< 7 October	9 October >

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 08:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RaiBlocks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-noteable crypto-currency. Comatmebro (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage in reliable sources. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no one seems to be writing about this product/service. I searched news stories and found none. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable currency, ranking 211th on this website. No significant independant news coverage and not worthy of retention. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing any coverage in reliable sources. Also, a ranking of 211 in cryptocurrency indicates this page is for promotional purposes, for which Wikipedia is not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cryptocurrency as a legit search term. No convincing reasons raised above to delete or keep. gidonb (talk) 04:24, 16 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 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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Fleming (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The article doesn't appear to disambiguate anything, as far as I can see! JezGrove (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - no indication that either Marjorie or Peggy is known as Margaret. PamD 23:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now has several valid entries.Pam D 11:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked for other possible entries and found four, all meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Now added, so it has five valid entries plus two see also. Nothing to be gained from deletion for the reader. Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case Keep, then. JezGrove (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is anyone able to close this now, as nominator has withdrawn nomination and only other delete vote has also been retracted after the page was improved? Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Morley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE type sources. WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NHOCKEY with not playing long enough in a well covered league and only a NCAA conference All-Star award, not an All-American Team. (Also created by a user who made tons of these pages that have since been deleted.) Yosemiter (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY, no other evidence of encyclopedic notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 23:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG after doing a search. And they also fail to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. I'll note, however, that the user in question has created a handful of good pages in between the tons of bad ones, so we should be careful not to delete this or any other page he created just because he created it. We need to consider each page on its own merits of whether it passes NHOCKEY or GNG. This fails both, so delete. Smartyllama (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: The user in question made lots of sub-stubs for many subjects. I would actually argue that many of them were notable, but it was usually left to others to make it appear that way. The user made lots of bad ones, as seen by the 250+ notifications on their talk page since 2015. Since the user in question created pages indiscriminately and left a mess behind, we hopefully we are only questioning those that are borderline (such as this example) to obscenely bad (usually via prod). Yosemiter (talk) 20:00, 12 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Agarwal[edit]

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

Biography of a singer, has serious issues with promotional tone. Sourcing effectively to a single article in indiatoday (a duplicate article in the dailymail india also exists.

There is a list of links to YouTube, Facebook, Soundcloud, iTunes and Gaana which offer no biographical information whatsoever.

An attempt at WP:BEFORE yielded no usable results.

I recognize that there is a claim to notability in winning the Grand Prix at the International World Music Festival. I have added a source for that claim.

I don't see that she meets any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles besides #10. The article would have to be completely rewritten, and there appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources to base an article on.Mduvekot (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:CREATIVE and significant RS coverage not found. Reads like a fan page with copy such as:

"The beautiful interplay of her crystal clear voice and heart touching compositions are a delight to hear!" Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:50, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edureka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertorial with only the selectively specific information of a press release thus our fundamental policies apply, WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy; the arguments previously said are essentially It's important and or There's sourcing but the fundamental policies outweigh this entirely. Once we accept promotional articles where press releases are cited and the information is trivial, it's not satisfying the criteria of an encyclopedia article and the last 2 deletions say this equally well. Source 10 is especially a questionable one as to what "Coolest" actually signifies. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is heavily promotional in tone. Alexius08 (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotion for an unremarkable private company that is just going about its business. The awards listed are not significant and well known. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, so "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 12 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Alex Shih, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ecwid[edit]

