Zasdcxz (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Redirect, whatever) Notable for one event, and the event article suffices. If it gets too long, trim extra wordiness and pointless trivia. We're not meant to include everything we can Google. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The entry for the incident can handle the biographical info easily enough. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BIO1E states that "the general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." Beeteegee (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, per Abductive's reasoning. A classic case of WP:BIO1E. As the shooter here is deceased, there will be no more coverage of him outside of the one event he's notable for. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If coverage in the future shows a need for this to be a separate article, it can be branched back out. But for now, things are best off having this redirect back to the shooting article where most of the information is. Gatemansgc (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting per WP:1E; most of the biographical information is already there.Television fan (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is so notable that we should have a separate page about the perpetrator. This page already passes WP:GNG, but we still do not know the most important thing: why he did it? Obviously, there was a reason, and investigators will find it. Then there will be even more content for the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; sure he is notable for one event, but analysis of every moment of this guys life is being made in the media currently and will be ongoing for years to come (i.e. there is a 0% chance that he does not meet WP:SUSTAINED). See Omar Mateen for a recent example. Books will be written about this guy, there is no chance that he isn't a long term notable figure (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald is also notable for one event, should we delete his article?). Redirect voters here are focusing too much on WP:BIO1E and WP:RECENTISM and ignoring the forest for the trees. WP:BIO1E says: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The more that's developing, there's less and less to be said about the subject. Better to wait until there's enough content to justify a stand-alone. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I'm afraid Paddock is notable for a separate article. No one in this discussion has mentioned Charles Whitman, the notorious "Texas Tower sniper". I recall he was known solely for mass murder, yet he has a well-written biography. WP:RECENTISM prevails in this case.Ever Crumbling (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is good example, and I am looking at this part. He had psychiatric problems, had cancer and was on drugs. I hope the investigators are doing all necessary forensics this time. So far, I did not see anything of this nature about Stephen Paddock in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some comments along these lines. And, in my mind, it is a good reason why this article should be removed until we know what the Hell is going on. Objective3000 (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: I agree but have the opposite conclusion. Having an article is important to see if it's possible to construct an interesting narrative based on the RS available. It's worth letting the community have a go at it as the investigation continues. If nothing comes up, the the argument for deletion is obvious (e.g. no notable motive in X number of days or weeks or months or whatever) deleting per 'one event' guidelines." - Scarpy (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly falls into one event, arguments about more information will follow will only just fill the article with non-noteworthy trivia, all it needs is a bit in the main article related to the event. MilborneOne (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect by now. Notable for only one event does not appear to have an article for himself. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 00:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per clear WP:1E. This shouldn't even deserve a discussion. Kaldari (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Insertcleverphrasehere. WP:BIO1E is an important guideline but it does include conditions which have been met to gain this split off article. The very reason that he is an unknown is why investigators are looking so deeply into this person. I also want to add for what its worth is that he is the son of a bank robber who escaped obtaining a place on the FBI's most wanted list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect obviously per WP:1EVENT not really sure why this is even debated. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember WP:NOTAVOTE, if you cant explain why the policy applies here towards redirecting then your argument doesn't hold water. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E stands on it's own pretty well. It's not like this guy was a famous gambler. Come on. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per one event. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - although known from only one event, the event is very noteworthy as the most deadly mass shooting in US history which makes him very notable. Snow Keep. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defenitely Keep-This is a very important article that sums up what little information we have on the killer. I think it should stay because the rule is that the article has to be about something notable, but not how many notable things, or specifics of what they have to be notable FOR.

But if it matters that much, I suggest moving this entire article to the article about the shooting, adding it as a section, similar to the page, 2014 Isla Vista killings. As you can see, Eliott Rodger's bio is mixed with the attack. I think if an agreement cant be reached, we try that.-K-popguardian (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The perpetrator of the worst mass shooting in US history is clearly notable. Even WP:BLP1E says we can and should have an article on such a person if the event is significant and the person's role is substantial and well-documented. The worst mass shooting in US history would definitely qualify as a significant event, and Paddock's role is clearly substantial and well-documented. Smartyllama (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Paddock is responsible for the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. I think he is notable enough for his own article and the article also touches on some personal info. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Saw this coming. Yet another case for why we need to enforce WP:NOTNEWS swiftly and effectively. This is a content fork that has BLP issues (yes this can extend to recently deceased people) and he is known for one, unfortunate incident. Perhaps in the future, when his motives and state of mind can be analyzed -- by secondary sources, not news reports -- then he may have a claim for notability as an important case study.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E and WP:1EVENT. Not to mention, a subject article just opens up the floodgates for ongoing media speculation posing as content. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 03:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - textbook WP:BLP1E Tazerdadog (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is good, reliably sourced information that people want to read. Much of it would be out of place in the article about the shooting. Antrocent (♫♬) 04:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I vehemently oppose any redirect or deletion attempts. Paddock is (at this moment) the worst mass murderer in American history, so he's clearly notable. There is far too much necessary information to accurately portray Paddock in the overall 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting page. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suppose. I would hate to lose any of the information and putting all this in the article about the shooting would be awkward. We really ought to review this in a year or so.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect per BLP1E. Also news stories about current events are primary sources, and the GNG prefers secondary sources to demonstrate notability. On a basic level 'US gunman kills lots of people' is not at this point in time a notable act, and mass-shootings are common. There is a related discussion at the village pump on the applicability of NOTNEWS as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citing BLP1E is invalid as this is clearly a highly significant event as it's the biggest mass shooting in US history, which the commonality of mass shootings only adds to the high significance. Per precedence with Omar Mateen, knee jerk deletion reactions doesn't overrule history, even bad history. GuzzyG (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument why the *event* is notable not the person. Which is what people are suggesting the biography is redirected to. Of course its not actually a notable event just because more people are killed, as mass shootings are common in the US, it would be a notable event if it led to some change in the gun control laws for example. Secondly it is a current event, not 'history'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is responsible for what is now the deadliest mass shooting in American history, and if other perpetrators of notable shootings such as Dylann Roof, Nidal Hasan, and Omar Mateen have their own articles, I see no reason for Paddock not to have his own either.--RM (Be my friend) 08:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're likely to know more about him over a time and a separate article makes sense. Laurent (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like the other biggest mass murderers in histroy like Anders Breivik and Omar Mateen, should a separate article be suitable for this mass murderer.JBergsma1 (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, best speedy. There is nothing at this time to take this past the 1E event. Sometimes the volume of info about the perpetrator necessitates a seperate article, that is not the case as yet and there is no present reason to suppose there ever will be. This is simply a content fork at present and no good reason for this info NOT being in the main article is offered. Lots of OTHERSTUFF arguments above. "Wait and see" should lead us to wait to see if there is a need. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect for now per WP:1E - contrary arguments above tend to rely upon WP:OTHERSTUFF or that he may be subject to significant coverage in the future to independently have an article in the future - WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 09:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E is the focus of the counter-argument as the subject's role in the event was a large one. Notability has been established on his part. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lost cause to delete this. Other perps of crimes of this calibre rate an article due to coverage of their pre event life and interest in them. He already meets GNG on the non-crime coverage of his pre-crime life.Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for obvious reasons, this person is clearly "notable." O-Qua-Tangin-Wann 2015 (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. If there's referenced/cited information in it which should be but hasn't yet been included in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, don't overlook it, but it's the event and its ramifications that have the notability, not the contemptible instigator. As far as the existence of pages about Dylan Roof or Omar Mateen, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists that shouldn't. – Athaenara ✉ 12:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While facially this guy is a one-event, the event is rather significant as the deadliest single perpetrator shooting incident to date in U.S. history. Similar to Timothy McVeigh, the one-event domestic terrorist who was the principal actor in the Oklahoma City bombing, or his primary accomplice Terry Nichols, both of whom rate articles despite their both being WP:1E. Guidelines like 1E are just that, guidelines, not rules. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most people think of guidelines as 'rules', or at least 'rules of thumb'. However, note that WP:1E contains an exemption for exactly this kind of scenario that redirect !voters seem to be ignoring: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some are also insisting that this discussion is a "waste of time" which in my opinion is insulting to the AfD process. This isn't some quiet deletion where we are talking about borderline WP:CSD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historical event that will have long term coverage. Wikipedia would be incomplete without an in-depth biography that would be impossible to maintain in the space allocated in the event article via redirect. If not kept it should move back to Draft space so it can be further developed as new sourcing comes available. -- GreenC 13:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to have own Wikipedia article. It needs to be a separate article with all information known about him. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stephen Paddock does not follow any previous spree killer characteristics, this by itself already makes Paddock notable. Plus the article for the seemingly non-notable spree killer Seung-Hui_Cho was kept, we need to keep Wikipedia consistent. --Moebiusstrip (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As one-event person whose one event was profoundly notable, just like Omar Mateen and Seung-Hui Cho. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If he isn't notable now he will be in a few days, keep the page to save the trouble of writing it over again. - ZLEA ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the "recentism" essay that talks about news spikes and dealing with lots of information that might otherwise glut up the original article. There is a lot of worndering about "who was this guy" and "is he a terrorist or a lone wolf or what" ... a really good encyclopedia should be able to provide people this information. Once wikipedia has pulled together all relevant information, this guy's bio might stand alone or not but it is too early to tell what even happened. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting as others have suggested. He is not notable outside of this event. Snorepion (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, since he is not notable outside of the shooting. Also, this prevents any "fame" of having a separate page. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - can't see much justification for an exception to WP:1E, i.e. write an article about the event, with a paragraph about the person (whose biography is not even that large). --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep w/o prejudice to renom in 6 months. We all know this AfD is not a good way to spend our time, wait 6 months until after things have calmed down hopefully.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:1E. The information is useful but can be covered elsewhere. He has no notability except for this one event. --El on ka 15:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Elonka: Have you read WP:1E? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: Please assume good faith and strike out this inflammatory comment if possible, made toward another experienced editor with 10+ years of tenure. Alex Shih ^Talk 15:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a question isn't considered inflammatory, I just wanted to know how "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." wouldn't apply. Sorry if I came across as rude. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Latest in string of mass shootings from country with poor mental health care & almost zero gun control - next on news at 11, bear shits in woods." Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. To classify the deadliest mass shooting in US history as on the same level as "bear shits in the woods", that takes some serious Olympic level mental gymnastics. How is the deadliest mass shooting in US history not 'highly significant'? and if not, what would you consider 'highly significant'? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not highly significant. Its only 'deadliest' mass shooting by 9 people since the last one. No doubt next year given the lack of any inclination by the US people or its government to restrict access to weapons able to kill large numbers of men, women and children we will be back here with another one. '58 people shot' in a country that has no history of mass shootins is significant. '58 people shot since 49 were last year' is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Until any further notable details of his life come to life, it is sufficient that his entire bio be a section in the massacre article. If further details, separate from his role in the massacre, come to light later that warrant a separate article, then, but only then, can such an article can be split off on its own. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E. Unlike say, Anders Breivik or Nidal Malik Hassan who were arrested after their rampages and faced legal actions as a result, the perpetrator in this massacre is dead. There will not be any trial or any other sort of legal procedure that takes place regarding Padddock so it seems to me that this article is a pointless WP:DUPLICATE and WP:CONTENTFORK. What could be included here that could not be included in the Perpetrator section of the event's article? -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are already separate articles for Omar Mateen and Seung-Hui Cho, both of which killed less people than Paddock. Paddock's own father even has his own Wiki page, Benjamin Hoskins Paddock. If that wasn't enough, Paddock is the perpetrator of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. Modern History how can than not be classed as notable? Inexpiable (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Benjamin Hoskins Paddock article has only existed since yesterday, maybe it is in need of an AfD itself. (Hint, hint) -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Benjamin Hoskins Paddock AfD was snow kept. The hint hint is that this AfD, like the Benjamin Hoskin Paddock AfD should be snow kept. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardles, just because the perp's father has an article doesn't mean that the perpetrator himself needs one. WP:INN. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When the nominator is not endorsing a deletion ("It's not quite an AfD, but it's not quite a merger"), got to wonder why the nomination. Seems to be the obligatory AfD for articles surrounding recent events. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - Stephen Paddock may end up being notable in a similar way to how Charles Whitman is notable. So we might as well collect information on him until that clearly is or is not the case. If his motives are discovered to be "non-exceptional" and undue publicity for them would be counter-productive (e.g. no benefit to neuroscience or anything like that, just a glorification of terrorism or resentment) then I would say redirect. - Scarpy (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Paddock may end up being notable in a similar way to how Charles Whitman is notable. Yes, and the sky may turn cyan tomorrow. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled by this implied argument in many comments here that his notability depends on what his motives were. Sources are investigating and commenting either way, every aspect of this guys life is being poured over and being reported. The perpetrator of the deadliest mass shooting in the USA is going to be notable with or without 'interesting motives'. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least as far as my reasoning goes "interesting motives" has nothing to do with it, it's that Paddock is only notable for WP:1EVENT. Yes it is the worst mass murder in the United States and one of the worst in the world, but the perpetrator is dead now and thus will never be notable beyond the massacre. The only reason I could see an article on the perpetrator existing would be to cover the legal phase after the incident; that is not going to happen in this case. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was more referring to Scarpy's comment. In any case, notability is based on the sources that cover the subject, not what he did. The coverage of this guy's early life have been run-of-the-mill a week ago, but it isn't any more, and there is plenty of sourcing already from high profile sources attempting to uncover everything they can about his life before the incident (he alsready meets WP:GNG, a higher level notability guideline than WP:1E). These are exactly the kinds of reports form reliable sources that make people notable beyond the event itself (i.e. information from reports about his early life clearly *is* encyclopedic if it has been covered in a reliable source, but is not appropriate for the article on the event, thus justifying a separate article). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Millionsandbillions: not really the same, it's not a prediction as much as we know that eventually through investigation, autopsy, etc something motivating him to commit the crime will be uncovered -- you don't need a crystal ball for that, the crime was already committed so there was something motivating it, that's certain. What is not certain, yet, is what the motivation would be. This is where I disagree with Insertcleverphrasehere if his motivations were just at the level of personal resentment or ideology, then I would say we're outside the scope of where guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:1E apply for the reason you mention -- this is the deadliest spree killing in American history. That's a perfect reason to WP:IAR and not glorify the perpetrator with a Wikipedia article. If, however, the cause is something more at the level of biology (e.g. like Charles Whitman) then that knowledge can serve a purpose and an article would have encyclopedic value. - Scarpy (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with those pointing to the Unabomber and several articles on infamous criminals including mass shooters such as Charles Whitman. I don't see where this is even arguable.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why can it be an exception for WP:1E? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:1E reads: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". There is no denying that the suspect had a huge role in this event and has been covered extensively in the media. The guideline is best used for WP:LOWPROFILE people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - He is only notable for the 1E, and the information about him should be kept in that article. Natureium (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe an exception to WP:BLP1E applies here since this is a much more significant event than most shootings, and is now the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in US history. Paddock, likewise, is a very notable person now with significant coverage from RS. Like other users have said, we have articles for Omar Mateen, the Unabomber, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Timothy McVeigh, and Seung-Hui Cho. I believe the exceptions of 1E in those articles apply here as well. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep despite the number of !votes to the contrary. The argument that there won't be enough coverage specific to the perpetrator because he didn't live to be tried is without merit—Charles Whitman, perpetrator of the University of Texas tower shooting, likewise died on the scene but that didn't prevent ample coverage specific to the perpetrator. We already know that Stephen Paddock's background is atypical for mass shooters; further investigation will only underscore this fact and expand upon it. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply—it is about cases where the occurrence of the event itself, or its own factual characteristics, are speculative. The guidelines themselves explicitly allow, and even mandate, predictions of the level of future coverage of events—for example, WP:SUSTAINED within WP:N explicitly bases notability decisions on what level of coverage is "likely" in the future.

As to WP:BIO, it is not entirely consistent on matters relevant to the question at hand, and IMO will need to be revised for consistency after conclusion of this AfD (though it would be a very bad idea to revise it during the AfD!). WP:CRIME within WP:BIO does say "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Yet WP:1E within WP:BIO says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"—and goes on to offer assassin Gavrilo Princip as an example. And even WP:CRIME goes on to say that "Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." An atypical mass shooter responsible for the worst mass shooting in USA history? You don't need a crystal ball to know what length considerations will necessitate for this one. Deletion or redirection would only interfere pointlessly with the normal editing process, and require a WP:SPINOFF to recreate this article.

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Princip, or LH Oswald have seperate aricles largely because the volume of available info is so great that it could no longer fit comfortably within the 'event' articles. It requires a good deal of CRYSTAL to imagine that this will ever be the case with Paddock. If/when the info no longer fits reasonably ell within this event article, then is the time to 'fork'. All that is achieved by doing it now is to 'disperse' content and duplicate info. Pincrete (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting per WP:1E; In time this guy might become culturally significant as others who committed significant acts. When that happens mentioning "Stephen Paddock" will invoke a social response. But he is not like that yet. He might just end up being "that guy who shot up a lot of people in Las Vegas." Wikipedia should not lead cultural trends, it should follow them. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They already have significant coverage which is only going to increase over time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not individually notable,--KTo288 (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The subject has significant media coverage as noted. I also point out that we have articles for several other perpetrators of mass acts of violence, who weren't notable for anything else. Display name 99 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW no consensus[edit]

Comment; It appears to me that the difference in opinions expressed between keep !voters and redirect !voters are twofold:

1) A difference in interpretation of WP:1E. Keep voters (including myself) have argued that the line: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." justifies inclusion, which is reasonable. Redirect voters place more emphasis on the opening lines of WP:1E, and in particular generally dispute that the "event is highly significant". This is also reasonable, as the example WP:1E gives, of Gavrilo Princip and his role in the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, is undoubtedly a much more "highly significant" event than even the largest mass shooting in US history. This difference in opinion is totally open to interpretation, and as far as I can see, neither side has been able to convince anyone from the other.

2) Different emphasis on anticipation of coverage. Keep !voters have pointed out that significant coverage of his life before the shooting has already emerged, and that it is inevitable that there will be a significant amount of future coverage that won't be appropriate for inclusion in the event article. They argue that the article should be maintained as a separate article to facilitate the inclusion of current and future material. Redirect !voters on the other hand have called this WP:CRYSTAL, say that both articles are currently short enough to justify a merger, and also suggest that we should not speculate on future coverage but base their !votes on current coverage only. Syrenka V has commented just above about how WP:CRYSTAL is not intended to apply to anticipation of future coverage, but only to anticipation of furture events. Syrenka V further argues that anticipation of future coverage is essential and that "WP:SUSTAINED within WP:N explicitly bases notability decisions on what level of coverage is "likely" in the future." Again, both of these positions are entirely reasonable, and both have been unable to sway others to their opinion.

I originally asked for this discussion to be reopened, as it wasn't clear that WP:SNOW or any speedy deletion criteria applied to the early close. However, a picture has emerged since; that these are un-reconcilable differences in the interpretation of policy, and that there is no indication that anyone intends to change their opinion. Considering the current !vote count of 42 to 41, I think that the outcome of this as 'No Consensus' is inevitable and that a SNOW close of No Consensus is justified at this point in the discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My intention was to record a strong consensus one way or the other, but that doesn't seem to be happening, and if it's going to be redirected, and per Milowent, that strong consensus may be more likely to happen in a few months. Let's not waste any more time on it when it's clear a strong consensus is not going to be achieved within the next few days. GMG ^talk 20:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obin.org[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails web notability standards. Article was previously deleted at AfD but little improvement has been made. DrStrauss talk 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure it's a "web" thing, but it doesn't meet WP:GNG either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. It's clear that the content should be kept. Merging to redirecting this to another article does not require AFD, and while there was a minority which supported that, it was not widely discussed here. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klemme Community School[edit]

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

This is probably a copyvio, but has not been deleted because the creator of the article is also the author of the original text. No real notability is shown here and I do not believe it meets schooloutcomes criteria. at the very least this needs major rewriting. Dysklyver 19:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 655#a thank you and comparing the copyright date of the website with the creation date of the Wikipedia article, it appears that the copying has been from Wikipedia, not to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the suspected copyvio content in the article is from when it was created in 2007 and has only been tagged since August 2017. The website says "PAGE CREATED 15 JAN 2010 ©2010 LaVern D. Velau" and the earliest cached version is from 2013.

Thus it looks like the article was first and the webpage copied it. The website gives its sources as "This information and photos were taken from the books Klemme Iowa 1889-1989 © 1989, Heritage of Hancock County, Iowa Volume One © 1993". If you think this is copied verbatim from these sources, please verify it by gaining access to them. Failing that, I don't think there are grounds to call it a copyvio. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect - I think with some effort, this could be reworked into a viable encyclopedic article, or at least redirected into a subsection of another. For example, the article makes reference to combining with the Belmond school district, in nearby Belmond, Iowa. The Belmond article, education section, specifically mentions serving Klemme. It might not be the greatest fit for this article, but at least it's a decent start (?) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 19:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
probably Keep and improve. But it may be best to wait for an answer to the question posted here before closing this AfD. Maproom (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The original creator of the article (whom has apparently taken up a new similar username stated here that the website was copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. As such, I've removed the copypasta tag. John from Idegon (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is pretty much satisfied by the book noted in the article. The article is sixteen different kinds of awful, but that is not a reason to delete. It will, however need a motivated editor with access to local sources to fix it up. To that end, I'll leave a note at the Iowa project. John from Idegon (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not delete articles about notable topics just because one of the contributors has not read and understood our licenses (which they agreed to) and is having a hissy fit. I agree that the article is awful in many ways. The immediate solution is to remove the overtly awful content and keep the barely adequate content, with the goal of whipping the article into shape. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets notable guidelines, just the outstanding question around the copy from other website and which was first but if all ok then it should be kept. Just is really going to need a tidy up. NZFC^(talk) 05:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, again, not written to the or usual style or even standard, but that's not a reason for deletion (WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP). Some of the sources are solid and probably underused, and in any case, as an aside, it's hard to imagine many institutions surviving 100 years+ and not attaining any degree of notability. — fortunavelut luna 12:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Klemme, Iowa and keep the title as a redirect. At the moment, there is simply not enough to adequately verify the content of even the most basic stub on this topic. Note that the two books which are mentioned as "sources" and which are being used to argue for notability are not devoted to the school per se, i.e.
- Klemme, Iowa 1889-1989 (1989) which was privately published by a local historian
- Heritage of Hancock County (1993) compiled by the Hancock County Genealogical Society and published by the now-defunct Curtis Media Corporation which was a historical and genealogical book publisher

We have no way of knowing how much of the content in the Wikipedia article is original research (quite a lot, I suspect) and how much is actually from the two books mentioned. No page numbers have been provided in any case. Certainly nothing after 1993 can be sourced from them. I could not find any articles in the Google Newspapers archive that even mention the school. The local paper The Klemme Times ran from 1895 to 1961 and is available only on microfilm at the State Historical Society of Iowa. The 1970 high school yearbook is online here, although again, a rather dubious source and behind a paywall. The site of the Belmond-Klemme school district [22] to which it merged has nothing about either school's history. Once the "essay" material, names of past students, and random sports sourced by user-generated content at a Google site wiki [23] are removed, what's left? And even that will be very inadequately referenced. Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am coming to consider myself a deletionist, but I have the personal view that almost anything that is well-documented from more than a century ago is notable and should be recorded in Wikipedia. Something that lasted for nearly a century doesn't need to be as important as the Roman Empire or dinosaurs to be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Klemme, Iowa per Voceditenore. Assuming that our notability requirements are met, the present article would still have to be cut back to practically a single sentence until such time as someone can access offline sources. Meanwhile, the references section states "This information was taken from the books...", the phrasing of which suggests a possible copyright violation. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Cordless Larry, I doubt if there is significant copyvio from those two books, although it's possible. It's more likely that the bulk of the content comes from interviews with residents by the WP article's creator and other original research, e.g. unpublished city documents, private scrapbooks, etc. If old newspapers were used, there is no indication of it. The main problem is separating out the OR from what might have been written in the two books. We simply have no way of knowing. If kept or merged, I'd be willing to work with other editors to pare the article down to something reasonably encyclopedic. However, the result will be extremely short and still poorly referenced, as we are working in the dark. It would have been helpful if the editor who created the article had minimally included page numbers for the books. Voceditenore (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I just did a search on newspapers.com (see [24]), and there probably is enough there to source a few key points, although its very laborious if you don't have a subscription and have work only with the OCR text. Voceditenore (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Klemme, Iowa or re-purpose to Belmond-Klemme Community School District. The article is egregiously full of trivia and other obviously non-encyclopedic content. Once the article is cleaned up, there won't be enough for a stand-alone article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's notable and we don't delete articles for the reasons the creator wants. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because, being a long established high school it will undoubtedly meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. It's been recently re-written so, fortunately, the continual insulting of the original author(s) can now stop. ~~Ironically the Wikipedia article could be sourced quite well now using the Klemme Homestead Museum page (which the original Wikipedia author claims to have helped create)~~. Sionk (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like the original author has been "insulted" here, but including content such as the full list of names of the graduating class of 1990 does suggest that they don't understand what Wikipedia is supposed to be. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk, the Klemme Homestead Museum piece is a copy of the Wikipedia article. OK for an external link perhaps, but circular referencing I'm afraid. See John from Idegon's first comment above. Voceditenore (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fair enough, thanks Voceditenore, I can see it's identical in every respect to the Wikipedia version as of 2009. Sionk (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. EpicTraveler, consider making a draft and seeking the input of other editors or using WP:AfC next time. A Train^talk 06:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unistal Systems Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

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

This article fails to establish any notability under WP:ORG and is written in the style of an advertisement throughout. Any clean up will require removing the vast majority of content (if not all). Vasemmistolainen (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom is right on the money. Refs are entirely self-promotional. PROD territory.South Nashua (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had create this wikipedia page just for informative purpose and not for any promotion purpose. I had first created the same in the sandbox before getting it live on Wikipedia. But I am a beginner at Wikipedia, I will make the necessary changes so that it should comply with the Wikipedia policies. I would request the fellow members to give their valuable suggestion so that I can make the changes in the Wikipedia page as I have really worked hard to create this page and don't want to get it deleted. EpicTraveler (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the necessary changes as which complies with the Wikipedia policies. I would request the fellow admin to check the same and please guide me so that my hard work on sandbox doesn't go in vain.

Delete Regrettably, pages cannot be kept merely because someone spent time making them. They have to warrant their existence. Personally (despite your hard work) I fail to see how this company is noteworthy. It exists, it does its job, but so do billions of other businesses in the world. What makes this one special? Pupsbunch (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be Deleted - I do agree with you Pupsbunch, but I have created this page to provide unique information about this company. This company has many a things which are unique and should be known to people around the world. I am not saying that you keep this article merely because I have put my hard work in it, But for the unique services and products the company is offering. I have research a lot about the company and then decided to make a page for it. I do believe that there is nothing wrong create a page for a company who is a bit unique compared to other companies belonging to the same industry. Talking about the net-worthiness of the company, you must know that Unistal stands second amongst the pioneer in data recovery software and services after Stellar. I do believe that the not be deleted. EpicTraveler (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. This one was a bit of a challenge to parse (not helped by the substantial amount of off-topic digression, and the result of the DRV was unusual to say the least), but while not unanimous, the consensus here is that WP:BLP1E does apply in this instance. Especially when dealing with a BLP of a minor, consensus on BLP concerns are a substantial issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Neher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously brought to AfD and closed as delete per BLP1E. The recent DRV on that closed as "Endorse but restore" with the option to take it to AfD to reevaluate the sourcing, so bringing it here. I saw nothing in the DRV that would get it past WP:NHSPHSATH, which is the main criteria we should be evaluating under in addition to BLP1E. A high school quarterback that gets coverage within one season is not sustained coverage. That two additional weeks have passed from the last AfD does not make it any less one event. This is very clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. If coverage of Ms. Neher continues past this season or reaches beyond routine coverage that is expected of major high school quarterbacks, then we can have an article. Currently though, even the coverage in major papers is relatively routine for high school athletes, and more coverage over a period of less than a month does not change the one event issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this closed so recently at DRV on the claims that the concerns of the last AfD were solved, I'm notifying all of the participants of the previous AfD @Paul McDonald, SchroCat, Ritchie333, WikiOriginal-9, 103.30.143.157, Hmlarson, EEng, Betty Logan, RickinBaltimore, Iridescent, TheGracefulSlick, Cullen328, Reyk, John from Idegon, Boing! said Zebedee, DGG, Bishonen, and Power~enwiki: if I have missed anyone unintentionally, please notify them. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)@Lepricavark and Paulmcdonald: I seemed to have missed you or got the ping wrong. Sorry for the oversight. Pinging now. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is egregiously bad and largely written to survive the AfD process rather than to be part of an encyclopedia. WP:NHSPHSATH is irrelevant, WP:GNG is the relevant standard. power~enwiki (π,ν) 18:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but NHSPHSATH is written to help limit what claims for HS athletes count towards GNG. If we didn't have it, virtually any HS quarterback in the US would pass the GNG. GNG is the standard, but the sports specific criteria helps us to understand it. I'd argue pretty strongly that Ms. Neher passes neither. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not taken a position on notability, but am puzzled by the suggestion that the articles was "largely written to survive the AfD process rather than to be part of an encyclopedia." Articles are supposed to present a basis for the subject's notability and the fact that the author here has attempted to do just that is a plus rather than a badge of dishonor. Cbl62 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes only one real claim: that she's a female high-school football player. Why this fact needs 26 references, other than to attempt to demonstrate that this meets GNG, is beyond me. Sentences like "Before playing in an actual game, Neher was gaining attention through the press." exist purely to throw more references in the article for AfD participants to point to, IMO. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several noteworthy claims, but even if there were not--not all article content points toward notability, but all article content should ideally be referenced. Are you trying to say that the subject isn't notable because there is too much coverage in independent, third party reliable sources?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, you're right. How encyclopaedic is "Neher's achievements began to change the landscape of high school football almost immediately[19] as news of the accomplishment spread to Australia." Ouch! Such overblown claims and bad prose make this even worse than normal (and what has Australia got to do without anything, for goodness sake?! - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That first claim came from Bleacher Report who wrote "Holly Neher is changing the landscape of high school football." The reference to the source in Australia speaks to the global impact. It's all true and all referenced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"true and referenced" isn't well written and isn't encyclopaedic. "True" is always debatable, with the poorly crowbarred reference to Australia in the text. This reads like a high school newsletter, not an encyclopaedia entry and parroting the excessive hyperbole of journalists is one element of that. Being very badly written is just part of the problem here tho. - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, truth is always debatable. I have heard people debate that the sky is orange. Comments on the content and editing should be reserved for the articles talk page. Of course, we discussed that in the last AFD so you should know that. Right now, the topic is the notability of the subject, not the quality of the prose of the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep 'on point' about the notability, why did you bring up the move to draftspace a few comments below? That has nothing to do with deletion either, but you're happy to drop it in here. Part of the problem tho Paul, is that you don't appear to listen. There was a consensus to delete the article: you didn't listen and went off to have it overturned (badly). You're told which bits of the prose are truly awful, and you leave them be. In the first 'life' of the article, I removed the truly awful sentence that had only been crowbarred in to try and get round AfD: "Several independent news sources have credited Neher as the first, including the Pensacola News Journal,[10] the Miami Herald,[7] Business Insider,[11] and USA Today.[12]" Not only did you not listen to people telling you it is crap prose, you went and forced it back in again without the slightest thought about why it was taken out. What is the point of taking stuff to the talk page if you're going to put your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you"? I really do get annoyed when people don't bother listening to a community consensus and then waste everyone's time by making lots of people jump through the same fucking hoops again to end up back at the same place. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "listening" (reading), and I "hear" (understand) you. I just think your views are incorrect in this case. There is no reason to get upset at me because we disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im not "upset", so please don't try to tell me what I feel. I do not think you do understand the problems here, either with the notability or the standard or prose, and your unwillingness to edit some of the crapness out of the article, even when it is pointed out to you, speaks more than your claims to the contrary. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, you stated you are "annoyed" and not "upset" -- I apologize for that. Please avoid the use of gross profanity as outlined in the policy WP:CIVIL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lecture me, it's fucking tiresome. (And no, that's not me being upset or annoyed, it's because calling the prose crap isn't uncivil). - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL 1 (a).--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for fucks sake. Stop with the civility bollocks and stop driving this further and further away from the deletion debate. Do you remember what happened when you dropped crap like this onto ANI last time? It was shut down quickly for being a pointless waste of everyone's time. The civility poking is beginning to take on shades of passive aggressive baiting, so drop it now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you feel safe at ANI, do you have any problem with being taken to Arbcom? Unscintillating (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PMSL! If you want to waste the time of so many people doing something so pointlessly misguided, there is little I care to say or do to dissuade you. - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would you be taking ShroCat there for, Unscintillating? Cassianto ^Talk 22:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but can you guys take this elsewhere? This has very little to do with the AfD. Unscintillating either do whatever it is you threatened to do and probably get WP:BOOMERANGed, or just stop.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...again. Still a high school athlete who is recognized for one event. All the coverage on her is routine and we seem to forget Wikipedia is not a newspaper.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage of a high school quarterback in the Bleacher Report and USA Today is routine? I doubt that one in 1000 see coverage like that. Hobit (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references indicate WP:GNG met. "Currently though, even the coverage in major papers is relatively routine for high school athletes" - International news coverage is not relatively routine for high school football players. Hmlarson (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Query. "Endorse but restore"...? May we have a link to the DRV, please, Tony? I'm re-pinging @Lepricavark and Paulmcdonald:, just in case, because you're supposed to start a new line to ping somebody, I've been told. Bishonen | talk 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks Bishonen, the link is here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 26. Also linking in nomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reasonable argument that she doesn't meet WP:N, so the question is does she overcome WP:BLP1E. Given that the sources started quite early on (August 23rd saw significant coverage in the Miami Herald that was reprinted as far away as in Pennsylvania) before she started playing and has coverage in the Bleacher Report after doing well, I'm not clear what the claimed "one event" would be. Throwing a touchdown can't be it, because there was a lot of coverage before that. I don't think "being a girl playing football" is an event. Hobit (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a question of what ongoing coverage means. I don't consider coverage within a two month period "ongoing". That's routine coverage for a football season. Re: the national press: yes, we've deleted high school athletes with better sourcing than that (though I'd be at a loss to find the AfDs). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The word "ongoing" is not in WP:BLP1E nor is it in WP:NHSPHSATH. At least, not that I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The word I was looking for was "prolonged" which is in NHSPHSATH: High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Prolonged: From the article references, the first USA Today article was dated August 17, 2017 and the most recent referenced article is dated September 25, 2017. That's over a month. I suspect that many would say that qualifies. Wiktionary says prolonged means "lengthy in duration; extended; protracted", with Lengthy having its roots in the idea of being longer than traditional--and there's been a lot more coverage than your average high school quarterback.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are special requirements for sources in this area, to supplement the GNG and explain what is relevant to notability more specifically. She does not have sources that meet them. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What are these requirements and where can a list of them be found?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete, still 1E, still puffed-up sources. E Eng 20:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG with global coverage in significant independent third party sources over an extended period of time. WP:BLP1E does not apply because there is much more than "one" event, and WP:BLP2E is not a policy or guideline. WP:TOOSOON does not apply because the significant coverage already exists for events in the past. Multiple full-length feature articles in reliable sources like USA Today, Business Insider, and others clearly are WP:NOTROUTINE. The requirements in WP:NHSPHSATH are exceeded because notability is not derived from school papers or local coverage. And the claim that Wikipedia has deleted high school athletes with "better sourcing" cannot be taken seriously in this AFD because we are not talking about other sources and since the claim has no reference, we cannot evaluate those cases to see how they might apply here. Did I miss any?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again per BLP1E, as I said last time. All the attempts to make this something other than BLP1E are completely unpersuasive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you or someone else please identify the event in question? Hobit (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I rushed to move this to draftspace as soon as I saw that it had been sent to mainspace directly from the DRV. I recommend that it not be returned to mainspace until November. I see that even though I thought I'd get to it before anyone had a chance to nominate it for deletion, that there is already a frivolous process. Please move this to MfD if you think that a deletion process is needed. Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you move it to draft?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - A more important point is why deletion review took such a sub-standard step in moving it back into mainspace. The subject is non-encyclopaedic and the writing little better than that of an average high school student. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologize that the bulk of the writing that I (and contributions from others) have put into the article isn't up to your standards for quality of an article. I wish I could write better and more to your liking. Unfortunately, "I don't like the writing" is not a reason to delete an article. If you want to know more about the reasons behind the DRV result you should contact the editor who executed that result. Do that, and then we will be right back here having this discussion. Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion? I remind you that WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is not an argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I haven't said it is a reason to delete it (in fact in a comment above about the parroting of journalistic hyperbole I say the awful prose if one of this article's problems). - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources and BLP1E does not apply. Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (still). Still falls foul of BLP1E and fails GNG requirements. There is no 'substantial and prolonged coverage' (a month just isn't "prolonged" coverage); this is, at best WP:TOOSOON for a student to pass as encyclopaedic content. – SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"On the fence" comments. The problem here is the "prolonged" coverage prong of WP:NHSPHSATH. Unlike most SNGs, this one is an "exclusionary" standard intended to avoid opening the floodgates to thousands upon thousands of articles about high school athletes, a danger about which we need to be wary. On the other hand, the spirit of NHSPHSATH is to ensure that we limit high school athlete articles to truly exceptional cases. Here, even though the Neher story hasn't been around for long enough to qualify as having received "prolonged" coverage, it is an exceptional case that has garnered international, substantial, and non-routine coverage. Moreover, it involves a female athlete, a subject on which Wikipedia has had a significant problem of under-representation. For these latter reasons, and assuming the closure is done so as to avoid the floodgates problem, I would not be troubled were the article to be kept. 22:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs)
Redirect for now to Hollywood Hills High School. Of course the sources pass WP:GNG, but GNG is not WP:N. For reasons that I don't entirely understand, this seems more like an event than a bio. WP:NHSPHSATH even erroneously requires event notability for people, which serves my purpose here. As an event, notability requires coverage the equivalent of Balloon Boy, where the coverage here doesn't come close.
Much of this is a developing story, for example, there is nothing in Google books. Yes, the Sun Sentinel said on 25 Sep that, "Hollywood Hills junior Holly Neher made history with her start at quarterback on Friday night." But the next week she didn't start and didn't throw a pass. Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment looks like she picked up the start on their Oct 3 game from this article and had a fully-functional game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "West Broward defense dominates Hollywood Hills in 33-13 victory". Sun Sentinel. September 28, 2017. Hollywood Hills quarterback Holly Neher didn't start, played sparingly and did not throw a pass.
    I don't think that being allowed to play only against easy opponents says much about her playing skills, just the opposite. Unscintillating (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Worth considering, but no reason is reported why she did not start or play very little. And she did get the start and significant play time in the next game. There could have been a medical reason she did not play, there could have been a family reason, or an academic one. Or maybe the coach's game plan called for a different signal caller against that opponent. It's worth considering, but I would say it's outweighed by getting the start and significant play time the next game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've added a paragraph break to clarify that the point I was making was related to this being a developing news story. Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- from memory, this has not changed a lot since the last time except that the puffery and ref bombardment have become more grotesque. Reyk _YO! 06:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_female_American_football_players#High_school (possibly with an anchor placed at Neher's entry). It is obvious that Neher has acquired some minor notability, but the article is mostly trivia and all the pertinent facts are already given at List of female American football players. It's really a question of substance and the general list already provides the essential coverage.. Betty Logan (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I asked above, but I'm guessing it got missed. Could one of the "1E" !voters identify the "one event" please? Hobit (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked that all through the last AFD and never got an answer. I'd still like to know the answer too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The high school football season is in my mind, one event. Yes, multiple games, but we do treat sports seasons on Wikipedia as individual occurrences (see 2017–18 Fulham F.C. season for the first example that popped up in my search box). That combined with the fact that a two month period is not prolonged coverage makes it run afoul of our limitations as to what coverage counts. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is nothing in WP:BLP1E to even hint that multiple events should be lumped together and called "one" event, and that is supported by the guideline WP:ONEEVENT as well as the reasoning at the essays WP:WI1E and WP:BLP2E. One event means one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person goes beyond being a one trick irrelevant athlete, the one event is that she was the "first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school game" as high school athletes are generally non-notable, this is considered the only claim of significance, but is also a one-off event. She is obviously groundbreaking in her multiple accomplishments, and while admittedly at a low level, this does not detract from her general significance, particularly in the US. She is clearly the first female to achieve a number of things many others (men) take for granted, however this puts here significance above that of, say, Joe Bloggs. Dysklyver 14:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is not certain she is the first: the Florida High School Athletic Association concede there is some doubt. She certainly is the first person called Holly Neher to attain the low level of being the first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school game, but that is a long way short of being encyclopaedic. I'm also extremely wary when I see claims such as "groundbreaking" and "multiple accomplishments" as just another example of the hyperbole to which some are claiming as being notable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to lift an argument from the deletion review: Just as an example, see the article Wright brothers which states "The Wright brothers... were two American brothers, inventors, and aviation pioneers who are 8generally credited[1][2][3] with inventing, building, and flying the world's first successful airplane." There are many sports precedents too, including Forward pass where it is written "Most sources credit St. Louis University's Bradbury Robinson from Bellevue, Ohio with throwing the first legal forward pass." There are many more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have enough knowledge of or interest in or our principles for sports articles to form an opinion as to "keep" or "delete" here. But, @Paulmcdonald: I'm getting a kind of déjà-vu feeling in relation to the first AfD (see my comment here). Do you intend to bludgeon this AfD as well, again without mentioning that you created the article? Please consider letting people who have no personal interest in it work out the article's fate from now on, without protesting against every "delete" argument. Bringing up the Wright brothers is kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel, surely. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Since you brought it up, I made some mistakes in the last AFD. One was not continuing to press for answers how several events were smashed down to "one event" and another was caving in and stopping my requests for clarification because of pressure from ... look at that... User:Bishonen, who is doing the same thing now. This is a discussion which means we discuss things. I put an essay together a while back about this at Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions and others have contributed to it as well. It is only through discussions that we actually learn. Editors are free to disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and yes I created the article. I've never hid that, and anyone can find that in the article history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"One was not continuing to press": so you think you should have bludgeoned even more than you did...? And even when there was a consensus, you still ignored it and took a backdoor route to get it overturned. Do you ever think you may get things slightly wrong and that other people may be right? And no, to try and equate Holly Neher's possible accomplishment with that of the Wright Brothers really is a classic argumentum ad absurdum. - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a popular vote, and consensus can change. If you have a problem with the DRV process, this isn't really the place to discuss it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the patronising crap. I know what consensus is, and what level of arrogance in an individual that tries to get it reversed and overturned in their favour so soon after it has been decided. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be patronizing or otherwise insult you. I have no idea what kind of background you have in Wikipedia, and if I did I would still state full reasons because others who come to read this discussion may not have that same level of experience. As for the DRV--it came up under WP:DRV #3: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" -- as examples: USA Today "Hollywood Hills (Fla.) junior Holly Neher may have been the first girl to start a game at QB in high school football history" Bleacher Report "This 5'2" Female Quarterback Is Making High School Football History" Miami Dolphins "RISE weekly award winners" Sun-Sentinel "Hills QB Holly Neher cashes in on historic start with 51-27 win over Pompano Beach" Miami Herald "Hollywood Hills’ Holly Neher becomes first female starting quarterback in Florida" -- consensus there brought us here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new or significant, then. The same re-hashed news recycled over and over. The people at DRV have not done anyone a service on this one. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I see from your userpage you are an admin and that you are "willing to make difficult blocks". I think this AfD has reached the stage where it would benefit if Paulmcdonald's further involvement were curtailed. Nothing against him on a personal level, but maybe a short 1-week block would allow this AfD to progress in a more natural manner because at the moment it is being derailed. Before the AfD is closed he could be allowed back to post one more comment where he could address any further issues raised. Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block me? For what?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't do that, Betty Logan. What I felt I could do was to advise Paul, above, against continuing to bludgeon this process. All I got for that was resentment, with an odd hint that I might be trying to conceal that I had made a similar comment at the first AFD (a comment that I did want people here to know about, so I actually linked to it in my advice here): "because of pressure from ... look at that... User:Bishonen, who is doing the same thing now". Yes, look at that. Strange attitude, but I don't see a blocking matter. You'll have to take it to ANI if you feel that strongly about it, Betty. By the way I'd be surprised if ArbCom entertained a request for arbitration against SchroCat, per Unscintillating's dark hint,[25] (for what?). P. S. The "difficult blocks" thing doesn't mean I do IAR blocks, it just means I'm not afraid to block abusers who are likely to come after me IRL. Admins whose real-life identity is known had better not do that, but I feel well hidden. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Are you here in your role as an administrator? If this goes to Arbcom, Arbcom might want to know that. Unscintillating (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It won't; so they won't :) — fortunavelut luna 23:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, wut? Drmies (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They've been told elsewhere, Drmies. I would suggest they are are all talk and no trousers. Cassianto ^Talk 18:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, since last night our fire alarm went off and I greeted the firemen in my underpants at 1:30 AM. I didn't have much talk either. Anyway, I really don't understand these comments here. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, it's an AfD discussion that Mr Unscintillating is trying to manipulate, coerce and control by making loose, baseless threats on people with whom he disagrees. Just one question though: why were the firemen wearing your underpants? Cassianto ^Talk 20:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's all part of the well-known Dutch tolerance to people doing odd things like that Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[text moved to talk page by Unscintillating (talk) ] 22:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note The attribution and possible merge and delete discussion has been moved to: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination)#Merge and delete. Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The standard in WP:NHSPHSATH is that the coverage "goes beyond routine". Following the link to WP:ROUTINE, we see that it refers to sports scores and the usual coverage that we would expect to see for individual games. Clearly, separate profiles of the subject as a groundbreaking athlete in international news media are not the sort of thing described there, so clearly the coverage does go beyond routine. And the claim that this is a single event would only be valid if we took it to the logical conclusion, that the event rather than the person is what is notable and that we should have an article on the event in place of the one we have now. But in this instance any such article (about the event of someone becoming the first female starting high school QB) would be indistinguishable from the actual article that we have. As for the discussion above, too much of it seems to follow reasoning like "female high school athletes can't possibly be notable, so this one can't be notable, so how can we possibly twist the notability guidelines to make them say she's not notable?" We should be evaluating whether she meets the guidelines neutrally, not coming into this with our own prejudices about what sorts of subjects should and shouldn't be notable. If we don't want to include articles like this one, but the guidelines say we should have them, then figure out what's wrong with the guidelines and propose changing them in the proper venue; in the meantime, we should follow what they say. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: I agree with your analysis of the guideline. But that's all it is: a guideline. How do you reconcile this article with BLP1E, specifically criteria No. 1: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- This is better said than any other keep !vote IMO. So "what he said". Hobit (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even this Wikipedia page has been in the news. News.com.au (republication of: NY Post), and Daily Telegraph plus [26]. And more coverage on her [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. Dysklyver 10:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:109PAPERS. One story recycled by lazy journalists to fill space doesn't create notability. - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:109PAPERS states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. That person should instead be covered in the article about the event itself." For the sake of the discussion, what do you suggest the new article should be titled?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That has been answered a few times before: List of female American football players#High school, where there is enough of an entry to cover all the "notable" elements of Ms Neher. SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle reminder that this is a BLP of a minor and it's not unlikely that said minor is reading this discussion. Your scare quotes could easily be read as insulting to her though I understand that you were instead addressing arguments she meets WP:N). Hobit (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing insulting in referring to her encyclopaedic notability - indeed the use of quotes was to separate the encyclopaedic notability from the person; I have linked to the policy to clarify the point. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've no doubt about what you meant. Just pointing out how it could be interpreted. Thank you for making the change, I think it helps. Hobit (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I’ve heard it all now. Cassianto ^Talk 17:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the very good arguments to do so. Cassianto ^Talk 12:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above stated arguements of SchroCat minus the profanity and also per the learned DGG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody really cares whether you agree with the profanity or not. Please stick to the reasons for the deletion of this article, alone. Cassianto ^Talk 12:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the arguments above, particularly SchroCat, Reyk and DGG. There's nothing here that merits its own article. One event puffed up out of all proportion and ref-bombed. As Betty Logan and SchroCat point out, everything that needs to be said can be, and in my opinion already is, said at List of female American football players#High school. -- Begoon 13:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why does it matter that her notablility it is for 'one event'? Guy Goma is known for only one event please bear in mind the third paragraph of WP:OSE rather than just linking to it. There are 25 references including NPR, USA Today, Miami Herald and ABC News. She is notable by default. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, she is not notable by default. She is nothing more than a high school student who done some athletics in-between studies, who may or may not have broken some obscure high school record. And that’s it. Please familiarise yourself with the opening line of the lead section: ”Holly Neher is an American high school athlete who some credit as the first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school game...” note the words “some credit”. We can’t even bring ourselves to definitely claim that this is the case. Who are these “some”? Fellow students? Teachers? Friends? Media? Cassianto ^Talk 10:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the opening lines, but they make no difference. If footage emerges which proves she didn't throw a touchdown then the lead section would read: ”Holly Neher is an American high school athlete falsely credited as the first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school game...” but she would still be notable due to the coverage. It is notability rather than meritoriousness that Wikipedia concerns itself with. If it was meritoriousness we would have to get rid of all of the porn stars. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. See WP:BLP1E for your initial question about one event, and WP:109PAPERS for the 25 references (yes, several others have already commented that the number of references in the article is because it's been abysmally written to try and get round AfD hurdles). The fact we still have an article on Goma just shows that some people have no idea what an encyclopaedia is, and mistake it for the "And also" slots at the end of news reports. In relation to "we have Gomer, so what about..." please see WP:WHATABOUTX, part of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.- SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should all start an article about ourselves then until it’s proven to be complete bollocks? Cassianto ^Talk 13:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe not WP:SOCIALMEDIA. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That’s precisely my point and it’s essentially what you’ve just said; saying: “who some credit as the first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school game” is about as reliable as suggesting that ”some credit” her with walking on the moon. Are you actually even thinking about what you type? Cassianto ^Talk 14:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DONTBEADICK . Cassianto ^Talk 16:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N is trivially met, but WP:BLE1E also has to be met. That has a strong consensus. The issue those of us on the keep side are raising is that there is no "1 event" unless you want to call a sports season "one-event" (which flies in the face of WP:NSPORTS and the general definition of "event"). Hobit (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this is 'eye of the beholder' stuff, but here is my take:-