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

Part of a 2015 CU-confirmed sockfarm and this is so highly obvious of it, it could easily qualify as G11 and there's nothing suggesting the massive overhaul it would need. Once we start becoming lenient on advertisements, it would send the welcoming sign that we tolerate, but that couldn't be further from the case. Our Terms of Use matter a lot deeper than any suggestive guidelines on the 'possibility of an article, and since the violations here were clearly made to show exactly that, there's no questions about what happened. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion for strong promotional tone. Alexius08 (talk) 10:14, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A Train^talk 08:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Leigh McGuire[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as the first transgender candidate to run for, but not win, city council in one specific city. This is not a notability claim that passes WP:NPOL -- a person needs to win election and thereby hold office, not just run and lose, to claim notability as a politician, and being the first member of an underrepresented minority group to run and not win does not constitute a free notability boost over everybody else who ran and didn't win either -- but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get over WP:GNG in lieu: the citations here are exclusively to local media in her own city, not to any evidence of nationalized coverage, and the number of sources here simply falls within what could be routinely expected to exist for anybody running in a city council election. There's also a likely conflict of interest here, if you compare the creator's username to the name of the subject's son who wrote a theatrical play about her. There's simply not enough substance, or enough sourcing, here to deem her notable just for running for city council and losing. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG. There is no policy against local coverage and she has had plenty over time. The coverage on McGuire is hardly routine. Whether we like it or not, an openly transgender person running for office or being prominent in Texas was noteworthy and she was therefore covered. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy that local coverage is always deprecated in principle, in the sense that if a person passes a subject-specific inclusion guideline then we don't care how local or non-local the sourcing is. But there is a rule that if a person doesn't pass any subject-specific inclusion test, and instead you're going for "notable per WP:GNG just because media coverage exists", then purely local coverage isn't enough to get there unless perhaps you can show a lot more of it than this. If this volume of purely local coverage were enough to pass GNG, we would have to keep an article about every single person who ever ran and lost in every city council election in every city on earth, because such people are always the subject of every bit as much WP:ROUTINE local coverage as has actually been shown here. For that matter, if this volume of purely local coverage were enough to pass GNG, we would have to keep an article about my parents' neighbour who once got into the papers for finding a pig in her yard. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m the author of the article and Kathryn’s son so I hope I can clarify a few issues.

As for conflict of interest, the reason stated by Wikipedia for not writing about family members is that this could create a biased article. I agree with this. Wikipedia has extensive articles about autobiographies, but I only found suggestions about writing for family members, friends and foes. So I found an outside source, a blog called, “A Gender Variance of Who’s Who” https://zagria.blogspot.ae/2012/02/#.WdzPQYXTQqa and simply re-worded the person’s, Zagria’s, article about my father from this source. Indeed, this is where I got the idea to do a Wikipedia article in the first place. “A Gender Variance of Who’s Who” is in creative commons and its author allows the public to cut and paste portions of the work. Would it be simply easier to use the article from this blog?

When Kathryn McGuire ran for public office as an open transvestite, the coverage wasn’t “standard” at all. Kathryn was already a prominent socialite and this garnered national coverage. Kathryn was featured in at least two national television shows, A Current Affair and Inside Edition. National tabloids also featured Kathryn in the election and not the other candidates. I have hard copies of these, but I can’t find access to them on the web. Remember, this was a time before the Internet. I do think (maybe it’s my bias) that the person of any minority group who was the first to run is significant. Are you seriously telling me that you wouldn’t want to know who the first African American to run for political office was? Thank you everyone for posting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdirect (talk • contribs) 15:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we might very well want to know who the first African American (or the first woman, or the first LGBT person) to run for political office in overall US history was, if and only if they'd been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass GNG for the fact (a condition which is necessary because we have gotten tripped up in the past by single-sourced claims of firstness that turned out to be wrong once somebody dug harder than the original source had done). But there's no reason why we would want or need to maintain thousands of individual articles about every individual person who was merely the first African American person (or the first woman, or the first LGBT person) to run for but not win a city council seat in their own particular city. And Wikipedia does not have a requirement that our sources be web-accessible — as long as the citations are present in the article and not just claimed to exist without being shown, we are allowed to cite print-only sources, such as books or archived newspaper coverage. But what we're not allowed to do is to confer notability because of tabloid coverage — A Current Affair and Inside Edition were tabloid shows, not reliable or notability-assisting news programs. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep WP:NPOL obviously doesn't apply here. WP:GNG looks to be met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is GNG met here? Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few passing references to a candidate for public office are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Individual has adequate coverage to pass GNG. Houston is a major metro area and to run as transgender was truly groundbreaking. Adequate sources, though article can always be improved and expanded. Montanabw^(talk) 06:31, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A Train^talk 08:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blippar[edit]