The third part of WP:BLP1E has not been met IMO.
WP:NOTNEWS - I don't feel that this article is trying to be news.
WP:109PAPERS - The fact that this article is now subject to press coverage Holly Neher won a place in history, and her own Wikipedia page, with just one throw means that her notability is not temporary.
WP:WHATABOUTX - I already said that the third paragraph of WP:OSE applies. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a rather bizarre post. BLP1E has been met. WP:NOTNEWS was a reference to your argumentum ad absurdum about "Holly Neher is an American high school athlete falsely credited as the first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school game". Despite your claim to the contrary, there would be even less justification to have an article
WP:109PAPERS - I think you need to actually read it, as you're parroting the reasons why duplicated references endlessly recycled by lazy journalists do not generate notability.
WP:WHATABOUTX is part of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It has fuck all to do with OSE, despite your attempts to make it so. You could cite as many other policies, guidelines and essays that you want, but arguments to avoid in deletion discussions really is the key in an Argument for Deletion discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You could cite as many other policies, guidelines and essays that you want, but arguments to avoid in deletion discussions really is the key in an Argument for Deletion discussion."

The only policy I mentioned was "the third paragraph of WP:OSE" in my OP. The following were all cited by yourself in your post above: WP:NOTNEWS; WP:BLP1E; WP:109PAPERS and WP:WHATABOUTX. I just took them one by one and replied to them. If you don't agree with the assessment then that's cool but the list above was raised by yourself. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please not that since October 8, the weaker "who some credit" cited above now reads "is widely considered" per WP:NPOV: She is widely considered the first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school tackle football game.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. All other criteria are therefore irrelevant, we go by notability here. Smartyllama (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't. See WP:BLP1E. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaand let's just ignore what GNG actually says; "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In this case; NOTNEWS with a touch of INDISCRIMINTATE. Meeting GNG does not suddenly mean that all other criteria are irrelevant, let alone that they are therefore irrelevant. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Off topic thread moved to the talk page. SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Specifically here, not sure why it was moved though. Perhaps admin can put it back and collapse it? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respond to the WP:109PAPERS argument. I do not believe this has merit because 1) the essay specifically applies to information "reported in the news just once on a single day, or over a period of a few days, and then are forgotten" -- this story has gone well past "a few days" as evidenced by this, which is dated today (10/6/2017) for a subject that has been brewing for well over a month (since 8/17/2017 in major newspapers). 2) The same "story" in each newspaper has been printed, but is far from the "identically word-for-word in each paper" threshold that the essay calls for. Sure, some papers just took the story off the wire, some embellished it a little, and some wrote independent articles from their own research. It's a good essay, but I do not believe it applies here under its own definition.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly re-worked copy (by journalists who don't want to be accused of plagiarism or copyright infringement) would and should fall under the guideline. As has been said above, I think that the same story repeated for a month should also come under this. No new angles or information is in the latest "report" (for which read "example of 'churnalism' as it most lazy") which is just another parroting of the first. This all still falls within the spirit of the guideline. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That assertion just does not hold true. For example, the first three articles referenced in the article from ABC News, USA Today, and Miami Herald all have three different authors (Katie Kindelan, Walter Villa, and Andre C. Fernandez). The articles are completely different in text. And that's just the first three. The next two (Allentown and Guam) appear to be picks from the wire, but are included to indicate the widespread coverage. Certainly many of the other articles are different because they support different facts (like the Miama Dolphins/RISE award and other events that occured since the publication of the first few articles in the reference list. They are not "slightly re-worked copy" at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, my assertion holds true, but you are being rather over-literal. One small and essentially unnotable story has been distributed by the wires and subsequently picked up by several papers. Most of those papers have either printed the wire copy, or rehashed exactly the same copy into something that is ostensibly the same. Just because some papers have different policies on how to handle wire copy (or handle it in different ways depending on how busy they are), does not get away from the fact that it is the ostensibly the same story one-event story slightly rehashed in several places. We're still there with rehashed stories that deal with one insignificant event that may not even be the first time it has happened. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you make such an accusation?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

? SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are essentially accusing the authors of the source material of plagiarism (copying each other's work). What basis do you have for that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, FFS... I have said absolutely nothing of the sort. The whole purpose of wire stories is to provide copy for news sources that cannot send reporters to every corner of the world, or cover every tiny event. Their stories are reproduced either in toto, or re-written, either entirely or only partially. This isn't plagiarism, it is all part and parcel of how wire news services work, and it's written into the contracts they have with the news organisations. See News agency#Commercial services, which covers some of this, before you accuse me of anything again. As I said in May last edit summary: take it down a peg or two (or three): there is no accusation in what I have said. - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I apologize for my misunderstanding. It is still correct that there are many stories about the subject that are far beyond the standards set by WP:109PAPERS.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I won't say too much as most of it has been said above already. But suffice it to say this is very much a case of WP:BLP1E. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am politely asking both @SchroCat and Paulmcdonald: to refrain from any further comments on this AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and you are? Cassianto ^Talk 18:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, he is someone with a very good idea. Both individuals have beaten their respective horses to death and there is nothing to be gained from further repetition of the same talking points. Lepricavark (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If they've "finished beating their respective horses to death" then I'm sure they're big enough and ugly enough to work that out for themselves. They don't need someone to pontificate from the sidelines. Cassianto ^Talk 21:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning toward changing my !vote to Keep due to the clear and pertinent agruement put fo forth by Smartyllama that WP:GNG has been met, and that all else is irrelevant. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read what Mr rnddude has written; what Smartyllama has said isn't actually correct. - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_female_American_football_players#High_school. There are long-standing exclusionary standards regarding WP:MILL coverage of high-school athletes; if anyone objects to those they should start a discussion at WP:NSPORT or WP:VPP. Of course, due to her gender, Neher isn't entirely WP:MILL. However, the claims of notability appear to be largely puffery; she's neither the first female high-school quarterback nor the first female football player in Florida, merely the "first female high-school quarterback to throw a touchdown in Florida" or something. In this type of situation, contemporaneous newspaper coverage isn't a secondary source, but a primary source. There is a perfectly-reasonable redirect target for WP:UNDUE-compliant coverage of whatever she does that is actually notable, so redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_on_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FHolly_Neher_.282nd_nomination.29. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already closed, where the closing included the statement, "...(Cassianto) has not replied but also has not further edited the AFD. If Cassianto's behaviour in the AFD becomes an issue, then it can be brought back up. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)" Unscintillating (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies post at the Admin notice board alerted me to this - If we had an article on Women in American Football, as we should [33], I would say merge there or a sub-article on Female students in American High School Football - but as per WP:WHYN we don't yet have a biography - for now, merge to the List article (Please, someone create the Women's article, at least). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E, NOTNEWS, etc. This is a recentist topic without any clear evidence of lasting importance. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If secondary sources (i.e., not news sources) keep covering her through the coming months and years, then maybe we have an article topic. I'm opposed to redirecting for the same reason. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and NOTNEWS, and all the reference padding in the article and attempted bludgeoning of "delete" voters here won't change that. --Calton | Talk 03:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - congratz to the young lady for being the first female HS student to throw a touchdown pass in a HS game in the state of Florida, possibly, maybe, we don't know. One of our core policies is verifiability. For the encyclopaedia this means that the information in the encyclopaedia comes from a realiable source. In the real world, and the Oxford dictionary, this means that something is able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified. In this case, we know that this is not possible. Instead we present the idea that it might be true. More importantly, we largely base her notability on this unverifiable claim - actually we base her notability wholly on that claim because that act alone is why we have an article on her. This article expands her notability by claiming, cited, but, once again unverifiably, that she might be the first starting female quaterback in Florida or even U.S. history. Indeed, reading this article, I can tell that it's been peacocked to try and assert notability; Neher's accomplishments put her on the national stage and are held out as majors step toward involvement of female athletes and coaches in the sport of American football as well as an inspiration to female athletes everywhere. We are an encyclopaedia, not Sunrise, stick to the facts. Now, I did note above the mentions that there is some coverage of her prior to this possible achievement. Yes, I read that, it was the very definition of notnews. The fact that we need to write into the article that Guam and Australia caught wind of all this is also indiscriminately collected trivia. So what I'm left with in this article is notability based on unverified claims that are supported by peacockery and trivia. That really just leaves me with the one-event argument to tackle. Fascinatingly enough, I can't support the assertion that this BLP fits BLP1E's three conditions. 1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. She received coverage, notnews coverage but still, prior to the event. So that can't be in the context of one-event. The post event coverage, however, both can and is. 2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. She's not low-profile right now, but, in a year's time? Probably until college assuming she goes into college football. Lastly, If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. To the entire article I ask, and the significance of this is? no, no, no, not what the significance of it is if it's true, what the significance is regardless of it being or not being true. If the two notability granting claims are false, then what significance does this have? I'm left with none. So, because the claims to notability are impossible to verify, because her prior coverage falls straight under not news, because this article is peacocking in the hopes of asserting notability, and because a significant portion of the article is trivia, I have to support deletion. Note: the last two just support the position to delete, they are not reasons to delete in themselves. In a few years time, assuming she keeps this up, she will be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, notable. As it stands today, she isn't. Not to mention that she comes nowhere near meeting notability for sports; [h]ave appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues - highschool football is not one of those listed. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My sense is that you don't understand either WP:V or WP:N. WP:V doesn't require we only include things that are known for certain. It doesn't even say anything close to that. We don't know the Jesus existed. Does that mean we shouldn't include anything about him? We don't know that the Wright brothers were the first in flight either. Should we remove that article? Further, the very definition of notability on Wikipedia is that there are significant sources that cover the topic. We have those in spades. There do exist reasonable arguments that can be made for the deletion of this article (though I disagree with them), but because what she has done doesn't seem important enough to you isn't one of those arguments. In fact we have a whole well-regarded essay talking about how that isn't how we make decisions here: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hobit (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've addressed none of my arguments here. I took the real world definition of verifiability and ignored WP:V (IAR basically). Indeed, I implied that it did meet WP:V per; [f]or the encyclopaedia this means that the information in the encyclopaedia comes from a realiable source. Ah yeah, there's tons of those. I also didn't make any form of a notability argument. My arguments were; unverifiable (not WP:V), NOTNEWS (which negates WP:N), INDSCRIMINATE (for the randomly collected trivia which really should be NOTEVERYTHING), with a touch of NSPORTS right at the end (I didn't realize at the time that we had one for high-school students, though Tony Ballioni dispatched that argument himself via prolonged coverage). [B]ut because what she has done doesn't seem important enough to you isn't one of those arguments <- Eh, no, never said that. If she isn't the first to do it, it didn't happen. There is no significance. No reason to have an article. If she is the first who did it, then it did happen and has some significance. The Wright brothers argument is also entirely fallacious, their achievements whether first or not, matter because they had a lasting impact on the world. They wrote the lift equation still in use today, for example. As for Jesus, keep, but, only as a figure of historical importance, otherwise delete. This girl, may or may not have done something noteworthy. I have a higher standard of expectation than may have as do most of the other delete !votes here. Would you like me to suggest that you don't understand WP:NOT? as a return favour. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we are actually in agreement. You are making an IAR argument, rather than one based on WP:N or WP:V. You are also arguing NOTNEWS (which I don't think was plain the first time around). Though I disagree with you and claim this mostly falls under "IDONTLIKEIT", it is a good and quite reasonable IAR argument. You were just using words that are part of the Wikipedia jargon while meaning the common-use definition of the words, so I found that confusing. Thanks for clarifying. Hobit (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that using the common definition of words and wikijargon in the same comment can lead to confusion. Especially given that I reference WP:V in the first sentence and then "real world" verifiability in the very next one. I tend to link and ALLCAPS wikijargon, but, it looks weird in a sentence so I was linking without allcaps. I'll avoid doing that in the future. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails guidelines of verifiability. Wikipedia needs to make assentions based on reliable sources. Wikipedia is also not news. This is why we should shy away from covering events that are immediate. There are lots of unverified claims made about Neher driven by the mindset of news, and the willingness of journalists, especially in this day and age, to run up stories. I have seen lots of totally false claims sourced to newspaper writers who didnt bother to source their information. In this case we have the added problem that people are not even making false claims per se, they are hedging their bets. The problem is that high school football is not covered in a deep enough way or well documented enough to make the claims in this article easy to back. Lacking truly scholarly sources discussing Neher, I feel we should not create an article based on just one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Trying to understand your rationale. Not familiar with the term "assentions" as something we do here at Wikipedia, or otherwise in the English language. Can you clarify? Also, can you identify which policy or guideline it is that you believe requires "truly scholarly sources" (as opposed to WP:RS) as an element of notability in this case? Cbl62 (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to doubt its verifiability. It's been covered in numerous reliable sources. It's obviously true. Do you have an argument on actual notability, or is this just another one of your highly questionable delitionist votes? Smartyllama (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commewnt The attempts to attack people above for "insulting" this minor totally misunderstand BLP policies. BLP policies should say we delete if there is any debate if the person is notable. If saying they are "notable" is a potential insult, that they could take exception to if they read this discussion, than it is an argument that the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, assuming you are referring to me, it wasn't an attack. It was a polite reminder. I tried for a very polite reminder. An attack would have been to start shouting "BLP". Secondly, part of the problem is that on Wikipedia, Notability is a term of art that means there is significant coverage in multiple independent sources, which is different than what the English word means. So it is easy for outsiders to get confused when we use the term and think we are saying that what they did was not worthy of note. Finally, it _is_ a term of art. She is well past the notability requirements--the sources are multiple, non-trivial in depth and independent. There are _other_ reasons one could argue to delete this article, but notability isn't one of them. Hobit (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The aftermath section is full of unsupported assertions and original research. Specifically, the claims that the actions of people such as Buchanan in Hawaii have anything to do with the actions of Neher in any way is not supported by articles on Buchanan. This is a standard example of peacocking to try to make a subject more significant than they are. We have very, very stringent rules on high school sports figure notability for a reason. High school accomplishments only very, very rarely are enough to make someone notable. The lack of any reliable coverage on Neher in October says to me that there is no sign that the coverage is more than a passing fad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep largely per David Eppstein above, a sound argument that was never refuted. This is a notable first in a sport and has received coverage well beyond the routine or local Man Bites Dog human interest stories. TheValeyard (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NHSPHSATH is a requisite, but not a sufficient one. WP:BLP1E also needs to be satisfied: WP:BLP1E lays out three criteria that must be met and Mr rnddude very thoroughly demonstrates that it is too soon to objectively assess the coverage of Neher against the second criterion and that the third criterion simply hasn't been met as yet. You make a fair point that nobody has convincingly refuted WP:NHSPHSATH, but both WP:NHSPHSATH and WP:BLP1E need to be met and nobody has as yet convincingly argued that they have been. Betty Logan (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Parroting the bad responses of other deletion-minded editors at everyone who wishes to keep the article won't get you very far. BLP1E does not apply here, as there was coverage of the subject before the TD pass, coverage which only increased, nationally, when the TD "event" took place. TheValeyard (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing a specific flaw in your response. Considering only a single requisite for inclusion and supporting it as if it were a wholly sufficient condition for inclusion is hardly the most persuasive argument put forward in this discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no flaw in my argument. You keep trying to make a laughably bad case for BLP1E, an assertion that has been thoroughly punctured and left for dead. TheValeyard (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you've both got my arguments wrong here. My !vote was against the BLP1E assertion. Articles should not meet BLP1E; We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met. If BLP1E is met, then that is an argument to delete. If BLP1E is not met, then that is an argument to keep. As point 1 is clearly not met, point 2 is not currently met, but, point 3 is met, BLP1E is not met and so isn't a valid reason to delete. My main focus with regards to deletion was verifiability with some mentions of NOTNEWS and INDISCRIMINATE. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: I am sorry if I misinterpreted your answer. I thought you were arguing that it possibly did apply because doubt exists in the sources that there was indeed a second event, at least in the context that would make it notable. That would seem to go to the heart of debate if you ask me. You made some great points anyway so it's a tad unfair to categorise your reply as a "bad response", even if it was badly "parroted"! Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Logan, thanks and it's ok. I understand where you might have misinterpreted me. It's actually the pre-event coverage, the actually verifiable (she did join a squad) if non-notable NOTNEWS one (she's not the first to join a squad and this is hardly significant), that negates BLP1E for me. Events 1 and 2 are both unverifiable per the FHSAA's own statements, so for me personally, whether they are even events is questionable. Hmm, guess that leaves the one pre-event event. Heh. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheValeyard - Please refrain from stating my motivations or thoughts for me. I neither appreciate it, nor are you likely to do them any justice as you are not in my head - I refer to your deletion-minded comment which is not at accurate. I made arguments for both sides and then made my stance. Please read my BLP1E comments, as it is very, very clear that you have not done so; I can't support the assertion that this BLP fits BLP1E's three conditions. I.e., I do not support deletion on the conditions of BLP1E. I get it, my comments are tl;dr, but, if you don't read them, don't comment on them. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, at any time, address you, bro. So, get your dander up, and your reading glasses, and direct them at someone who cares. TheValeyard (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Logan only mentioned my !vote and she's only commented to you about !votes, so your bad responses and deletion-minded comments were directed at me implicitly. Beyond that, the rest can go back in where it came out. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone comments generally about bad editors making bad deletion rationales, and you assume (you know what they say about assuming) they mean you... Deep down, you know your argument is meritless, and are just on the "delete for the sake of deletion" bandwagon. TheValeyard (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try re-reading. Or get a dictionary and find out what an implication is. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your guilt complex is not my responsibility, brah. Reading glasses, they even come ion hipster tints nowadays. TheValeyard (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mr rnddude. We don't know that it's a notable first at all... the sources are not sure, so we can't be sure ... so it's a waffle of an article that's been puffed up to look more important. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Saw this referenced on AN. This is clearly covered by BLP1E. However, that policy is contradicted by the notability guideline for high school athletes. The solution is to tweak the guideline to make it consistent with policy. Simple. We can't have articles based on one friggin throw of a ball in Florida by some high school kid. I've commenced a discussion on the guideline's talk page [34], and interested parties are encouraged to participate. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should we acknowledge the first woman to pass a touchdown pass in each of the fifty states? How about the first to rush in for a TD? It's far too trivial and narrow an accomplishment, and there was bound to be some woman that would be the first to have made this if it wasn't her. If she ends up with a professional career, we can cover this there. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply because it requires three conditions and these are not satisfied. WP:GNG does apply because we have lots of sources. Articles about sports people have a low threshold for inclusion -- see Chitty (cricketer) -- and this subject looks well-covered by comparison. Andrew D. (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E does not apply Many delete !votes are citing WP:BLP1E, but it does not apply here. One of the condition to use BLP1E states: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." However, Neher has received significant, non-routine, independent coverage for at least 3 distinct events already: 1. trying out for the boys' team ("Holly Neher is 5-foot-2 girl and isn't shying from playing quarterback" August 17, 2017. USA Today), 2. Throwing a touchdown pass ("Holly Neher won a place in history, and her own Wikipedia page, with just one throw". September 5, 2017. News.com.au) and 3. Becoming a starter ("High school QB reflects on becoming the 1st woman to start in Florida history". October 6, 2017. ABC News)—Bagumba (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC News article shows in the snippet that it is reflecting on an event a month ago. This source shows that notability is still increasing, so that notability is still a moving target. The arguments to merge and delete as per WP:IAR have enough merit to consider, but IMO they don't overcome our WP:Deletion policy and our WP:Editing policy, and partial deletion doesn't leave a path forward for what will happen if notability continues to increase. Unscintillating (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eqach individual step in become a player on the team is not a separate event. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Are you saying a player playing an entire season and getting coverage for it is somehow one event? That's a major change to our athlete criteria. Is being a movie star "one event"? I generally think an event is just that, a single event. A season of play isn't that. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how she is allegedly famous for only one event then.—Bagumba (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course BLP1E applies. The argument that the routine events of a single football season (trying out - throwing a touchdown - making the starting line-up) don't make up a single event is fallacious. We might as well make the argument that taking part on a talent show over a few episodes represents multiple events because the contestant sang a different song each week. The question you need to ask yourself is when the event/events are viewed in years to come, will they be remembered as separate or as part of a single, coherent whole? For anybody uninvolved, Holly Neher's football season is a single entity, which (interesting as it is) still falls under what we understand by BLP1E. --RexxS (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've already sabotaged your own argument by referring to them as "events", plural. The subject received coverage in reliable sources, coverage that went beyond normal, routine, or purely local. Deletion-happy editors around here sure are a funny bunch. TheValeyard (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not deletion-happy, and if you were to read, sonny, you'd notice my !vote is to merge the content into the appropriate article. I blame the teachers for the illiteracy. Single-minded pedants like you have no concept of what the intention of BLP1E is: it doesn't matter if a single event – like a girl gets to play for a high-school american football team – extends over multiple individual events (matches); it's still all part of the same thing. You're going for exactly the same argument as I deflated above: there's no difference between a player's season and a contestant appearing on consecutive weeks of a TV show. We don't write BLPs about the player or the contestant if that's all they have done that is notable. Yes of course, Neher received coverage in multiple sources, likely enough to pass GNG. But GNG is only one hurdle: Neher received attention for one thing and one thing only: she played american football at high-school, and BLP1E says we have better places to report that coverage than a BLP. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge: As outlined at WP:N, for a subject to become a stand-alone article it has three hurdles to pass: (i) it passes our definition of notability – passes WP:GNG and isn't excluded by WP:NOT; (ii) it isn't a BLP1E which would be more appropriately covered within a broader article; (iii) editors agree that the topic should have a stand-alone article. In this case, all the conditions for WP:BLP1E apply: all of the coverage is about Neher's nascent career in gridiron; there is no indication that Neher is likely to receive coverage beyond that narrow reach; and {iii} a female playing gridiron may be a novelty, but that doesn't make it significant. On balance, although a BLP of Neher is conceivable, we would be better to discuss her achievement in the context of List of female American football players as proposed by Betty Logan, particularly as the High School section notes "more than 1,900 girls who played high school football in 2016". --RexxS (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So delete and merge...that sounds like it is delete and redirect, and add attribution for the already-merged material. Please state a reason for deleting the article's history. See WP:IGNORINGATD for more information. Unscintillating (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read MOS:LISTGAP and learn how to indent your replies. My !vote doesn't just sound like "delete and redirect", it is "delete and redirect". Delete the content and redirect the title. There's no reason for me to state a reason for deleting the article's history, because I'm not suggesting that. The history of the redirect contains all of the article history – didn't you realise that? If there is any further encyclopedic information in Holly Neher at the time it is converted to a redirect, then it should be merged into the target article, of course. Hence delete and merge. And please don't quote essays at me. They do nothing but show how weak your argument is. Clear enough now? --RexxS (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I read MOS:LISTGAP, now I suggest you need to do some reading to come up to speed on deletion theory, and that essay you refuse to read is a crash course. Use of the word "delete" means that you want the closer to use admin tools. The !vote you've described, as further confirmed by your new comment above, is Merge, or perhaps Redirect with option to merge. Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic concerns an event from just over a month ago—if the pass had been unsuccessful there would be no basis for an article. The flurry of excitement since the single event might be the basis for an article that collects similar milestones with analysis from secondary sources showing the long-term significance of the events, but the Aftermath section currently in the article is wildly out of place. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize we have a number of high-quality national-level sources from before the pass, yes? WP:N was met before that, so we did have a basis without said pass. Hobit (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hobit, I'm only replying to this because you've asked the question several times and been ignored (I've been not commenting here to try to conserve space in a messy AfD), but the coverage before the pass is still the same event: one high school football season. That's all she's done. 1E applies here. Even if you consider each step desperate, NHSPHSATH would exclude her because two months is not prolonged coverage. Anyway, hope all is well with you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the reply (seriously). The NHSPHSATH case can be made, though I'd argue strongly that the intent of that paragraph is to exclude routine coverage and it doesn't anticipate a high-school student receiving national and international coverage. But no, I really don't think there is a case for a season of football being a single event. As far as I know, we don't exclude actors because their only significant work was a season of TV. Nor do we exclude athletes because they only did something significant for a single season. Quite the opposite, if she'd played a single point on a professional team, we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all. Hobit (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Mrs May said, “nothing has changed”. I read the article again and it reminded me of Neelix’s work on Tara Teng, obsessive documentation of a young person, and that’s not a good thing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. I really don't see the rationale for deleting this outright. It's not a 1E situation because she had coverage before she threw the TD pass, and is/was notable on several accounts. There's 7 weeks of coverage already in the article. We don't know what is coming next and it would be inappropriate to delete the article prematurely, in my opinion. At the very least, this should be merged or redirected instead of deleted, because we might have to reconstruct the whole thing at some point. Softlavender (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, High school athlete. Too trivial for encyclopaedia. Not everything that is in the papers deserves an article in Wikipedia. There is a reason we have WP:NHSPHSATH. First female (maybe!) to throw a touchdown in a high school game in the state of Florida? Is that the claim to notability? Are we going to have 50 such articles? And then 50 for each other level of the game? And the same again for first females to kick field goals?. Or is it the "first female to start at quarterback in Broward County"? So we can expect another 3006 of these?. And another 3007 for females starting at Center? And then do we have one for every first transsexual in every county?, every first gay?..., Coverage is fairly standard hype for sports coverage at this level. Her 15 minutes of fame is already covered at List of female American football players#High school. WP:TOOSOON If she goes on and does something truly notable in her football careeer then it is time for a stand alone article, but throwing a touchdown pass in a high school game is not particularly notable. ClubOranje^T 13:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redir to List of female American football players#High school, and build a good entry there, per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E; I don't by the "BLP1E doesn't really apply" handwaving. The analyses I see above of why it does apply are more convincing, the material is terrible, and this does have more of the character of event coverage than biography. Should this person become more notable later, I have no prejudice against a full article, but this is not the first female American football player, so there isn't even an incidental historicity claim to make here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 22:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOTNEWS. A high school football game news flash. The article is Wikipedia:Reference bombed, but there is no substance to support a full biography on the child. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the WP:MAD problem, what should the closer do about the merged material? Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Protect to the target, until solved, or indefinitely. It's not as if the content is actually problematic. The BLP problem will come in the future, when, on the basis of one throw, a young lady has her personal life randomly added and removed from a Wikipedia article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Should we consider your above "Delete" to be redacted?—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, I have not examined the need for attribution of a merge somewhere. Someone says there is no problem. If there is no attribution problem, then delete. If some attribution is required to be preserve, then redirect and protect, and this should be considered a Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closer does not have to do anything in this regard. The two sentences that were copied over were contributed by Paulmcdonald and TonyBallioni corrected the page history to account for the copyright attribution. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: there are no copyright issues with this deletion. There was one contributor of the prose that was copy and he has been attributed, fulfilling the CC-BY-SA 3.0 requirements. This was such a small merge that identifying the exact author of the text that was copied was very easy. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If he was ok with keeping the merged material, what happened to a delete and redirect? He might want the merged material deleted, and since the child was mentioned, he might want the title salted. Since delete goes against WP:ATD policy, what was the WP:IAR reason to delete the edit history? Unscintillating (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of female American football players#High school per the editing policy WP:PRESERVE: "Instead of removing content from an article, consider ... Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge." I also have no problem if this is kept; the notability guideline WP:WHYN is met, specifically "we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." There's enough non-routine coverage about the person, not just the events, that discuss her childhood and the influence of her mom's battle with cancer. BLP1E arguments are unconvincing, especially those combining multiple events (each of which received signifiant, non-routine coverage) to one season. PRESERVE at a minimum.—Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working hard not to badger everyone, but this one sucked me in. Could you explain how the GNG isn't met? We have numerous sources solely on the subject that are independent of the subject. I don't think anyone above has claimed the GNG isn't met. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hogwash, we have one source, that was tweaked but was still the same source, about one specific thing the subject did, and absolutely no noticeable coverage in any other context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly. News articles written about current/single events are almost universally primary sources. WP:GNG is clear that sources should be secondary sources, not primary, as primary sources do not demonstrate notability. For further explanation of what is a primary source, see WP:PRIMARY and WP:USEPRIMARY. Almost all (if not every one) sources currently in the article are considered primary by our guidelines. WP:GNG requires multiple secondary sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - A newspaper article written by someone who wasn't there and is instead interviewing others, is, by definition, a secondary source. This idea that news sources are primary sources is a bit silly. Hobit (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep well referenced article, meets the GNG. gidonb (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the guideline WP:NOTTEMPORARY: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. However, many delete !votes are asking for "prolonged" coverage of months or even years.—Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They are mistaken, aren't they? Instead of asking for "ongoing coverage", they should be asking for NOTNEWS coverage, for coverage that is not simply fact-reporting, but proper secondary sources that do commentary, analysis and opinion from a historical perspective. News reporting does not meet the GNG because from a historical perspective news reports are not secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing in Wikipedia:Notability that requires a "historical" perspective. The presumption is that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. In sports, primary sources such as play-by-play gamelogs do not establish notability, nor do casual name mentions in a game summary that was going to be written as part of routine coverage. That is what WP:NOTNEWS refers to, or the equivalent of a cat being rescued from a tree article. A player having multiple articles of significant depth by beat writers or columnists where they are the primary subject and the subject of commentary is not routine, and is a secondary source.—Bagumba (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually there is; WP:ANYBIO, which is the part of subject specific guideline for notability of people, and which clearly applies here as it is a biographical article, clearly states The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.. Many Wikipedia s seem to think if there are a few newspaper articles it passes GNG and therefore it deserves an article, but GNG is just the broad brush start point and Wikipedia:Notability (people) is the actual guideline that should be followed. ClubOranje^T 07:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, WP:ANYBIO is part of Wikipedia:Notability (people), while I was referring to Wikipedia:Notability. That being said, we don't necessarily require history books. Reading footnote No. 8 to ANYBIO, it says: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. Female sportspeople should not be held to a higher standard.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Requires" is an overly strong word to pull from a guideline. An encyclopedia is an historiographical document, the policy on sources is found at WP:PSTS, and the policy points to secondary source (mainspace article) use. The problem with the multiple articles is that they all say the same thing and they recount the same event. You say "significant coverage"? I can't agree. Breathless excitement about a brief event, in the backdrop of the significant event of females playing football. When the excitement dies down, with the passage of just a little time, it will then become obvious that these beat writers and columnists made no transformational contribution, and that everything written is a primary source. I suspect that in time, the event may be notable in terms of the breaking of gender barriers, but collectively with other similar events. That does not mean that Holly is personally Wikipedia-Notable. The event received a burst of news coverage due to her being a young lady, not due to here being Holly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can respect if you don't believe significant coverage exists here. It's a subjective call either way. My objection is with those who !voted delete that were asking for "prolonged" coverage, which is a higher bar than WP:NOTTEMPORARY.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: The "prolonged" coverage element is built into WP:NHSPHSATH. It applies only to high school athletes. Cbl62 (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Sounds like a corollary to WP:SUSTAINED (which is part of WP:N, not GNG). WP:SUSTAINED says: "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Again, it falls back to people famous for one event. However, the essay WP:BLP2E is implicitly being invoked in this AfD, when the essay itself says: "It is a misconception of some editors that WP:BLP1E can be extended to two (or more) events."—Bagumba (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment <BLP violation removed> John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to be nice. Neher is, I am sure, a very nice person with a great future, and we wish her all the best in future endeavours, unencumbered by a Wikipedia article based upon some excitement from an excellent play in her high school football game. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, your comments above referring to this young high school student as an <BLP violation removed above and as repeated here> are utterly condemnable and have no place on Wikipedia. Cbl62 (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The explanatory supplement to the WP:Deletion policy, WP:Merge and delete, states in oldid=762419377:

Unless there is a particular reason to delete a redirect, admins should feel free to interpret "Merge and delete" votes as "Merge." A new editor may make such a vote without understanding the licensing requirements; this can be safely read as a merge vote. An advanced editor who wishes to argue for a merge and delete should make clear why the redirect would be unacceptable.

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't have a problem with a redirect (that is my preference expressed above) but I don't know why you are so hung up on the "licensing requirements". The two sentences I copied over were added by the same author when the article was in his sandbox, and Tony has sorted out the copyright attribution. There is no requirement from what I can see that a redirect be retained purely on the grounds of licensing. My argument for retaining a redirect is that we can link directly to the list entry and by retaining the article history it can always be resurrected at a later date if circumstances necessitate that, but that's just a practical argument. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW keep Yeah, yeah... I said that to make a point, albeit nondisruptively. Every !vote above this one citing BLP1E and NHSPHSATH should be read by the closing administrator as "keep" opinions, because nothing about either supports deletion given the facts of this case. I could care less about sports, and think High School (American) football should be banned as too injurious, but the fact is that this young lady made a legitimate first, has plenty of RS coverage about it. Since policy does not support deletion, the obvious question is why so many editors do? The obvious answers are not pleasant. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP1E does not apply since she is notable for two events - first starter, and first touchdown pass. Now I know diddly about high school football, but I can read: Wikipedia:Reliable sources are treating these as two different events, ("Neher made history on Friday night, becoming the first female quarterback to start a high school football game in the state of Florida ... made national headlines three weeks ago when she played in her first varsity game and threw a 42-yard touchdown pass" Miami Herald, for example) so we should too. --GRuban (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This person is only notable for begging born female. She has not made history. 80.13.151.45 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interim tally. This AfD is a bit messy and unwieldy (110,000 bytes) so this is an attempt to summarize where the votes stand after one week:

21 "Delete": TheGracefulSlick, DGG, EEng, Cullen328, SchroCat, Reyk, Cassianto, Antonioatrylia, Begoon, DJSasso, Mendaliv, Calton, Mr rnddude, John Pack Lambert, Ealdgyth, Coretheapple, Masem, Johnuniq, Ritchie333, Cluboranje, Onlyindeath
13 "Keep": Hmlarson, Hobit, Paul McDonald, Lepricavark, Dysklyver, David Eppstein, The Vintage Feminist, Smartyllama, The Valeyard, Andrew D., gidonb, Jclemens, Gruban.
4 "Redirect": Unscintillating, Betty Logan, power~enwiki, Bagumba ("Merge and redirect")
3 "Delete and redirect": RexxS,  SMcCandlish, SmokeyJoe ("Delete"/"Redirect and protect")
1 "Incubate" (or "at the very least merge and redirect"): Softlavender

I think that covers it so far. Cbl62 (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Khalique[edit]

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

I don't think just being schoolteacher of someone makes you notable. She fails to receive in-depth independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete I agree with the nominator. While the subject has no remarkable or notable career but because she has been namechecked in RS, I suggest week delete. --Saqib (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a worthy person but notability is not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and above Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage to establish notability. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All-time table of the ICC cricket world cup[edit]

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

Serves no purpose as it duplicates already covered information. Greenbörg (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first table seems to be a poor copy/reworking of the table in the main article and this list is littered with unsourced WP:OR. Who gives 2 points for a win, for example? I see no such historical list/calculations from the ICC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are so many things wrong with this that it's a clear delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure OR, stops in 1996 for some reason. Spike 'em (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOR are the main issues. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOR and WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments, it's OR that fails WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article contains malicious duplicate copy and has several mistakes in my point of view. Abishe (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justdoc[edit]

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

Non-notable telehealth startup. Sourcing is pretty clearly WP:SPIP or press release churn/primary sourcing which makes it excluded by WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV. Also a promotional directory listing which makes it excluded by WP:NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. A few newspaper articles in early 2016 picked up on seed funding being obtained, but aside from this information the coverage doesn't appear to extend much beyond the aspirations of the founders and other press release material. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:CORPDEPTH. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JustDoc is a famous name in Indian healthcare though and there are many users of this product here in India. Apollo hospitals, Cloudnine hospitals all use this platform on the backend. 08:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5400:E3F8:E40C:26BB:70E7:5D25 (talk)
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH .Was founded in 2015 is upcoming at best not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stimbox[edit]

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

Deprodded without improvement in 2007. No references then. None found today that establish notability. Rhadow (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't even definitively say that they ever existed. GMG ^talk 17:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and clearly lacks references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominik Mašín. The new article contains a mere fraction of the content that was in the old one. Anyone wishing to attempt to recreate this again is advised to do so in a draft, in user space or at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  20:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Mašín[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN hockey player, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Recreated by an SPA whose sole activity on Wikipedia this was. Ravenswing 16:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Me Mom and Morgentaler#Discography as no one is opposing that. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clown Heaven and Hell[edit]

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

Full disclosure: I'm the original creator here, at a different time in Wikipedia's history: once upon a time, all the notability that an album or EP actually had to show was the fact that it was recorded by a notable band. But WP:NMUSIC has been tightened up in the intervening decade, and an album or EP now has to meet higher standards of independent notability in its own right to warrant a standalone article. But this was actually an independent demo cassette, not a label release, so it got no significant reliable source coverage at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to respective musician, because its a plausible search term. Bearcat, if you're the creator and deletion nominator, and virutally no one in its decade of existence edited it, why don't you just boldly redirect and be done? Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been edited by other people in the intervening decade. You're free to disagree about whether their edits were genuinely substantive enough to forestall me being able to arbitrarily invoke G7 speedy, but my own reading was that there were enough edits by other people that I can't. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct about a speedy delete, but I didn't mean that, I was just talking about WP:BOLDly redirecting. Technically, any editor can redirect any article if they want to (assuming they have a good-faith rationale.) Technically, discussion is only necessary if someone opposes the action.My point about no one else editing the article was just that you'd very unlikely to find any opposition to the redirect, considering very few ever edited it at all over the course of an entire decade. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Me Mom and Morgentaler § Discography; a valid search term per WP:ATD-R. Not finding source coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator after consensus that WP:PROF is met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Bushnell[edit]

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

~~She does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Chair of department, but not enough to pass notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Six of her publications are listed by Google scholar as having over 100 citations each (h-index = 28), a high enough number to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 despite psychology being a high-citation field. The Tufts encomium on her retirement [35] doesn't really count towards notability, but it does give her a more independent and in-depth overview of her career than we often get for academics. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Withdraw nomination I'm convinced by the arguments of the editors above. Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 06:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poduniversal[edit]

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

Non-notable program; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. References provided are primary sources, not independent of subject. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 06:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Radio Movies Extra Podcast[edit]

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

Non-notable program; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MySupermarket[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

We're all too familiar with the concept of promotionalism, even when disguised in which this should be no different, see the sources:

Source 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 14, 15, 18-20 are all locally-targeted or based indiscriminate publishers, including such words as "Changing the face of shopping", "[They] allow you to shop", "food of £45.30, olive oil at £1.49, potatoes for £1.78, £1.18, saving, sauges, £1.18 saving", "[they] show the potential....", "MySupermarket promises a seamless and simple....[Employee] said:....designed to to be uncomplicated...."
Source 7 is yet another indiscriminate comparison, (article begins with company stamp, continues on and ends with "visit website" and the quote "free shipping for baskets over $75.00" and Source 13 follows it quite closely with unquestionable ease
Source 11 is is a business partner quote
Source 12 is no-URL link7
Source 14, 16 and 17 are all indiscriminate local news in the US about the company's initiated plans; this bears nothing but to show the company has unrelenting ties overseas, which any company; international or local.