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

A clear company advertisement with policy WP:PROMO concerns including promotionalism being removed, only to be immediately added, which is policy-based deletion alone; article has clear company-advertising information including similar mirrors by their own website; notability cannot be inherited from others, certainly not casual partners or clients. When 1 account heavily focuses on an article especially when it's business content, we can obviously say the company is responsible since that's the field of public relations and what it serves. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's on the verge of being qualified for a G11. Alexius08 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the page does not comply with the rules, let's rewrite in a neutral point of view the sections that feel promotional instead of deleting the entire page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankieG56 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – blatantly promotional and unencyclopedic. An advertisement, contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Main contributors are undeclared WP:COI editors in violation of Wikimedia Foundation terms of service. Many unreliable sources. Citobun (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks notability. News coverage appears to be brief and just about basics of company, no substantial recognition. Brian-armstrong (talk) 04:09, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EM Client[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contains little if any encyclopedic content. Seems to Fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Article seems to be mostly original research WP:OR. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep NPASR No reason is given for revisiting this topic. Unscintillating (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the same discussion as Courier (email client) and Libremail. Rhadow (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AfD was 4 years ago, so renomination is not an issue. There are many sources (of variable quality) listed in the previous AfD, I will review these later. Pavlor (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After review of the sources. Em Client seems to be of the Czech origin, which explains plenty of Czech sources about this application. Now sources:

[1] Mid-size PCWorld review (2012)
[2] Mid-size heise.de news article, there is also review in ct magazine (among other such applications; 17/2014), but behind pay-wall, so I can´t verify extent of that coverage.

Several zive.cz articles:

[3] - about start of development (2008)
[4] - Mid-size news (2010), mentions review in Computer 2/09 magazine
[5] - solid looking article about features (2011)

Two news items on chip.cz (personal and corporate edition): [6], [7] (2017) Pavlor (talk) 16:06, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Paul Thomas[edit]

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

Non-notable startup guy who is the chief revenue officer for a video doorbell company that has got some press in the States. Currently it fails WP:NOT on several points (promotional, simple directory listing) and it also fails the relevant notability standards (BIO, GNG, ANYBIO). Deletion is the best option here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - maybe Skybell will be notable enough someday to warrant its own page, but even then this guy won’t also need one. He’s just a typical entrepreneur. Way too many of these guys for them all to warrant inclusion just because they raised some money on Kickstarter. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is with more and more CXO titles. CEO, CFO and COO were understandable. But Chief Revenue Officer?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A currently non-notable entrepreneur. Fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A Train^talk 08:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turnpike (software)[edit]

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Seems to Fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Article seems to contain large amounts of original research WP:OR and most statements cannot be verified WP:V. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I refute that the article contains little encyclopaedic content; it seems to me well-written, and a compact description of the subject. It may not contain as many references as it could, but the notability guidelines clearly state that the number of links/references in itself does not determine whether a subject is "notable": it is the subject itself, rather than the quality of the article on it, that determines notability. As such, I would consider the Turnpike suite a worthy subject for inclusion in Wikipedia; the fact that it is no longer being developed or supported (by its manufacturers; it is still well supported by users) could equally be applied to Outlook Express.

Disambiguation, redirection, or merging do not seem appropriate in this case. G6JPG (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC) 2017-10-8[reply]

Comment Article lists two reviews in published magazines (both based in UK). However, I was not able to find coverage in other magazines outside the UK. Hard to judge, there are some RS, but not available online, so one can´t use them to improve the article. Pavlor (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is likely to have been little, if any, media coverage outside the UK, since the product was not I think ever marketed outside the UK. That it was purely a UK phenomenon does not, presumably, of itself make it non-notable. I imagine that most of the UK magazines of the mid to late 1990s would have reviewed the product, but most of them don't have online archives and so their contents are not readily available. JH (talk page) 07:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Turnpike was clearly notable. It was bought and promoted in about 1996 or 1997 by Demon when that company was - for a brief period - the largest ISP in the UK, so that Turnpike was probably used in the late 1990s by more UK Internet users than any other software. I don't have a source to back up putting that in the article, but "I was there" so to speak. The article could certainly do with improvement, but finding references from computer magazines over 20 years old and in many cases now defunct won't be easy. Added later: I've now managed to unearth some stuff to beef up the article a little and give it more by way of references. See what you think. JH (talk page) 07:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Wikipedia article notes:
Amongst its early reviews were those in the magaizines Everyday Practical Electronics in November, 1995 and PC Format in Spring 1997.^[1]^[2] The Easy Net book by Keith Teare, published at the end of 1995, contained a brief review of version 1.03 of Turnpike, which had been released in July of that year.^[3]
References
1. ^ Everyday Practical Electronics, November 1995, "Special Review, Turnpike for Windows" by Alan Winstanley, pp892-893.
2. ^ PC Format CD Gold Special, Spring 1997, "Turnpike", p97.
3. ^ Googlebooks extract from The Easy Net book by Keith Teare, Dec 1995, ISBN 978-18503222528Retrieved 9 October 2017
With three reviews, the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 19:12, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1: Nominator acknowledges that the article is in fact notable, and the only other concern offered (but itself not an argument for deletion) was WP:TNT. This no longer applies as the article has been reverted back to a stable and long pre-existing version. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 18:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert B. Cohen[edit]

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

Notable subject, but such a bad article that "blow it up" comes rapidly to mind. Anmccaff (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep This older version [8] is fine, and he's clearly notable. I suggest the nominator withdraw. E Eng 17:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indisputably notable as a state legislator and a state Supreme Court justice. The article has been reverted back to an acceptable version, and is on my watch list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The need for watchlisting ought to be obvious. See below. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To this group:

I am a copywritten, professional, visual artist and writer, who happens to be the Granddaughter of Herbert Cohen.

I did not realize that a family member could not update a section with historically accurate information. (I had been told by others that I could do so, and had not researched this beforehand).

I have been putting together a biography of my Grandfather, and everything posted is fully documented on government sites and in newspapers. There is a deep and large archive covering my Grandfather's political and legal career in the York County Heritage and Trust Museum.

Further, there is no reason for a link to "For Sir Herbert Benjamin Cohen, 2nd baronet, see Cohen baronets," to be at the top of this section. That has nothing at all to do with my Grandfather. There is no historical connection at all.

Additionally, in the reference section, there is a link to "Noted York Family...," an article in the York Daily Record that includes misstatements of fact, (as well as historical omission). For example, "Noted York Family..." states that Herbert Cohen's son, Donn I. Cohen, attended U. of Penn Law School. That is incorrect. Donn Cohen attended Harvard Law School, and of course that is documented at Harvard.

Lastly, my work is original and my art and writing, as stated, have been copywritten in the U.S. Library of Congress on a number occasions.

If I can provide the historical documentation of my Grandfather's career to another Wikipedia contributor, so that this section can be updated, accurately, by that person, (not myself,) I would appreciate it.

Very best regards,

Jane Rubin

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 08:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Votiro[edit]

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

WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid (legal policy) apply, since the history shows clear signs of undisclosed paid contributing and any potential signs is cause for deletion alone; current sources are all still only company announcements, mentions, quotes, interviews, etc. An article could easily be improvable but not when the mere foundation is consisting of promotionalism, something that is contrary to an encyclopedia. Also, instances like this show promotionalism has been removed but to no serious help to the article. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another cyber startup. Had a 9m usd round in 2017. Coverage does exist, but not enough.Icewhiz (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP we can find several good news about subject.i think its notable for wikipediaAmirdaeii (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to know what those sources are, otherwise the closing admin will see this comment as WP:ILIKEIT. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete textbook promotion for nn company. Created, fully formatted, in first edit of brand new account [9], full of unreferenced product features and bulleted lists of nn awards. See WP:Identifying PR. Wikipedia is WP:NOT free publicity for tech startups or anything else. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:29, 11 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to COMSATS Institute of Information Technology. A Train^talk 07:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student Startup Business Center[edit]