Attempts to find other coverage only lead to this, of which only half of that is new since the last AfD. When there's such a dry desert of coverage, it shows us there's not actually any coverage, and the few existing are all pre-packaged from the company's own hands. As if it weren't worse, 1 of the "Keep" voters in the last AfD was compromised by the fact an undisclosed paid user participated, therefore bringing everything into question once again. As by our Terms of Use, that is immediate violation in anything, regardless of anything. The last AfD was labeled as "improve it, not delete" but the history shows no serious signs of this, nearly a year later, and a year before that, the company account was involved; improving something that either was pre-used by the company or after, shows nobody actually found the evidence of change. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I apparently did mistakenly delete 2 comments. But what I said remains true: the material is promotional .I'm going to try to restore this page as it should be. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Comparison of MySupermarket to Tesco is the same as comparison of Kayak.com to British Airways. One is a website; the other has physical plant and has an offering of its own. The last time this article when through AfD, there were lots of promises to clean things up. The article is still an ode. The choice of statistics is precious promotion. I looked on Alexa. Some are outright lies. I would start by deleting every sentence that is followed by a CN. Rhadow (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It remains promotional. The onlychance of ever getting a cent article here is to remove this and let someone start over. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the article remains promotional. Cunard (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySupermarket (2nd nomination). The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I've reviewed the article, which in general is neutral with very minor cleanup needed.
Cunard (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySupermarket (2nd nomination) participants and closer: SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs), Mackensen (talk · contribs), Davey2010 (talk · contribs), and Juliancolton (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySupermarket participants: Philafrenzy (talk · contribs), CyberXRef (talk · contribs), and Shuki (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Virtually nothing in the article is not promotional. DGG is absolutely correct, WP:TNT would apply here. The canvassing by another editor is very problematic as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've removed the unsourced and promotional material here. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Note in the last AFD the nominator stated and I quote "Delete Just grab a bucket and mop this SPAM up.[36]" - Clearly they have an axe to grind and want the article deleted and are seemingly trying any way they can to have it deleted, Anyway back on topic the article was promotional however Cunard has seen to that, The article includes indepth and reliable sourcing and so as such GNG is met, ~~This AFD is nothing more than WP:IDHT and should be Speedy Kept.~~ –Davey2010^Talk 11:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Below are some sources. More are available in various searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

Keep Good sources emphasise notability. Dalliance (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the cleaned up version looks ok. Not too promotional, includes independant reviews. We don't need to delete every single business page and keep every cricket player that played one game. I find the bueiness pages more useful than the pagant winners and youtubers that get pages. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's enough in weight in our important factors here: WP:What Wikipedia is not and Terms of Use; the first because it's still clearly existing for promoting the company itself and that can unquestionably enough for removal alone but with the clause that an improved page can be restarted, and next, the Terms of Use because of the uncontested claims that this was in fact by the company's own hands without complying with said Terms of Use. Since Terms of Use is a principle over any guidelines, WP:GNG itself cannot alone actually outweigh a Foundation Policy. Also, a comment above suggests the nominator has an "axe to grind" and this couldn't be further from the case, since the last AfD and this, have had a different nominator both with different votes then and now, therefore this wouldn't be relevant to the general concerns that existed then and now: Unquestionable promotionalism and ToU violations. Another above claims there's additional sourcing but these in fact are the same ones currently in the article therefore no evidence of actual outside sourcing; also, to show if there's any genuine outside sourcing, the search that the WP:BEFORE gives, offers:

-- A local story about a local customer
-- a local trade article about locally relevant information
-- general business announcement in a local publisher
-- generally also, but this time with clear emphasis by the company website's sourcing itself
-- A local guide for locally interested shoppers
(on second page) -- 2 articles that share the same nature, because they consist of the same advice for local shoppers
-- Same article but now in a clearer press releases form
-- a general announcement involving another subject ~~ As a summary, the next sources go back and forth to actually consist of either obvious or hidden similarities of all this

My conclusion of this was all actually also keeping in consistency with what the WP:Notability pages says: Significant, independent, reliable coverage that is independent of the subject and this obviously means exactly what it is: Coverage that is without exceptions independent; and so, because other sources may exist, this wasn't evidently the case since 2 pages quickly gave such primary-fueled sources. With or without the sufficient coverage, however, the weight of Foundation Policy is obviously a big factor here and it's one we shouldn't taken lightly in whatever circumstances of course. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG, and the article has received copy editing to address tone matters after this AfD was initiated (e.g. diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are all local and promotional, not the type of sources to show notability for a corporation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding "the sources are all local and promotional": This Book Source, published by Springer Publishing, is certainly not local, nor is it promotional. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite from scratch. (I have accordingly tagged the article with a ((rewrite)) template.) The deletion advocates have a point about the majority of the sources. The principal problem with most of the sources is lack of independence: they are too heavily sourced from mySupermarket itself. On the other hand, enough independent, reliable sources remain that they should allow an article to be written. Also, some of the deletionist arguments, especially those based on the Terms of Use (m:TOU) and WP:NOT, are without merit, and some deletionist arguments stretch the locality criterion from WP:AUD beyond the breaking point.

I've looked through all the sources provided (except for the ones from TheGrocer.co.uk and Greylock, whose text was not accessible in my browser). Four, all already present in the article, were reasonably independent and reliable:

The book Management and business research (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, and Jackson 2015).
The 2013 review in Good Housekeeping by Sharon Franke and Harris Dupre.
The ~~2016~~ 2006 review in the Guardian by Jill Papworth (the "Delivery Details" section at the end, sourced to mySupermarket, is separate from the main article).
The 2016 comparative review on AOL by Sarah Coles.

The others (from the article as it exists at present, from other participants, and a few I found on my own) all had serious problems:

The book Agent-mediated electronic commerce (David, Robu, Shehory, Stein, and Symeonidis 2013) at first sight looks like an ideal reference. Unfortunately, the actual material dealing with mySupermarket is from a chapter written by three programmers who actually built mySupermarket's electronic commerce system (see page 58 for this information), and is therefore not independent of the company.
The 2007 review in Money.co.uk by Ed Monk is apparently independent of mySupermarket, but is likely not a reliable source; it is owned by the same media group as the Daily Mail, a notoriously unreliable red-top tabloid.
The 2014 article in the Express by Nathan Rao is heavily sourced from mySupermarket's own director of marketing; also, the Express is owned by the same media group as the red-top Daily Star—and the Express itself, although not a red top, has had its own share of reliability issues.
The 2013 article in TechCrunch by Sarah Perez is almost entirely sourced to mySupermarket sources.
The 2016 article in Talking Retail is entirely sourced explicitly to mySupermarket.
The 2012 investment report in TechCrunch by Ingrid Lunden is mostly sourced from company sources, and much of it is speculative anyway.
The 2012 article in Campaign by Emma Powell is published by what amounts to an advertising agency.
The 2013 ABC 7 Los Angeles report by Ric Romero relies too heavily on mySupermarket as a source. (On the other hand, it should be considered regional, not local, by the standards of WP:AUD.)
The 2013 ABC 6 Philadelphia report by Amy Buckman likewise relies too heavily on mySupermarket as a source. (On the other hand, it too should be considered regional, not local, by the standards of WP:AUD.)
The 2016 review in MoneyHighStreet by "Diane" is apparently independent, but would likely count as self-published by Wikipedia's standards.
The book Net profit: how to succeed in digital business (Soskin 2010) is authored by the then Chair of mySupermarket!
The 2015 case study by Reblaze is from a company retained by mySupermarket to fortify their web security, and thus is not independent.

Despite all the sources that must be disqualified, the four that remain should allow a non-promotional, independently and reliably sourced article to be written. Another point worthy of mention: mySupermarket is used routinely as a data source (but not, unfortunately, as itself the focus of inquiry) in scholarly articles on web commerce, as a Google Scholar search will show. I intend to address deletionist arguments based on m:TOU, WP:NOT, and WP:AUD in a separate entry.

—Syrenka V (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4 wouldn't be enough; but, remember, the other major concern here wasn't only the promotionalism or the sources, but in fact the repeated Terms of Use violations of undisclosed paid editing and the clear negligence of not complying; such ToU can and should be considered an unquestionably valid basis for deletion, because it means appeasing undisclosed paid activity as actually valid, when it's not at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, I'll address deletionist arguments based on m:TOU, WP:NOT, and WP:AUD in a separate entry; this includes the "appeasement" theory and the "unquestionably valid basis for deletion" claim. I'll also be attempting a clean-room rewrite of the article in my sandbox, keeping only the images and the four references identified above as independent and reliable. Often the easiest way to show that something is possible is to make it actual.

—Syrenka V (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on rewrite: my clean-room rewrite of the article is now complete, and can presently be found in my sandbox. Note that it is almost as long as the present version of the article, except for the tags at the top and the reference list at the bottom. It does not include investment information, as none was available from the four legitimate sources I used. (WP:PROMO violations on Wikipedia often appear to be aimed at least as much at investors as at customers.) If this article is kept, I'm prepared to replace it immediately with this clean-room version.

—Syrenka V (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reinserted material follows,:

- Comment In my opinion, your rewrite is written with a promotional tone and focuses on the website (and how it works) as opposed to the company (and why the company is notable). Most of the "Price comparison" section is unnecessary and all of the "Ordering" section is unnecessary. These have no bearing on the notability of the company. The inclusion of details such as whether users are Amazon Prime members are simply promoting a USP. Adding in that the USA website offers filters is promotional. Describing that items have photographs serves no purpose in terms of notability of the company. Fair play for the first draft - I'd say cut deeper with the editing scalpel and it should be fine. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My rewrite merely reflects the focus and concerns of the independent, reliable sources I used. The historical significance of a company's products and services (in mySupermarket's case, the website and its functionality) forms a large part of the historical significance of the company itself; it has all the bearing in the world on notability. For example, it is notable that mySupermarket was providing features for customization of virtual shelves in 2006 that were not commonly available at the time on retailer websites; and it remains notable whether or not online retailers in 2017 now routinely provide those features. Even aside from this particular innovation, the sources make clear that mySupermarket's comparison service was highly innovative when it was introduced, and thus was of historical significance. The mention of special handling for Amazon Prime and Aldi illustrates the flexibility and sophistication of the website's comparison methods. The ability to order from online retailers without bothering with their individual websites appears to be a historical innovation, and remains of significance whether or not other online comparison sites now also integrate shopping functionality.

Likewise, providing favorable information does not in itself create a "promotional tone". The three consumer reviews among my four sources were all highly favorable to mySupermarket; that favorability does not make them, nor my article, promotional. I actually went out of my way to include the few unfavorable details in the sources (no fresh produce, no customer reviews of the retailers).

I would very much have liked to include another type of historical significance: the comprehensive comparison service offered by mySupermarket has been at least as much a useful innovation for academic researchers on web commerce as it was for consumers, as a glance at Google Scholar makes obvious. The reason I didn't include that observation in the Wikipedia page is that it is original research—specifically, WP:SYNTH. As far as I could tell, the academic articles and books merely use data from mySupermarket—none of them act as secondary sources by observing that other academic sources make the same use of mySupermarket's data. If I've missed a secondary source that does make that observation, it should definitely be added to the Wikipedia page.

—Syrenka V (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously the topic meets GNG on two continents, and it has been around since 2006 so attention to the topic is sustained. I looked at Google scholar and confirmed that academia has an interest in an "online supermarket aggregator". The topic is worthy of notice, but I've not seen much that needs the attention of an encyclopedia. There is one sentence in the article that I think should be removed that talks about pricing.
I tend to agree with reducing the coverage. I don't see the mention of Insights and Shops adding anything, or the description of the shopping experience. We don't need to be told that investment money is used to get more customers. Unscintillating (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by Syrenka V, I've created my own rewrite at User:Unscintillating/MySupermarket. This is not a rewrite, though, as much as it is copy editing of the existing article. Unscintillating (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

end of reinserted material.

[insert begins here] @DGG: Your response is indented to appear as a criticism of my rewrite, not Syrenka V's rewrite. Please clarify. Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC) [insert ends here][reply]

Lookingat it, the second part of the SV version is details that would primarily concern those wanting to use the site. Such content is promotional. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, DGG, why did you write over Syrenka V's comment, all 4,000 characters, to say that the content was promotional? Rhadow (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: For reasons given in the text itself, that you have deleted, the relevant details of the site's functionality are not necessarily promotional—especially when they directly address its historical significance. Introduction of types of functionality new to a particular form of web commerce remain of interest over a decade after the fact, and (as I pointed out in the deleted text) regardless of whether they remain unique to mySupermarket today. Note that one of the forms of functionality in question, customization of price comparison for the store-brand retailer Aldi, was mentioned in the textbook Management and business research (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, and Jackson 2015), rather than in one of the consumer reviews I cited.

Your removal of relevant argumentation—including HighKing's remarks to which I was responding, as well as my own remarks—is disruptive to this deletion discussion. Please restore all the deleted text immediately.

—Syrenka V (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Looking at the page history, I just noticed that you also removed remarks by Unscintillating that immediately followed mine. Whether or not this was intentional, it too was disruptive, and I ask you to restore those remarks as well.

—Syrenka V (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete SOurces insufficient for notability. Looks G11. Certainly Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#4. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

&Apologies, I did make an error in the editing. I'm restoring the deleted material in a minute or two. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Done. But I never do that sort of thing deliberately--any of you could just have restored it themselves as well. I always appreciate people correcting my errors. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DGG: Thank you for restoring the deleted material—and for clarifying that such a deletion was not, and would never have been, intentional. I thought of restoring the deleted material myself, but I didn't know you well enough to be sure that the deletion was unintentional.

—Syrenka V (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on deletionist arguments that rely on the Wikimedia Terms of Use (m:TOU) and the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT: it is true that these policy-level documents would trump notability guidelines such as WP:N, WP:WEB, and WP:CORP if any conflict existed between them. But no such conflict exists on any matter relevant to this deletion discussion; in fact, m:TOU and WP:NOT create no grounds for page deletion not already fully covered in the notability guidelines.

By calling the document m:TOU "Terms of Use", the Wikimedia Foundation reserves the right to deny use of its sites, including Wikipedia, to violators. But it does not thereby even mandate denial of use to violators, including repeat violators; it merely authorizes such action, subject to the discretion of policy enforcers (such as Wikipedia administrators) as to what response to a particular set of violations is in Wikimedia's best interest. Still less does m:TOU mandate, or even authorize, root-and-branch eradication of everything done in violation of the Terms of Use. In fact, deleting anything on the ground of Terms of Use violation requires reasoning not included in the m:TOU document itself. The relevant reasoning, implicit in several deletionist entries above, and made explicit in the comment that keeping this page would be "appeasing undisclosed paid activity as actually valid", is that anything less than page deletion would amount to rewarding the paid malefactors and endorsing their work. But a number of heterogeneous considerations go into decisions whether to keep or delete pages, or to retain or remove text from a page; and nothing in m:TOU even makes rewarding or punishing Terms of Use violators one of those considerations, let alone a consideration capable of overriding all others.

Similarly, WP:NOT is concerned primarily with the end result, with what Wikipedia should not be—not with how we should respond when someone creates something that violates its specifications. Its section WP:WHATISTOBEDONE sketches a number of options, and directs the user to look elsewhere for more specific information. Its section WP:PROMO likewise defers to guidelines, particularly the notability guidelines WP:N and WP:CORP, for operational details of appropriate response. (Incidentally, the guideline WP:COI, too, is short on concrete operational specifics of appropriate response to violators.)

So although the policies in question could overrule the notability guidelines, they don't. m:TOU is silent on the matter, and WP:NOT actually directs the user through links to those same notability guidelines. And the notability guidelines, far from making reward or punishment of m:TOU violators an overriding concern, indicate clearly that preserving pages on notable topics is the overriding consideration in responding even to blatant advertising.

—Syrenka V (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on deletionist stretching of the locality criterion from WP:AUD (a section of WP:CORP): most if not all of the media publishing the sources I considered above—including the majority that I disqualified on various grounds other than WP:AUD, as well as the four I accepted as legitimate—would in my judgment qualify as at least regional, not local. WP:AUD doesn't really define where "local" ends and "regional" begins, nor does the article section Newspaper#Local or regional to which it links. But as I understand those terms, the reach of television stations affiliated with major networks in the USA or the UK, in particular (even those with "local" in their URLs, as in "abclocal") is such that all of them would qualify as regional; this is especially clear for those that serve major metropolitan areas. Similarly, a major USA metropolitan newspaper like the Philadelphia Inquirer or the Boston Globe would be regional, not local (and the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal would be national or even international).

Also, a review in a national or international publication, about a company serving the entire UK or USA, does not become "local" just because the reviewer evaluated it from the perspective of where they happened to live. Such a review remains relevant to the company's services throughout its range.

—Syrenka V (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on definitions (or other characterizations) of promotionalism: I propose what I call the Consumer Reports test—if a characterization of promotionalism leads to the conclusion that Consumer Reports is promotional, then that characterization is wrong. The characterization of promotionalism as a focus on the consumer functionality of products and services, as a focus on "details that would primarily concern those wanting to use" a product or service, fails this test very badly. The characterization of promotionalism as portrayal in a favorable light also fails. Consumer Reports is, as its name implies, almost entirely about consumer functionality; and although it frequently publishes harshly critical reviews, it also frequently publishes highly favorable ones.

What Consumer Reports does not do, is to publish biased reports. It even refuses advertising, specifically in order to avoid conflicts of interest that could lead to bias. I see promotionalism as a form of COI-driven bias; the most relevant Wikipedia policy is not WP:NOT, but WP:NPOV. That policy explains that the test for balance is reflection of what is in the sources, and WP:NPOV is clear that if the consensus of reliable and independent sources favors a particular conclusion, then the Wikipedia article based on them can and should favor that conclusion as well, and can do so without sacrificing neutrality. My rewrite of the present page portrays consumer functionality as the aspect of mySupermarket that contributes most to its historical significance and impact because the sources do. It's as simple as that, and it has nothing to do with promotion.

—Syrenka V (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anyone else endorse Syrenka V's rewrite as solving the initial concerns?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am much more in favour of Unscintillating's version. It is factual, strikes the correct encyclopedic tone and includes referenced support for each statement or claim. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to leave my draft in userspace for any length of time as it lacks full attribution, so I've copied it under at Old revision of MySupermarket Unscintillating (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've also done a copy-under of my rewrite to Old revision of MySupermarket, leaving only a link in my sandbox. Need I say—if my version is not adopted, I would strongly prefer adoption of Unscintillating's version to deletion of the page. —Syrenka V (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is getting tedious. Multiple major publication sources are available (and were identified at the last AfD). Article appears to have been re-written (which is at least a positive result of this AfD nomination, but "sledgehammer" and "nut" spring to mind) and I certainly wouldn't describe it as promotional now. Sionk (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient reliable sourcing exists. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- just a shopping web site. Raised about $15M which strongly suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article. The coverage is shallow and the reviews offered are routine, as in:

"...described the site as easy to use, with better savings achieved when spending over $75.00 to avoid shipping charges..."

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; wikipedia is not a directory. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @K.e.coffman: The notability of mySupermarket stems solely from its role as a web application. If for some reason a nonprofit or a government entity took it over and continued to provide the same services, its notability would be unaffected. As a money-making business entity, mySupermarket is unremarkable—I agree that $15 million in capitalization is peanuts by corporate standards, and when I found that the four sources that survived my independence and reliability checks contained no investment information, my reaction was "good riddance". But writing off the site's web functionality as devoid of interest is a serious mistake. Since "just a shopping web site" is a somewhat different charge than promotionalism, terms-of-use violation, or purely local interest, I decided to give the site's Google Scholar results a second look, and found the following:

Wan, Yun; Peng, Gang (May 2010). "What's next for shopbots?". Computer. 43 (5): 20–26. doi:10.1109/mc.2010.93.

This article is primarily about the influence of an earlier web shopping application, BargainFinder, but mySupermarket gets an explanatory box (Figure 4) on page 25, along with a paragraph in the main text on the same page. Since this is an independent and reliable source, it could have been included in my rewrite if I had noticed it earlier. More fundamentally, the entire article in Computer is a counterexample to the idea that the functionality of shopping sites is only of interest to those who want to profit from them or to be their end-users. And even the end-users deserve some credit for reflective thought. The consumer reviews I used in my rewrite don't just say that mySupermarket can save money; they give information as to exactly how it can save money, so that any given reader can judge for themselves whether, and to what extent, the site's capabilities will enable them to save money. That—and not investment information—is the kind of depth relevant to a description of a web shopping application. The sources provide it, and do not treat it as routine at all.

—Syrenka V (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had been meaning to post some extra analysis since a user above claims the Terms of Use is not explicitly persecutive of undisclosed paid editing. However, from Terms of Use: These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation and then we also have: It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy (from WP:Notability) and we also equally have: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press followed by WP:SPIP's Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article or also WP:Not advocacy's Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Not only is all this from relevant policies and gudelines, the policies obviously taking precedence here but it makes clear that claims of significance or presumed notability are not an automatic factored-in exception to the Promotional or WP:Advocacy policies. None of the latest Keep comments have successfully refuted how our policies will in fact accept this, without violating our principles. As our WP:Policies page says, any changes to the fundaments here must be made by the necessary process, not by a particular AfD and because AfDs can be so fragmented, they cannot alone support all cases alone, unlike specific policies I've cited here. Also, in regards to special human interest as a subject, we specifically have WP:Not a charity, in addition to WP:Not advocacy. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never denied that policy prohibits undisclosed paid editing. The point is that stating a prohibition is a different matter from saying how the authorities should respond when the prohibition is violated. None of the relevant policies or guidelines—including the portions quoted with emphasis above—say that a page created by an undisclosed paid editor must be deleted, or even that every word of the content they wrote must be removed. It depends on the notability of the topic and the merit of the specific content in question—not just on the illicit source of the page or its content. From WP:CORP#Special note: advertising and promotion:

Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order:

Clean up per Wikipedia:NPOV
Erase remaining advertising content from the article
Delete the article by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead.

And from WP:G11 within WP:CSD:

If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.

That is what I am advocating, and trying to accomplish. —Syrenka V (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I agree that AfDs cannot override policy (or guidelines, except insofar as the guidelines themselves authorize this via their "commonsense exceptions" clause). I have myself made this point in other AfDs against attempts to justify counterintuitive interpretations of certain guidelines. Even with relisting, the limited, short-term consensus of AfDs barely qualifies as consensus at all by the standards of WP:CONSENSUS. That is one reason why (with a few exceptions like WP:BLP) a very strong consensus for deletion in an AfD is needed to foreclose the ongoing consensus resulting from page editing, and a "no consensus" close results in the page being kept.

—Syrenka V (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless rewritten from scratch to remove adverts/promotional nonsense. -FASTILY 06:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) it's been rewritten already (2) what "promotional nonsense"? Sionk (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Some (most ?) of the sources such as the Express are simply parroting press releases but others such as The Guardian demand more scrutiny. Here, much is made of the effectiveness or otherwise of the app but most of the text is actually about the cost of shopping and again there seems to be heavy reliance on the website's own blurb. I don't see notability here, I am not convinced of the independence of the refs, I see no balancing text to the company sales speak - it is a relentless promotional vehicle for a website and doesn't belong here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velella Editors can't just look at an article and claim that the sources in the article are not sufficient for notability. That is not how notability is defined at WP:N, including WP:N#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. In particular, this topic includes sources at Google scholar.
As for balancing text, multiple editors have objected to one sentence in the article, including myself, and if you will read the entire discussion here, you will find that myself and another editor have each written versions of the article without that sentence. Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To add onto the previously deleted posted Terms of Use, I also want to make clear the Terms of Use make clear with the following: Terms of Use and Policies – You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities. Under the following conditions....You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content). This means it is important that you use caution when posting content. We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms.. If we acknowledge the paid editing which the Keep votes haven't refuted or denied, then we can only see facts as they are : Undisclosed laid editing occurred in contrary to the necessary process. To now quote WP:GNG: A topic is presumed notable if it not excluded under the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy....and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.". I can't imagine at any time, that we would ever advance a general Notability guideline instead of our own established Terms of Use, which themselves are clear on the process here. Also, see WP:Deletion policy:
'The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia....Deletion:Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. therefore a Terms of Use violation, no matter if someone else contributed, is still a violation and it's our responsibility to take action. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conceding that I have no idea what the evidence of this paid editing allegation is: in summary, you want a WP:DEL14 deletion for a problem that no longer exists, and you can't cite relevant text from WP:NOT? And even then, why are you rejecting a "clean-room rewrite"? Unscintillating (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protect. I would not argue that this topic is not notable. However, I think there is a serious need for protection of articles which have a history like this one, and perhaps a general investigation into paid editing (unless there is one already going on that I don't know about). I see the amount of spam increasing daily, and I see firms openly advertising for people to write their wikipedia articles. For example, on the Upwork website, "Seeking to find someone who can build a Wikipedia a page. Qualifications: 1. Can work under pressure 2. Excellent communication skills 3. Extensive background in wikipedia page building", and "Wiki Admin or Editor required". Unfortunately I can't find out who the prospective employer is without applying for and getting the job and I'm not going to compromise my position by doing so. That means I also can't track down the editors who are doing the spamming. Deb (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse protection of the page after rewrite. My arguments in favor of keeping the page (after rewrite—Unscintillating's or my own), on the basis of notability of the topic, should not be read as sympathy for allowing further contributions by the undisclosed paid editors who created the problematic versions.

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Dana Claxton. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He Who Dreams[edit]

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

Unclear notability, created by a blocked SPA with the goal of promoting Kasey Ryne Mazak. Prod contested by sock of blocked creator, its restoration was objected to on procedural grounds since creator is not banned. – Train2104 (t • c) 11:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dana Claxton, and incorporate anything worth keeping there. There does not appear to be sufficient sources for this to be a stand alone article, and it's not clear that there is even enough to write a standalone section. GMG ^talk 14:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 14:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 14:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect sounds good for this article unlikely to be built past stub status. Bri.public (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Muneer Al-Ali[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. The most cited papers are 105, 82, 35, 5, 3 ... in google Scholar [37] ; in medicine, a very high citation-density field, this is not enough for notability. The standard of notability is science is world-wide, not merely being important in the context of a particular country. The low citation figures are despite much of the work being published in international journals, so I don;tthink this is the result of the publication bias that can be relevant to people in some subjects where publication is only in less-available national journals. The Quranic work is harder to judge, but it is apparently self-published. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Please, Journal of Urology, European Urology. Australia and NZ Medical Journal, Paraplegia(Now called Spinal Cord) and International Journal of Ethno-pharmacology are all high international medical forums...secondly ,to be able to author and self-publish English and Arabic books and translate an English book to Arabic is not a demerit...thirdly , Kirkus Indie is a renowned International reviewing establishment and its review cannot not be disregarded.--Haywi (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable or with a positive outlook: Too Soon. gidonb (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Route 91 Harvest[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED could not find SIGCOV unrelated to the shooting. Also event itself fails WP:DEPTH. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough references even before the shooting.[38] AIRcorn (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Champion: What do you mean by "Also event itself fails WP:DEPTH"? AusLondonder (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The link to Google News as provided by Aircorn confirms my belief that the event has not received in-depth coverage as basically all the articles are blogs or routine coverage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plenty are not blogs and are more than routine (depends on your definition of routine I guess, but they have more than the basic details). Sure a lot of them are local (Los Vegas Review and Los Vegas Sun), but you have also got the Rolling Stone with multiple mentions of it (including this pretty detailed one[39]). There is also the LA times[40] although that might fit the routine bill. This is all obviously in addition to the fact that it is receiving a hell of a lot of coverage now. There is enough here to write an acceptable article on the concert without making it a coatrack of the shootings. AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All three years have seen coverage by major news outlets. Check out this Google search for some of the ones covering 2015 and 2016 and this Google search for some of the ones covering this year's before the shooting. The shooting certainly adds to its notability, even if it doesn't warrant it by itself. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 09:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pikamander2. It's been running for a few years, and had coverage before this weeks' event. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly notable, even before this week's terrible events. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: Received consistent news coverage over its tenure, and constantly draws huge name country artists. This is silly. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yearly music festivals with 22,000 attendees are notable. S-1-5-7 (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a reasonable amount of coverage pre-shooting. Post-shooting it has received significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like a notable music festival. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: Meets GNG even when before the shooting occurred. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, had some coverage before the shooting. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has notability independent of the shooting. Lepricavark (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Lazarus of Bethany. History will be left intact due to substantial interest in merging. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of Llàtzer[edit]

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

No academic sources referring to such an acta via Google Books and the web in general. I also tried alternative spelling via Acts of Lazarus, nothing. Fails WP:GNG. JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~; genuine but not notable. Contrary to the nomination, there are multiple hits in Google books for "Actes de Llàtzer",[41] e.g. in Actes del Quizè Col·loqui Internacional de Llengua i Literatura Catalanes by Kálmán Faluba. However, they do not amount to "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG, so they do not confirm notability. – Fayenatic London 09:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think either Redirect to Peter Pascual or possibly weak keep. There is a bibliography of research on the book (really on Pasqual) in Garcia Sempere, Marinela. Vides de sants en català conservades en manuscrits solts i en impresos anteriors a 1550. Alacant : Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, 2014 which gives four sources and seemingly two other names by which the manuscript is known, Vida de Llàtzer i de les seves germanes santa Marta i santa Maria Magdalena, and Història de sant Llàtzer. I'm not able to piece it all together, but in whole it seems there is something here. In particular, if I'm right that the manuscript has these two other names, perhaps there is enough to pass WP:NOR (I think the subject already passes WP:V and WP:NPOV). Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Looking some more, I don't find anything substantial about the work under any title (nor is it completely clear to me if the different titles really are the same work). Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect article right now doesn't satisfy notability or justify its creation. Redirect is just a possibility if some sources have been found. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a link to Garcia Sempere 2014, if you are curious about the sources connecting the manuscript to Pascual/Pasqual. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect -- The fact that this appears in a dictionary of medieval Catalan literature suggests that this is not OR. Nevertheless, it is not particularly notable, any more than much Pseudepigrapha literature is. My preferred merge target would be Lazarus of Bethany, an article that already contains material on medieval traditions about him, which are as much works of fiction about the saint as this one. I am reluctant to merge (not merely redirect) to Peter Pascual, since the work appears merely to be attributed to him. It already appears in a list in Acts of the Apostles (genre), but that contains a list of works and is not thus an appropriate target. The fact that it is already in that list strengthens my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - there are some sources for the Catalan name - both citing the work and describing it. It is quite likely there are some more offline (due to period and language). If there is an appropriate list of Catalan early works it could possibly be Merged/Redirected there.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect for historical significance per Peterkingiron. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - to clarify my comment above for the closer, there are reliable sources that discuss this work, and as a short stub, it passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. There are some issues with WP:NOT, as this is little more than a bibliographical entry, but the historic significance is clear enough that and I agree with others that this subject is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Changing my opinion to merge and redirect to Lazarus_of_Bethany#Additional_traditions_about_Lazarus_of_Bethany, keeping the categories. – Fayenatic London 08:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Hoskins Paddock[edit]

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

Article about an obscure individual, inspired only by the fact that he is the father of the Las Vegas Strip shooting perpetrator. The article's creators did manage to dig up a few older news reports, but they would not have been enough to establish notability. Most coverage about him is from the last 24 hours and would never have happened except for the notorious action of his son. If we eventually get an article about Stephen Craig Paddock, this could be redirected to it. But failing that, delete. MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the Ten Most Wanted for eight years. Even if his son sparked this creation, that's not too shabby on its own devious merit. No one-event bio concerns like Stephen. Sourcing isn't bad, but could improve (as most things can). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There should have been an article on him before this. Need to add more details though for this to be useful Rest day (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a lot of well sourced content would be lost if this was deleted. Antrocent (♫♬) 05:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously created since he was in the news this week due to his son. However, he is clearly notable. On FBI most wanted. Escaped from prison. Multiple crimes. Definitely meets WP:CRIMINAL and WP:GNG - on sourcing prior to this week - which copious in even a cursory BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a person of interest and the sources are solid. I see no reason for deletion. User:Galatic flying —Preceding undated comment added 06:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no breach of the rules and basic sourcing was done. There are many "obscure" persons that -unfortunately- influenced the history and are therefore "good to know." Even such small article is important to get better understanding about the roots of his criminal son. ChJn (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is part of a rush to delete articles created in the aftermath of the shooting. However, Benjamin seems notable on his own given his criminal history. Interest and sourcing will only continue now. AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good sources on a notable person. Laurent (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I want to say "keep," and that had been my intention when I first came to this page. But then I thought, since the primary argument to keep is that he was on the FBI's top 10 most wanted list, that I should check out the list. What did I find? Very few people from that list have their own wikipedia pages. Even a few CURRENT top 10 most wanted criminals currently don't have a page. Thus it really would seem that this page is merely the byproduct of his son's extremely homicidal conclusion. Keep only if you plan on making more pages for other top 10 criminals from the last 50 years. Philologick (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would say every last member of the FBI's 10 most wanted lists are notable, and we don't have many such articles simply because no one has bothered to do the legwork. 158.130.58.62 (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would wager most if not all recent ones do (Wikipedia:Recentism). Wikipedia is often lacking in terms of coverage of non-current figures who aren't int today's newspaper. Coverage of people on the most wanted list would definitely meeting GNG in the vast majority of cases, with the sole question being a BPL1E issue for single-crime perps (is the crime notable or the perp) - which is not an issue here.Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-if we're going to have weepers about anyone executed in the United States, as is the rage now, then FBI most wanted listers are more clearly notable and meet WP:CRIMINAL and WP:GNG--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please do not insult fellow Wikipedians. You can and should make your point respectfully, without sideswipes at anyone. 158.130.58.62 (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I can't !vote from an IP, but I'd strongly argue in favor of a speedy snow keep. Article is adequately sourced and meets the notability criteria. --2001:4DD7:6040:0:4DB9:3F81:7B27:7B13 (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really that notable to merit a Wikipedia article - he's just an FBI wanted list figure among numerous others. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives are a relatively small number of people, being on the list constitutes notability in its own right, IMHO. I have added other fugitives in the past. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Not even a questionable page. A notable criminal who spent years on FBI most wanted list. Golotaguy (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Golotaguy[reply]
Strong Keep, newspapers.com has many results about him in particular from the late 1960s and 1970s. If no one else does, I'll try to add some details from them to the article later today. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde's Drive-In[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. No significant mention anywhere out of the area. John from Idegon (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ye standard variety of WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It needs improvement but the chain seems to have notability and is regionally well-known and reported on.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks sufficient RS. Fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the Las Vegas concert shooting[edit]

Note: Title article has been moved to:
Reactions to the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting
20:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

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

In the middle of a discussion about the applicability of NOTNEWS in relation to the Las Vegas shooting, we get the creation of an article that is essentially a collection of news items--with, of course, the requisite, standard expressions of sympathy, flags and all. No: that something is verified doesn't mean it's noteworthy. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Please. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it is not a news cite. The expected condolences from politicians and famous people can be expressed in a few sentences -- much more effectively and productively. For everyone, please avoid the argument "there is precedent" because I have proven that is not the case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very good citation. There are deleted reaction articles (such as 2010 Moscow Metro bombings)and no article on the Reactions to the Lincoln assassination. However, there are kept reaction articles (such as Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, Reactions to the 2005 London bombings, Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting (2nd deadliest shooting in the US, after Las Vegas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanguard10 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard10 is it a bad time to announce that in those examples you provided the main argument to keep was "there is precedent"? That isn't a policy-based rationale but rather an excuse to keep a sub-page full of clutter and unencyclopedic quotes away from the main article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: The problem is that there is no community consensus on what to do here as this is a gray area when it comes to our policy/guidelines. If you look at WP:REACTIONS this article has about a 50% survival rate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not encyclopedic. I agree with the nomination and TheGracefulSlick. Doug Weller talk 05:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's essentially useless. Everyone has a reaction. The only "reaction" should be involved in the main page and it should be any concrete reactions such as laws proposed or regulations changed, without op/eds attached.Seola (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relevant reactions can be summarized in the main article. Offerings of condolences are generic and their repetitive quotes are not encyclopedic. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom , It can be summarized in the main article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The usual codswallop and platitudes: "the President of Foobar sends his condolences and abhors violence". Unencyclopedic dross. WWGB (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge (best). Just an ordinary shooting. I think it should be merge to the main article, not be independent.--Shwangtianyuan Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 05:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No speedy delete Reactions articles are typical Wikipedia. On the other hand, many people hate reactions article. While there is a track record of reactions articles, others bring up "other crap exists". There should be thorough discussion and not a quick non-administrative deletion. Of some value is that there is reliable sources that cover reactions so the reactions topic might be valid. It is not just original research where editors pick out reactions and make an article....there are news media articles solely about the many reactions. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All events have reactions, they are not encyclopedic and fit within WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These opinions do not add value or understanding to the event and thus are not needed. A couple pertinent or poignant reactions could be included within the main article, but the rest is not needed. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 06:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy incubate for 7 days~~ The Hayley Geftman-Gold story is big enough to survive in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Banal. The Hayley Geftman-Gold story appears elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete per above but merge as section in 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting --Cs california (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, but include some notable comments at the main page. Definitely don't merge the politicians list. I am somewhat surprised at the early direction of this as in my experience it is difficult to delete these articles so soon after a tragedy occurs and peoples emotions are running high. Maybe it is to do with the ongoing discussions about NOTNEWS or the general high esteem the nominator is held in. Personally this is one of the more pervasive issues with unfolding current events, this rush to include condolences from our country of choice. In almost all articles these add nothing new and they can even drown out the details of the incident itself. Notable respnses can be included at the main article and the rest can be summed up with one sentence "Many leaders from outside the united states sent their condolences". The whole flag thing and generic quote are completely unnecessary. AIRcorn (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an indiscriminate collection of press releases. Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings; the discussion closed as "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These need to go somewhere, and as long as they're piling up in this heap, the main article can run clog-free (or clog-freer). Multiple sources have covered multiple reactions, some in multiple ways. All can be presented properly and informatively for those who enjoy this sort of thing, without bothering those who don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge In its current state it would be better to merge the reactions with the main article. Until the time which it becomes too large or unwieldy it should have its own article. There are plenty of reaction articles to tragedies and deaths of individuals or groups. There is no hard or fast rules to these type of articles to exist or not.F2Milk (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is absolutely nothing wrong with the article itself. It simply details the REACTIONS to the attack. It is not supposed to describe the attacks themselves. Are we gonna delete any article that isnt good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.237.222 (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 95.103.237.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pernom and include most notable reactions to the main article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any notable reaction that is not covered currently can be added later, I see no need to merge. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it should be deleted or merge to the main article cause its not necessarily for reactions to have an independent page. All Relevant reactions can be summarized in the main article. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy incubate for 7 days~~ per User:Unscintillating, the Hayley Geftman-Gold story itself is big enough to survive in the encyclopedia. In response to SPA IP 95.103.237.222's "Are we gonna delete any article that isnt good enough?", yes, articles that don't cut the mustard are usually and properly deleted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Merge most relevant reactions into the article and redirect, it's becoming a crapmagnet and battleground.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Is it big enough to have her crucified on the internet? Drmies (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is Wikipedia doing that? Are you claiming that it is? --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – Given it surpassed the Orlando incident as the deadliest mass shooting, I see no reason why this shouldn’t be kept here. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deserves an article more than the Orlando shooting. This was nominated for deletion too soon. Fortunatestars (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Obaid Raza (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with the main article, but only to some extent. Reactions from the President, from the Governor of Nevada and the State's Leaders, from Nevada's 2 U.S. Senators, the U.S. Representatives from the area, from the Leaders and Whips of the House and Senate, the Supreme Court, the Mayor of Las Vegas and nearby communities, the religious leaders of Las Vegas, the area's state senators and representatives, big important countries that are our key allies- the UK (P.M./Queen/London Mayor), France (President), Canada (P.M. or Gov. Gen.), China, Mexico, Australia, Brazil, Spain, S. Korea, Japan, Italy/the Vatican, Poland, would be examples. Certain historic events-the worst peacetime, non-terrorist shooting ever in the U.S.- are worthy of commemoration from national and world leaders, and would be more acceptable to be listed, to a limited extent, either in the article or in a separate article. A list of every country or supra-national body or organization is one thing, an extreme. But it is understandable to include some, because the citizenry looks to its leaders and public figures to reassure them and comment, and as a (minor, but still important) part of the historical record of the event. Relevance is key. I could not care less what our enemies think, save for a few noticeable groups. Allies are more worthy of comment, so are the leaders, or stars, most directly involved. It doesn't have to be a none or all level.98.215.153.31 (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an encyclopedic topic. Just because other such articles still hang around doesn't mean we need to keep this one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These AfDs are becoming expected by now (WP:REACTIONS). It really is a coin flip if this one is kept or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now) - really just the usual reactions to an event like this, keep the main notable reactions in the main article and the others don't deserve to be included. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the growing number of mass shootings, reaction pages have emerged as an effective way of keeping the main articles focused on the crimes, victims, perpetrators, and investigations, while allowing for coverage of RS/noteworthy responses to the tragedy. Scaleshombre (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We can keep the relevant reactions (i.e. Trump, Nevada, local authorities) in the article of the shooting. We don't need a collection of condolences. Only the future will tell if this article must exist, but for now, we don't need it. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. The tragedy happened so recently, we can't gauge the notability of responses yet. Mr. Anon 515 15:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:A10, or else close this damn AfD per WP:SNOW. We do this almost every time there's a shooting (e.g. Manchester, Barcelona), someone creates a "reactions to" page, and we get an absurd discussion. If we can't find a consensus on how to handle these pages (either a rule that AfD nomination is PROHIBITED for at least two weeks after the event, or a consensus to allow speedy deletion), we need to ask Jimbo to rule dictatorially on them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I would go with WP:WWJD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Strong Keep~~ (striken in view of the same word is Wikipedia jargon with a different meaning). This AFD should NOT be a case of "I like it" or "I don't like it". Otherwise, you would delete North Korea because I don't like it or you would delete an obscure stub because I don't like it. Rather you should ask "are there reliable sources about the subject". The answer is a strong YES. There are specific news articles about the reactions. This is not just original research searching Twitter for reactionary comments.

Another STRONG KEEP point is that there are special reactions. For example, the obscure state of British Columbia, Canada quickly put flags at half staff due to a British Columbian being killed. It is rare that a foreign province would do that. You don't see the Governor of Nevada making comments about a shooting in Afghanistan and lowering the Nevada flag at half staff.

My personal feeling is that "I hate it", "I wouldn't mind it deleted", but that it is the correct decision to "strong keep" it due to policy considerations and in comparison with other articles that were AFD kept. AGrandeFan (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AGrandeFan, please see Wikipedia:SKCRIT, and don't just throw around terms: "Speedy Keep" actually means something, and only one of the criteria could possibly apply here--#2. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since we as a community cant come to a consensus on these types of articles I suggest either WP:ARBCOM, or WP:DRN. It feels like we go through this process every time there is a major event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you consider "consensus". On policy, the outcome is obviously to delete or very selectively merge. On "precedent", we may never know because this said "precedent" isn't supported by any notability guideline. I'm sorry Knowledgekid but these articles are just quote farms loosely threaded together by WP:SYNTH.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about why some articles are kept while others are deleted based on the same arguments in every AfD discussion. This will only happen again if something isn't done to put something in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but exclude or minimize run-of-the-mill comments/statements in reaction. Even well-publicized run-of-the-mill reactions should not be included (in any detail) on the sole basis of recent news reports, per WP:Recentism. In contrast, unusualness is a strong indicator of long-term noteworthiness. Also, please be aware that there’s a relevant survey at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Straw_poll_on_the_current_view_of_WP:NOT.23NEWS. One more thing: even unusual reactions ought to be excluded if they are primary sources such as opinion pieces in recent newspapers, unless those opinion pieces have been the subject of reportage by secondary sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are other articles on Wikipedia similar to this one. If they get to stay up, this should to. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WHATABOUTX, part of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. - SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just bloat, and a way for some to include more bloat that others have rejected on the main shooting incident article. Line after line of "Prime Minister/President/Senator/Supreme Leader X condemns the actions of X at Z" is of no encyclopedic value. ValarianB (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you may think but if you carefully analyze who said what and what they didn't say, that can be instructive. Not all countries had reactions. AGrandeFan (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I know, yes. Also, "the absence of evidence is not evidence Of absence", as the saying goes. ValarianB (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This attack is the largest mass shooting in American history. The # of reactions and detail would most likely expand over time. For this reason, this is a "weak" keep as opposed to a "strong" keep. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait probably Merge to main in a month. These reaction articles serve purpose in keeping out all the pointless, yet seemingly notable, reactions from the main article while this is still a hot event.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It goes without saying that condolences and shock will be expressed. Unlike the news outlets, we don't have column-inches to fill. The list is not encyclopedic. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Kim Jong Un did not condemn it. Did Belize or Botswana condemn it? Maybe not. AGrandeFan (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless reliable sources make note of such an absence, it is not for Wikipedia editors to draw their own conclusions. That runs into issues of Original Research, which is not allowed here. ValarianB (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It IS for Wikipedia editors to raw their own conclusions, but in their mind and not write it. This is the beauty of such article because it can help understand the situation better. In addition, the reactions are not simple condolences. The Australian prime minister made it a point to address gun violence. The Nigerian foreign minister made it a point to praise the Las Vegas Police, something that no other country did. They didn't say "fuck the police" but praised them and Nigeria is an Black African country. This article can be a list of "our country expresses condolences" or this article can be written in depth and offer great insights beyond "we are sorry about the tragedy". I have not made up my mind as far as delete or keep but have begun to see this as a very complex article and issue. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard10 this comment is incredibly puzzling. Are you surprised a "Black African" country praised first responders? You do realize black people do not universally hate law enforcement nor are they widely yelling "fuck the police" in the streets. There is not much to this article other than a quote farm consisting of reactions deemed unnecessary for the actual article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, depending on its size, or keep the article, but do not delete the history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why, why WHY do these walls of irrelevant reactions keep getting glued into articles?? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most relevant reactions into the article, and then once sufficient time has passed, and further context can be established, consider re-instating the article, per Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, or, more relevantly, Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the last deadliest shooting on U.S. soil. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any pertinent information into the main article, per TheGracefulSlick, Drmies and a few others. Merging the few important reactions to something along the lines of 2017 Westminster attack#Reactions or June 2017 London Bridge attack#Reactions (including the compromise Notes section to list the various countries who commented). - SchroCat (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the best solution for reaction sections I have seen and would support this approach here and most other similar cases. AIRcorn (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:INDISCRIMINATE should be applied to the section about reaction in the main article. JahlilMA (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless these are reactions with meaningful consequences, especially when the bulk is condolences for what happened. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was only created because people wanted to include irrelevant responses to the attack, and they were deleted from the main article. Natureium (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to thoughts and prayers Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This is a major event, and there are a sufficient number of responses to warrant its own page. Many internationals of course apologized, but there are also important statements by Donald Trump, the fake news issues, and it might also be a good place to mention the discrepancies between news sources as the events unfolded. Further - this is the largest mass shooting in American history. As I said, a major event, definitely worthy of a "reactions" page (also keep in mind the reactions to this event will probably increase as time passes - crazy to think this only happened Sunday. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article readily passes GNG, since there are multiple secondary sources about reactions to the shooting, and will continue to be. Just as Project Gnome provided global geological data, this tragedy provides a seismological snapshot of world culture. It is a place to discuss everything from ISIS to corporate censorship, knowing they are all linked back to its main topic by secondary sources. Wnt (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other delete !voters. This article is a quote farm that has been SYNTHed together into a list. While the individual reactions have received coverage, there's precious little media coverage of the overall topic of the reactions. Any unusual or unexpected reactions or those made by major political figures like the US president can be selectively merged into the main event article along with a sentence or two summary of the other reactions. Ca2james (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless someone is directly involved its meaningless. BernardZ (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The relevant reactions can be merged into the article of the shooting. Only the future will tell if the volume of reactions will be large enough for an article like this to exist, but for now, we don't need it. --EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is already a reactions section in the main article. Seems like much of this info is appropriate for that article. 192.91.171.36 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Frmorrison (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. This is fucking ridiculous; it's just a bunch of blatant rehashes of the same basic "this was a terrible crime" message. It quite frankly doesn't really matter what certain individual people have to say when it's all part of the same general thought. If someone somehow has a significant response to it (which I highly doubt will happen), then it would be much better to mention that in the main 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting page. In fact, everything of value on the incident is already included there, which is where it truly belongs. Any other significant details that come along should also go there. This page is not by any reasonable measure an encyclopedic topic. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One unaddressed issue is that delete/merge will effectively destroy information. It is a foregone conclusion that if you merge this article with the main article, all the reactions will be removed except Trump and maybe another one.

Another unaddressed issue is that several delete votes don't understand this reactions article as think it is merely some people saying "I'm sorry, accept my condolences" when it's not. The Nigerian and Australian responses are unusual as with the Singaporean response.

Yet another unaddressed issue is the wide variety of sources of responses. Not only Canadian provinces, but internationally, religious, musical, celebrity, and other sectors contributed to the reactions, reacting to the worse shooting in US history. No other shooting were there 600 casualties. Usually there is 5 or 30, but not 200, not to mention 600.

I have not voted yet because, despite all this, I understand the "I don't like it" aspect and also the desire to mimic a paper encyclopedia, which doesn't have this type of article or articles about video games or porn stars, which are Wikipedia legends. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Honestly, there just isn’t much encyclopedic content here. I would recommend merging Scalise’s reaction, and the language under television networks (neither of which is present in the main article). As for the international section, the only things even remotely noteworthy was that Tel Aviv’s city hall was lit up like an American flag and that British Columbia Premier John Horgan ordered the flags flown at half-mast to honor a victim from that province. Just about everything else can be summarized as thoughts, prayers and condemnations. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article. Not doing so is merely an excuse for amassing largely repetitive content; doing so will (helpfully) require considered selection from that mass of information. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the magnitude of this incident, and the as-yet unresolved character of its implications, I would keep it for now. Too early to nominate for deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one or two noteworthy reactions, as indicated above by Spirit of Eagle, then delete the article. No need for a redirect. Somebody said "These need to go somewhere"; no, they don't. There is nothing even vaguely encyclopedic about listing every cliche voiced by every leader in the world. With flags yet. This is pure cruft. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tentatively. This question can be revisited at another time. At the least this article is serving a purpose as a possibly temporary repository. The sheer volume of material here—some of it unimportant—would unnecessarily burden the main article. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, and also because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. HastyBriar321 (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - anything useful into 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting and redirect. -- Longhair\^talk 16:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These articles always have this kind of section. No reason the deadliest shooting in U.S. history shouldn't be here. --GeicoHen (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Based on Policy I think this article is similar to porn star articles and video games in that some people don't like it. 1. Policy-wise, this article is notable by being covered in reliable sources. 2. Policy-wise, this article is allowed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I looked at that link and this article passes on all 4 examples (this is an example of wrongly citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 3. Policy-wise, this article passes because there are articles in reliable sources that discuss reactions. It is NOT Wikipedians cherry picking one reaction from a news story and piecing them together for a Wikipedia article. There was a mention of it in the article but someone removed it (which is a way some (not all) people get articles deleted by making it poorly written) 4. This article is a keep because it is NOT just politicians saying "I'm sorry" but some very unique comments, like commending the LV Police or making anti-gun statements. Also has reactions from more than politicians. 5.It is very un-Wikipedia to try to delete this by claiming that it can be merged. Once you merge it, in 2 seconds, all of the contents will be removed (which is like a delete).

In conclusion, I think this is a typical weird Wikipedia article but it is a keep according to Wikipedia policy. AGrandeFan (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong Keep" - This attack will undoubtedly be remembered by history. In addition to being the largest mass shooting in US history, depending on how the independence bids of Catalonia and Iraqi Kurdistan play out this event will be one of the first international tragedies they respond to, setting the precedent in how they handel future instances of global tragedy. Other reactions with serious implications at risk of being viewed as unimportant by the predominantly European, North American, and Australian English language Wikipedia user base include Somalia, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Nicaragua, etc. NGJellico (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)NGJellico[reply]

Note that the above editor has never edited anything but the article and this discussion. ValarianB (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see why this article cannot be submerged into the main article. This article is pointless imo ThePlane11 (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. A Train^talk 06:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maladaptive daydreaming[edit]

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

apparently only 3 papers have ever been published on it by anyone other than Somer, who coined the term. It's according to the article not a recognized diagnosis. Until it gets actually discussed in MEDRS secondary sources there is no basis for an article. There are 2 popular magazine articles on it, but that's not sufficient for medicine. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero review articles on the topic. Many of the sources DID NOT even mention the topic in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in Eli Somer - A very interesting concept but which appears to not have enough academic following. It may however be more notable in culture (see [42] which is a personal opinion article that references an online "maladaptive daydreaming" support community; it is unclear to me if that tumblr account is Somer's). The initial page following that link also mentions Somer. The other names mentioned appear to not be about MDD but about other aspects of daydreaming or imagination. If Somer is notable enough to have an article, his article may possibly be expanded with a few more paragraphs about MDD; those looking to find information on MDD would then also be redirected to his article. —Paleo Neonate – 23:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources do not establish notability, or even that's it's recognised concept. The article states:

"But most psychologists have never heard of maladaptive daydreaming, and it is not officially recognized as a disorder." (emphasis mine)

I think it's too soon even for a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of exports of Poland[edit]

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

OR based on 2012 data; lacks notability and encyclopedic relevance. Part of an apparent walled garden around The Observatory of Economic Complexity created by Special:Contributions/Willy_turner. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as statistics cruft. Renata (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. List of exports of a country seems to me pretty much like standard stuff to find in an encyclopedia. This does not seem to be OR, it is sourced, through the linked page is (somewhat?) dynamic and is already showing data for 2015. Exports and imports by country is a totally encyclopedic and notable topic, and while this need better sourcing, historical trends, etc., it is nowhere near deletion. Also, on procedural grounds, why is Poland singled out from the Category:Lists of exports by country? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there's encyclopedic information here, it should be included in Economy of Poland. However, I doubt that a list like this is of much use. Are we going to update the figures quarterly? It's best for Economy of Poland to talk about exports in more generality, rather than trying to keep up with the precise figures as they change. I'd be in favor of the deletion of these sorts of export-list articles in general, of course. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:LISTN. If someone wants to argue otherwise, we should discuss Category:Lists of exports by country and the alleged The Observatory of Economic Complexity walled garden as a whole, not pick off articles one at a time. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- There was no intent to single out Poland; I PROD'ed two similar articles on the same day, as can be seen on my PROD log. The concern was about the nature of the article, either as an in-house project, or a promotional walled garden, around The Observatory of Economic Complexity and single sourced to it.

In any case, this is not a functional list, in Wiki sense, as the constituent entries are not Textile exports of Poland, but links to generic articles. I agree that this is "statistics cruft" and should be deleted. I believe that this nomination should be treated on its merits, so that it can be used as a test case going forward. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your complaint is not about notability of the subject but about the state of this article and eventually the similar articles in Category:Lists of exports by country. Is List of exports of Poland a notable topic for the encyclopedia? Probably yes. Is this article in good shape, Probably no. Can this article be improved? Probably yes. Treated on its merits, that's a Keep for me. When the other articles are taken into consideration, the calculation may be different. ~Kvng (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to just embed a discussion of Poland's most important exports into the Economy of Poland article? That's much more informative than a bare list of export. Exports of Poland might be suitable for an article, if someone could write something informative up, and one could even include a list within the article, but List of exports of Poland doesn't seem useful at all. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly that article should summarize the issue, but the point is that the topic of 'exports by Foo' is notable, and even if the list is incomplete and obsolete this does not constitutes reasons sufficient for deletion. It is just a list-stub. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Exports of Foo could be a notable topic; wikipedia has a number of such articles, such as Foreign trade of Argentina. But List of exports of Foo is not such a topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Subject is notable. Article needs workDlohcierekim (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete statistics cruft. This is routine information that also happens to be outdated. No indication of notability from independent sources and therefore fails GNG. Also, this list is put together by editors's discretion, not WP:RS, and fails content policy WP:NOR. We are not a repository for indiscriminate information WP:IINFO. This list seems to be an inversion of acceptability per WP:LISTN - the list is comprised of separate notable Wikipedia topics, but the topic of the list itself has no claim notability and seems to be WP:OR or WP:SYN. This list would not be much use in another article such as Economy of Poland. In fact this is probably already covered in that article in some way or other. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. There is a consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  16:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Abukar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsuccessful political candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN; has an interesting backstory that saw some coverage but not enough to pass WP:GNG (all connected with candidacy). Previous AfD was no consensus. Frickeg (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN ("Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage") and WP:GNG. The Sydney Morning Herald covers her life extensively.[43] So does the North West Star,[44] The Courier-Mail,[45] Brisbane Times,[46] The Australian,[47] and many more, apart from being the featured face of a full episode of BBC Outlook.[48] I'm not quite sure why this has been renominated. Thanks. Lourdes 10:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A one-time candidate is in no conceivable way a "major local political figure" under WP:POLITICIAN. All of that coverage you listed is connected to her candidacy, which is WP:ONEEVENT. The BBC thing is interesting but doesn't get her there in my book, although I understand if you disagree. Frickeg (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frickeg, hope you're well. The sources I've listed out seem quite widely spaced out, so I don't see ONEEVENT affecting this article: Sydney Morning Herald and Brisbane Times covered her in July 2014. The Australian, North West Star and Courier Mail covered her in January 2015. BBC covered her in November 2015. ABC covered her in March 2016 after covering her in April 2015. Also, it's not her candidacy but her legacy that has put her in news; so I don't think the candidacy matters so much anyway. Thanks. Lourdes 11:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for office will get some coverage for this fact, this alone is not enough to show they are notable nor grounds for keeping an article on them. Election coverage is all we have on her, so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert hello. I understand your viewpoint. Not to disagree, but specific ~~full-page~~ significant coverages that I have listed above like the one in Brisbane Times does not mention anything about her candidacy or elections. What would be your view on sources like this? Also, what would be your view on the fact the coverages I have listed above span from 2014 to 2016. Thanks. Lourdes 06:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that full-page coverage, Lourdes (count the number of paragraphs that are about Abukar and the number that are making a broader argument). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Cordless Larry; it's five paragraphs on Leila in that source. I've struck the term "full page". Warmly. Lourdes 06:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Abukar appears to demonstrate notability beyond the usual coverage received by political candidates, especially the BBC program. AusLondonder (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: GNG supercedes the SNGs, she has significant coverage from third-party sources, definitely meets notability standard. Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks sufficient RS. Fails GNG. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, how to keep this short? "Interesting backstory" is surely what articles about people should include. The coverage is not entirely about her (failed) candidacy, for example her awards have nothing to do with that. A programme about her on the BBC's World Service seems significant to me but I think it is no longer online. However, even the blurb about the programme[49] shows it was not restricted to her candidacy and the blurb has in itself material worth including. The Brisbane Times[50] and Sydney Morning Herald[51] articles meet my understanding of the notability criteria. They are not about her candidacy and we do not ask why newspapers consider people worth writing about we simply take account of their reports, providing we think their reporting is independent. Thincat (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a sufficient number of further references available, different from the ones in this article, demonstrating a broader recognition by the Australian society / community, hence notability and encyclopedic value. Aoziwe (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Nominator Frickeg aserted all coverage was connected with her candidacy. Well, I see coverage spread over YEARS. Candidacies last months, not years. Isn't it highly misleading to call coverage of her, outside the campaign period, "connected to her campaign". Sheesh. Geo Swan (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a source review, although perhaps on a slightly weaker level. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of cities in India by population. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most populous cities in North East India[edit]

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

Another redundant article adding to the clutter. This page is redundant as List of cities for every Indian Sate is covered separately. Northeast India includes states like Assam etc., for which individual pages, such as "List of cities in Assam by population" and others would suffice. AnjanBorah (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of cities in India by population. Ajf773 (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. A Train^talk 06:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Luiz Scalon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:FOOTBALL. The player has not played in any fully professional league [a list can be accessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues ].RRD (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:FOOTY as per this and the subject is 22 years and has made his debut for Chapecoense against Cruzeiro .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete With only a single 46 minute substitute appearance in a professional league the "presumption" of notability is thin even if that is technically meeting NFOOTBALL. Now signed for India I-League team but no evidence he has played yet or generated in depth coverage, fails WP:GNG. If he starts getting games in India - which is admittedly likely given he is filling a foreign quota slot - it can be easily recreated, but for now it is WP:TOOSOON per WP:CRYSTAL. Nominated too early, wouldn't have hurt to wait a few weeks until the league was underway. ClubOranje^T 05:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Player has made his debut in a Fully professional league this year and later signed for a new club Chennai City F.C. which plays in I-League which a is a Fully professional league and will play when the season starts .I see little point in deleting this and recreating it after a few weeks.WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here as he has already made his debut and passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence (with credit to others for the research) see the following AfDs of players that technically passed NFOOTY. Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish. He only made a sub appearance for Capoence because they Had hardly any players left following an air crash. He also would not be the first player to decide moving to Asia wasn't for him and leave before every playing, nor would he be the first to fall ill or suffer some other such fate in India, so CRYSTAL is quite applicable in my opinion. Our notability guidelines say we have articles for subjects that are notable, not ones that might soon be notable. It is a simple press of a button to restore if and when. ClubOranje^T 07:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cases of those listed above are largely those who have retired and not playing any longer they do not involve players who are actively playing in a Fully professional league club. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The clubs do play in fully profeasional leagues, but the player has played in Primeira Liga (Brazil) ,which is not considered to be fully professional. RRD (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cup competition within involving professional teams as per this.This is not a league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Has played for one team in a fully professional competition and is now signed for another team in a fully professional competition, the examples noted above are not similar players. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. Exact same players you used to argue delete for Abdullah Al-Khethiri who had also played less than a full game. And he has not "played senior international football" which is what seems to me to be implied when you repost the full text of NFOOTY. ClubOranje^T 09:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not odd at all, you should re-read both my rationale and also familiarise yourself with the AfDs you quote (since you seem to have lifted them directly from previous posts of mine / Giant Snowman - not that I mind that). In this instance we have a player who passes NFOOTY having played in a competition match between two teams from fully professional leagues and has now signed for another team in a fully professional league. He is young and is likely to continue playing in FPLs. In the case of Abdullah Al-Khethiri, he is much more like the players noted as passing NFOOTY but failing GNG, he is 33, played briefly in an FPL some years ago, has drifted down leagues into non-FPL territory and is of an age where it is extremely unlikely he will ever play at FPL level again. Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with what you are saying here, although likely and unlikely are subjective terms, and I probably have more of a tendency to wait til it happens (under CRYSTAL), in preference to revisiting it if it doesn't happen, as restoring a page is easy. ClubOranje^T 11:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Giant Snowman 08:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SNGs exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs particularly for a player currently playing and only 22 years old.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with professional appearance. Nfitz (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – Per this discussion, subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to. As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios, I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. The 'weak' is rather because that closure has not been linked or obeyed much, and is not in common use. Also, I will note that less coverage has to be applied for this article to be considered notable. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Rembe[edit]

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

"one of the first" women to be named a partner in a major law firm in California is an insufficient basis for notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No basis for notability. No significant coverage. agtx 13:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO and further every partner in a major law firm in California is not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ships in the Night (Vicki Lawrence album)[edit]

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

I am at a loss as to why so many non-notable album articles are being created by the same editor. The sources provided either suffer from reliability or WP:PRIMARY sourcing issues and a WP:BEFORE did not bring up anything promising. The album did not chart or receive a major award that would help it pass WP:NALBUM. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Album/song notability is far too permissive and even this doesn't meet it. Reywas92^Talk 06:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lawrence herself is notable, but if the album doesn't have any coverage in RSes, it should not be on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while her 1st LP charted, this one did not. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. A Train^talk 06:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cranial Screwtop[edit]

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

My PROD was removed but recent changes have not address the notability issue. The sources added are not indepth secondary sources but rather routine schedule reports and programs. Hence this still fails WP:NBAND and doesn't meet WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for previous comments and suggestions, which have been acted upon. The issue is now moving towards a question of notability within the field/genre. While I'd certainly agree that, for the sake of Wikipedia, it's important to 'cull' a large number of lesser music entries, it's important to be consistent here; to maintain a sustainable deletion strategy, and to acknowledge that there is an important element of subjectivity within particular areas - perhaps especially the arts and humanities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktipps (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know what the comment above is trying to say, but anyway, the current sources comprise a link to the website of a local radio station and not to a recording of the actual programme, a gig listing at a local pub from the local paper, one line from a BBC programme that says "'Planet Earth' was covered by UK pop punk band Cranial Screwtop in 2006 and by William Shatner in 2011" (it's at 15:40 minutes on the iPlayer link, if anybody wants to search for it), a blog list of Depeche Mode song covers, and a list of all the artists who have used a particular recording studio. None of that demonstrates notability or that the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Richard3120 (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NBAND and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. !votes by editors with only a short history and small number of edits (restricted to this article subject and this discussion) are disregarded, as such participants are likely to be unfamiliar with our standards for inclusion. bd2412 T 21:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SharkLinux[edit]

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

PROD was contested. This appears to be a non-notable Linux distribution. None of the sourcing I found when doing WP:BEFORE appears to get past the standards of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just mentioned in Linux blogs. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above; in addition the article is promotional in tone. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per DistroWatch.com, currently ranked 3rd among Linux Distributions in user ratings. Featured Review in Linux Format Magazine, issue 229 October, 2017. Release (last 'major') announcement published by DistroWatch.com, Linux Format Magazine (Australia) Issue 'Summer 2017' and republished by various online sources. Recently featured article for ECT News which ran on front pages of Linux Insider, TechNewsWorld and E-Commerce Times and republished by several independent outlets in at least 5 languages. Subject of DistroWatch Weekly Issue 717 feature story.

Linked to file detailing long list of sources as well as pdf versions of printed articles that may be unavailable or difficult to access online.^[1]

Re: Promotional tone - I recently edited the article reducing it to half the original size in an effort to address that concern after it was flagged for being promotional in tone. While the original editor who flagged seemed to accept the revision (has made edits since then and not issued flags) suggestions or edits to further improve the article are welcome and appreciated Marpet98 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A recognized Ubuntu darivative. User material can be found in several languages and mediums (Radio/Podcast^[2], Video^[3], Print^[4] and Website^[5]) Zakwelsin (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability as per above Ivanthetolerable (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made this page when SharkOS was made top 10. It was the only one in the list with no page. I didnt think it broke policy. If I am not allowed to vote please ignore. I read the policy on delete and understood none if it. Delwatson (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sugardaddie.com[edit]

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

fails WP:WEBCRIT. this looks like an advert for the site. the coverage is mainly tabloid in nature. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Not enough indepth sources. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a source of free advertising. Insufficient indicia of any actual notability. Montanabw^(talk) 02:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; entirely promotional in nature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Nangle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced WP:AUTOBIO (compare creator's username to the name of the subject's studio in the "later career" section) of an artist. The references are mostly contextlessly listed at the bottom, rather than properly footnoting the article's content, and virtually all of them are non-notability-assisting crap: three are unreliable sources, three are dead links, one is a mere blurb about him in a listicle, one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about something else, three are either self-published or directly affiliated primary sources, and one is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself rather than being objectively talked about or analyzed by other people -- and literally the only one that actually counts as a reliable source at all just tangentially verifies the existence of another artist's work while completely failing to verify that Nangle had anything to do with it. None of the sources here constitute evidence that he passes WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. AUTOBIO continues beyond the creator's first username into his second incarnation as (User:Etidorhpaunderground), following a uw-softerblock on 28 Dec 2015. Comments from the first AfD are still relevant. On sources: Note that just "being an artist" doesn't usually mean he is automatically a "notable artist" worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. His closest claim to fame seems to be that he shared the workshop with a notable artist (who in turn was only deemed notable following the controversy surrounding the removal of his 9/11 memorial artwork by the owners). Loopy30 (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced WP:AUTOBIO, fails encyclopedic notability. If these are the best sources the subject/creator could find for himself, I'm just going to assume there aren't enough independent reliable sources out there to justify this page. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I now think this should also be semi-protected per below exchange with article subject. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin and we don't do autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I personally didnt write any of this, my assistants did it, as this is the studio account they started to do just that,and they thought it was a good project. Aside from the fact that all of the above reasons fail to be compelling enough to "prove im not a known artist" which is of course ridiculous, (I didnt "share a space" with Tobin, I physically made his artwork for the past 25 years,as well as many other artists. how is it possible to NOT talk about myself in a QUESTION and ANSWER interview?! etc.etc.) I do not care one way or another if there is Wikipedia article about my work,in fact i am uncomfortablehaving any attention,that's why i dont have a website or social media(another reason my helpers used to convince me to do this). In light of the fact that I have been invited by the Delaware Museum of Contemporary Art to show in Feb 2018 its probably best to not have this embarrassingly written,controversial and awful representation online. i also would question johnpacklambert's ability as an editor if the most they could come up with was that this 'isnt LInkdin' instead of identifying actual content problems ,as all the other editors here have, I appreciate all the work that real editors do here and find it lazy when someone isnt actually contributing ,but rather complaining. We all know that I actually would qualify for a BLP as an artist/composer, since my career is very well documented online and all one has to do is google my name to find out that information. My assistants wanted me to have recognition in my fields and they also felt that i lacked any coherent biographical information online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etidorhpaunderground (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why you felt it appropriate to insult other editors and claim you satisfy encyclopedic notability, if even you agree this article should be deleted. Responding to AfDs is real work. I spend time evaluating each page to determine if I believe it meets Wikipedia’s criteria before commenting here. I agree with the comment that “this isn’t LinkedIn”, it’s just a different way of saying that this has a real content problem that fails WP:AUTOBIO and WP:GNG. LinkedIn is where people go to promote themselves, Wikipedia isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be). I fully expect this article to be deleted, but now also think it should be semi-protected so you and your assistants don’t come back and try to recreate it given your insistence you do “qualify for a BLP” and only want it deleted until February. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you really do not want me to be included in an encyclopedic context for some reason? that doesn't seem very professionally detached,and it also supposes that i may never,which would mean that you may think youre clairvoyant. I did not know what linkdin is firsthand, so i cant speak to its uses,I feel that using what something is NOT(linkedin) to define what it should be is confusing and lazy. also a straw man argument. I dont believe that my assistants felt the need to try to garner attention for our studio or my artworks through Wikipedia. Last i checked criticism is supposed to make things better,not to be taken as an insult. i do not have an account at Linkedin, nor do i seek to promote myself. i am an artist that is engaged in my work, that is it. if you feel the need to 'block' me or my studios assistants based on the fact that i took umbrage with another editor then it shows that you're not as detached as you'd portray yourself to be. a good editor is neutral and has no affinity nor disdain for its subject. So are you now going to take an action based on you disagreeing with my assessment of another editor? that's a slippery slope. I stated above that I WANT IT DELETED . i never said UNTIL February. Its not a very prfessional,or well written piece and it fails the content organization that is required for WIKI standards. please refrain from personally attacking me and assuming that you know my intentions it's really counterproductive. Instead you can just ask me and i can answer you ,or you can re-read what i wrote above. I had NO idea that this write up my staff did was formatted so poorly, i dont use social media or the computer except in the context of my work for research etc. i had assumed that Michele had done a better job of following WIKI gudielines and also had written a less disjointed and rambling write up of my work. She directed my attention to some vandalism that she removed and that is when i saw your comments.In the future please try to remember that not everyone has bad intentions,some of us are just trying to do the best we can and make great work. *I see now after writing the above that you have indeed taken the vindictive step of requesting that our studio not be able to write about anything that may happen in the future,very unprofessional and very disappointing step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etidorhpaunderground (talk • contribs) 15:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, qualifying for a Wikipedia article is entirely a matter of being the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to satisfy WP:GNG. There's nothing that any artist's article can claim that confers automatic inclusion rights if the article isn't properly sourced — it's not what you've done that determines whether you get an article or not, but how much media coverage you did or didn't get for doing what you've done. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pál Kadosa[edit]

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

Delete: unsourced article basically comprised of name dropping; notability not established. Quis separabit? 01:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are fairly substantial and sourced articles in French and Hungarian that can be used to expand this with non-English language sources. I'm also seeing mentions in English like this and this, which suggest that he was a fairly important figure in WWII era Hungarian music and in at least one case politics, even if he wasn't widely known outside of Hungary. Along with scores of passing mentions in English, mostly apparently related to his musical contributions or students, and what appear to be a substantial body of non-English mentions (which I can't thoroughly evaluate), this is enough for me to say this probably need attention and not deletion. GMG ^talk 13:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this nomination is nonsense. Definitely notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to those encyclopedias already mentioned in the article, he has dedicated entries in Grove. 12 other Wikipedias have an article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Consensus that only a clean up is needed. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Byock[edit]

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

Non-notable academician. Article seems to have been created as an advert. Created by a now-blocked user and heavily edited by another editor whose ID suggests he is himself the subject of the article (essentially turning it into a resume).

I PRODded it, but the PROD was removed by a newly-registered editor as his or her only edit. The comment by that editor ("i am so happy to see this page updated! I have read most of jesse byock's books and I believe all the information to be correct. don't know why there seemed to be a problem with the page") does not address the basic problem of nonnotability. TJRC (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article at the moment is in all kinds of a bad way, although before the possible-COI editor got involved it wasn't a complete mess. That said, if I'm not mistaken, the subject does pass NACADEMIC standards due to the positions he holds/has held. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^Hi, I'm the user whose id you think suggests that I am Jesse Byock. Unfortunately, I am not. I am his greatest fan and hence I decided to use the username Jessebyock and his his page to everything I have researched about the guy. But if my actions have cause the page to be flagged for deletion, I apologize. I don't know why you think it's been turned as a resume since I just listed his achievements in the academia world. I am happy to delete my username if this helps clear up the mess I have made! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessebyock (talk • contribs) 13:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not Jesse Byock, you will need to change your username ASAP. (usernames cannot be deleted). I have posted instructions on how to do this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that this page shouldn't be deleted. If anything, it should be made to look less like a resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubone5 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this person does seem to pass notability standards(as BigHaz states), though the article needs to be radically rewritten. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs a lot more clean-up. With the credits to the history channel and his notability in the field he meets GNG. VViking_TalkEdits 13:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presley Martono[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT the competition is not fully professional and WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Formula Renault seems to be a professional circuit, so I'm unsure how WP:NMOTORSPORT #1 doesn't apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is prize money but only the 1st 3 in the championship win anything 150k€ 100k€ and 50k€. This does not fulfill the criteria 1 which says . Have driven in a race in a fully professional series. A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. For example, the SCCA Trans-Am Series is considered professional while the SCCA Spec Miata National Championship isn't. Domdeparis (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. That would mean that criterion does not apply and the lack of other WP:RS results in Delete. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. My AfD log insists' I !voted, so why make it a liar. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No opposition has been raised to deletion. The comment regarding potential copyvio issues certainly does not weigh against deletion either. bd2412 T 20:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Arnt Håkon Ånesen[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable per WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 10:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. TomasLPettersen is indeffed for copyright violations, with a CCI open at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20170921. If this article is kept, some or all of it will need to be presumptively removed and rewritten. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in Afghanistan[edit]

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

wp:crystal. No useful content that isn't predictive ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: CRYSTAL. Having had a look over all these (very brief articles) on 2018 in a certain country, they all seem to be by the same user of Wikipedia (GAJJR). To save time, I shall just say here that I think we should delete all of them - none of them say very much. Vorbee (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Not much else to add to what has been said above. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole series as one under WP:NOTFUTURE and WP:SNOW. Come back in at least 3 months when something notable has actually happened in each country. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal and possibly too soon. Lorstaking (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Technically nom is correct, however this will be created in this form in less than 3 months (assuming the world doesn't end prior to 2018, and the country still exists). Similar articles were created in years past prior to the year beginning.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in Albania[edit]

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

wp:crystal. Too soon to have an article with unsubstantiated info ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. WP:NOTFUTURE (WP:SNOW!) Nick Moyes (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Technically nom is correct, however this will be created in this form in less than 3 months (assuming the world doesn't end prior to 2018, and the country still exists). Similar articles were created in years past prior to the year beginning.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. A Train^talk 06:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in Iran[edit]

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

Per WP:crystal - no way to guarantee that these people will still be in office, and no other content ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. WP:NOTFUTURE (WP:SNOW!) Nick Moyes (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Technically nom is correct, however this will be created in this form in less than 3 months (assuming the world doesn't end prior to 2018, and the country still exists). Similar articles were created in years past prior to the year beginning.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, even though this is going to be recreated in the last week of Dec. I think these lists should have scheduled (backed up by RS) events, like the Olympics or a national election or stuff like that. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. A Train^talk 06:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in Israel[edit]

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

List of incumbents is against wp:crystal as it is not certain to happen, and there is no other useful content. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Technically nom is correct, however this will be created in this form in less than 3 months.Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. WP:NOTFUTURE (WP:SNOW!) Nothing in an encyclopaedia should predict the future without WP:RS. So revert to draft or recreate in 3 months after something notable has actually happened.Nick Moyes (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, even though this is going to be recreated in the last week of Dec. I think these lists should have scheduled (backed up by RS) events, like the Olympics or a national election or stuff like that. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. A Train^talk 06:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in North Korea[edit]

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

WP: crystal, no lead ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. WP:NOTFUTURE (WP:SNOW!) Nothing in an encyclopaedia should predict the future without WP:RS. So revert to draft or delete and come back in 3 months when something notable has actually happened. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Technically nom is correct, however this will be created in this form in less than 3 months (assuming the world doesn't end prior to 2018, and the country still exists). Similar articles were created in years past prior to the year beginning.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, even though this is going to be recreated in the last week of Dec. I think these lists should have scheduled (backed up by RS) events, like the Olympics or a national election or stuff like that. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Enjoy your three-month vacation, 2018 in Cuba. A Train^talk 06:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in Cuba[edit]

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

WP:Crystal. How do we know Raul Castro will still be in power, still be alive in 2018? And other than that, there is no content, other than stating the assumption that Cuba will exist in 2018. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. WP:NOTFUTURE (WP:SNOW!) Nick Moyes (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Technically nom is correct, however this will be created in this form in less than 3 months (assuming the world doesn't end prior to 2018, and the country still exists). Similar articles were created in years past prior to the year beginning.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, even though this is going to be recreated in the last week of Dec. I think these lists should have scheduled (backed up by RS) events, like the Olympics or a national election or stuff like that. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy King[edit]

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

Already tagged as possibly not meeting notability guidelines. Only two sources and no real claims of notability in the article. Nerd1a4i (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's profiled in a book, Cravo na Carne: Fama e Fome, and written up in several Portuguese news sources. She passes GNG. I couldn't add all sources because I'm not fluent in Portuguese, but I did add some to the article. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MLG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plenty of sources, just needs a Portuguese-speaker to expand the article from them. PamD 11:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. It's snowing.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Smallwood[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Orangemike created a nomination page, but somehow it was broken, so I decided to delete it and create it anew. His original rationale was as follows:

Non-notable poet; winner of a handful of obscure awards we don't have articles about, some of which I can't even figure out who awards them (the "coveted Silver Sow Award" syndrome).

I'm neutral. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - Was considered notable last time around (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Smallwood), and I don't see what ought to make us reconsider. Looks like she passes WP:NAUTHOR to me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its obvious she passes the WP:CREATIVE (WP:NAUTHOR) notability criteria.

To @Orangmike: The article says: "She won the National Federation of State Poetry Societies Award.[1] Smallwood also was awarded the Franklin-Christoph Poetry Contest Winner title, and the Eric Hoffer Award for Prose" um... the awarding bodies are in the titles? This is incredibly obvious, I can't believe you can't figure that out. Dysklyver 14:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike, see above comment, which meant to ping you but failed because of a typo. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems rather a suitable article to me about someone whose achievements are well worthy of consideration. In terms of reviews of her work WP:AUTHOR seems to have been met so I won't worry my little head about awards. Thincat (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes NAUTHOR. Plenty of critical reception for her work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:NAUTHOR notability since she has well-known work. Mvocab (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reason as the past AfD. She meets notability, easy as that. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the substance. The reviews are obscure and often by people she works with, the awards even more so. I honestly don't see the notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Boulevard[edit]

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

No notability asserted, no sourcing found. Deprodded as part of a former major highway, but notability is not inherited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In doing a 5 minute Google search I already found these: [52][53][54][55] I recommend the nominator withdraw this. --Rs chen 7754 00:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Colorado Boulevard is one of the most iconic streets in the country due to the Rose Parade, and then there's the "Little Old Lady", Arroyo Seco Bridge [56], Route 66, etc. Additional sources include [57], [58]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources to be found, as shown above, and a major part of Pasadena's history. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and existence of multiple reliable sources. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arxiloxos: And those sources will magically add themselves to the article overnight, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per existence of multiple sources, as well as notable monuments and events (with their own articles) that are closely tied to the road. Sounder Bruce 21:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TPH, you should know better than this. With no needed research we know this is an iconic street and multi-town thoroughfare and is most of the route of the Rose Parade.--Oakshade (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foothill Boulevard (Southern California)[edit]

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

No notability asserted. Tagged for sources since 2007 without a single change. Prod declined as highway is part of a former major route, but that does not transfer notability to this individual part of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and recommend withdrawal. In a 5 minute Google search I found the following: [59][60][61][62][63] --Rs chen 7754 00:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: and these sources will magically add themselves to the article now that you've found them, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not relevant to this discussion. --Rs chen 7754 01:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754:Yes it is. Every time I start an AFD and someone finds sources, no one ever bothersto add the sources, because everyone is expecting everyone else to do it. so the article is kept, and then five years later it still looks like shit because no one ever bothered to add the sources. You'd think if it were so goddamned notable, someone would've done something by now, but no, it's just an endless game of hot potato. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it is relevant to the discussion because you're personally frustrated. I get that the article is not that good right now, but so are so many others. --Rs chen 7754 01:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as another editor observed, multiple reliable sources are available. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources to be found, and AfD is not cleanup. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelbystripes: @TheCatalyst31: Again, are you going to add those sources, or are you just going to pass the buck too? If it's so fucking notable, then FUCKING FIX IT. Don't expect someone else to do it for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer:, I hope you realize this isn't how AfDs work. I might actually come back and work on it at some point. But I don't expect anyone to fix it "for me" because I don't WP:OWN the page, nor does any one editor. If it offends you so much that the references haven't been worked in yet, why don't you fix it since references were already helpfully provided to you? My "Keep" vote stands regardless. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelbystripes: See above. Because I see this happen all the time in articles: someone digs up sources, the article is kept because those sources exist, but no one ever gets around to adding them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer:, then perhaps you should hold an RFC on changing the criteria for AfD, because this is not how AfDs currently work. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage and I see no reason why TenPoundHammer couldn't add the sources to the article. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: I see no reason why anyone else can't, either, but apparently everyone in this AFD thinks the sources will just add themselves. Because that's totally how this fucking works, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the sources will add themselves, which is why I suggested that you add them since you have expressed the concern that they will not otherwise be added. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable != notable. --Rs chen 7754 18:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TPH, it is difficult to believe you are truly concerned about the sources being added if you refuse to do so yourself. Lepricavark (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's notability is defined outside of Wikipedia. The relevant entry in WP:ATA is WP:NOIMPROVEMENT, which states, "Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles." Unscintillating (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: "blah blah blah I'm too lazy to add the sources myself, but I'm gonna scream that it's notable because it's notable". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer:, personal attacks are inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for discussing AfDs, please stop. Also, "I'm going to say that it's notable because it's notable" is a truism. If it's notable, editors are supposed to say it's notable and it is supposed to be kept based on editor consensus on notability. You are welcome to improve the articles yourself if you are so concerned about their current state. References were already found for you. But either way, please cease the personal attacks before this has to be escalated. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: I know you well enough to know that your attacks, to the extent that they are attacks, are not personal. But now look at what happened to the work I did after one of your nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Prill (2nd nomination). Here is the result of my work in improving that article after your AfD: Johnny Prill, which is a red link. So if you want articles improved, AfD is an ineffective way to do it. Unscintillating (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also have no intention of adding the sources but that is irrelevant, because they are there, It would be funny if in 5 years time this comes back up and the sources have disappeared from the internet because no one added them to the page and the links above rotted. -_- Dysklyver 21:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I understand TenPoundHammer's frustration: I have added some of the sources that some other users quoted above. It'd have been jolly nice if they'd add them themselves - I've nominated several AfDs which have been kept with the rationale "sources exist". They're not going to add themselves are they? Sheesh, I'll do the rest in the morning. DrStrauss talk 20:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have liked to. I would like to get all the 200+ California road articles to GA, in fact. But this is a volunteer project after all, and surprisingly, I have a life outside Wikipedia that gives me more important demands. --Rs chen 7754 00:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Wikipedians have lives? :P DrStrauss talk 12:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the existing sources, not to mention one of the long-important arteries of southern California. TPH, you need to understand that GNG only requires the existence or sources indicating notability, not that they're actually in the article. Wikipedia:Deletion policy makes it explicitly clear that article improvement should be done rather than deleting. Yes, your frustration is about article improvement, but simply throwing articles of notable topics up for AfD just because of their current state is a form WP:DISRUPT. Yes, frequently WP is underachieving in terms of quality articles and we are in need of more editors, but attempting to delete such articles makes the problem worse. Not-great articles of notable topics are much more preferred than no articles. While you can charge everyone here with "FUCKING FIX IT", if you're so upset at the current state of an article you come across, we might say the same for you. Instead of AfD, practice WP:SOFIXIT. --Oakshade (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per existing sources and WP:NOIMPROVEMENT.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Madre Boulevard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, minimal sourcing at best. Previous AFD from 2006 closed as "no consensus" Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without any verifiability concerns, the sourcing isn't really being challenged. Being a road that is on TV once a year every year on New Year's Day in the US makes it an object of familiarity across the US. As per our article, "Originally started on January 1, 1890, the Rose Parade is watched in person by hundreds of thousands of spectators on the parade route...is broadcast on multiple television networks in the United States...[and]...is seen by millions more on television worldwide in more than 100 international territories and countries." Unscintillating (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Unscintillating comment above. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Unscintillating above. Worst case scenario should be a merge to Sierra Madre (Pacific Electric), which is intimately related to this road and which clearly passes GNG. I simply don't see how a deletion here improves the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the record, Sierra Madre College (est. 1884) is a redlink. Carrite (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]