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

I had boldly redirected to the parent group,COMSATS Institute of Information Technology but that's been contested, so bringing it here. Nothing notable enough for its own article. Currently it's simply a directory listing that would be excluded by WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Redirecting to the parent organization would be the best step at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to COMSATS Institute of Information Technology. Not inherently notable at all. Ajf773 (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with COMSATS Institute of Information Technology. I agree that redirecting this article to the parent organization would be the best outcome at this time. Vorbee (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Greenbörg (talk) 17:58, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Union, Progress and Democracy. A Train^talk 07:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Bezares Garrido[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NPOL. Spokesperson for a smaller party, not holding public office, maybe a personal PR effort Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Union, Progress and Democracy. No evidence of independent notability and all the WP:RS are really about the party. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect per Eggishorn would also be acceptable, though I'm more inclined to just delete.) Being a spokesperson for a political party can be enough for inclusion if the person is reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but it's not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — and the sources here aren't cutting it per GNG, either, as out of the five sources I can actually see none are substantive: three are just blurbs, and the other two are Q&A interviews in which he's the interviewee and not the subject. None of those are notability-assisting sources, so I don't have high hopes that the two deadlinks I can't see are any better. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Union, Progress and Democracy (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Retaining the history is useful to facilitate a very selective merge or to allow easy undoing of the redirect if new sources surface.
Cunard (talk) 19:26, 15 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 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. Lots of comments and some useful research but nobody taking any hard positions in the past six days suggests that we're not on the road to consensus. A Train^talk 07:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Neal (lawyer)[edit]

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

insufficient sources for notability.the various "superlawyer" awards are basically trivial. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for lawyers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's certainly not notable based on his career as a lawyer. I don't know what the guidelines are for notability of members of boards of directors; [10] and [11] suggest he might be notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll try to dig up some sources to better justify this, but Neal is an extremely high-profile attorney, as CEO of Cooley and as a prominent and successful white-collar crime litigator. He first came to my attention probably some twenty years ago in coverage of his successful appellate work for Charles Keating Jr.. Again, I'll update this later with some sources if I can find them, but I wanted to put a heads-up in here now.

I definitely agree with the nom on one point, though: those "superlawyers" mentions are always bullshit. The NLJ "top 100," though, is probably significant. TJRC (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep a CEO of a law firm with nearly $1bln in revenues; I hope the improvements promised above do come through. There's some coverage of Neal in Backfire: Carly Fiorina's High-Stakes Battle for the Soul of Hewlett-Packard. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the firm’s website, he isn’t even the CEO, not since 2008 at least. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete - Being the lead attorney on a couple of possibly notable cases doesn’t make you notable. Being included in these top X lists also doesn’t make you notable (especially Super Lawyers where the criteria is “top 5 percent” statewide). I don’t think being on the board of a couple companies makes you notable either, large companies have large boards with an array of competent but not always notable (in the WP sense) people, and being a single member of a board doesn’t mean you did anything notable on it. He’s not CEO of Cooley (see above). However, others here have claimed there’s more sources that would establish his notability otherwise, and if those are produced, I would change my vote to keep. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I've already !voted, above). Lexis-Nexis has a substantial story on him at [12]. On the "CEO" claim; that should be corrected in the article, and I'll do that (I've not previously edited it). He's Chairman, not CEO, per the Cooley site, but Chairman is at least as prominent a position as CEO. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

update: It appears he was CEO at the time that text was added. He became CEO in 2001 (and chairman at the same time? unclear) but stepped down from CEO position while remaining chairman, a position he still holds, in 2008. I've updated it accordingly, with references.

If the article is retained, it needs a bit of cleanup. I'm not sure I want to put that work into it if it's on the way to deletion, though. I may make additional edits relating to notability and accuracy, but no real clean-up for now. TJRC (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. Apologies if I'm talking too much here. Trying to nail down Neal's starting time as Cooley chairman, I was surprised to find that he's not merely a board member at Levi Strauss as the article had said; he's actually chairman of the board. I'm not always convinced that mere board membership conveys notability, but I think chairman of the board of a prominent company like Levi Strauss a pretty big deal (although, devil's advocate, Levi Strauss is a non-public company). In addition, he's chairman of the board of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and chairman of the board of trustees for the Monterey Bay Aquarium. I'd only heard of him as an attorney, so these were aspects I had been unaware of. I've updated the article with this. I think these points make him pretty clearly notable. TJRC (talk) 00:32, 10 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Garza[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and non-significant role in films. — Za wl 09:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of reliable sources for the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. -- Dane ^talk 00:32, 12 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bertram[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN local businessman, fails WP:BIO and the GNG going away. The only sources in the article namedrop him and quote him, but are not about him, or discuss him in any significant detail, as the GNG requires. Earlier AfD was on an unrelated hockey player. Ravenswing 10:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local real estate developer. I think this is a different Dan Bertram than the one on whom the other article was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the above statement that while the (few) cited references mention this person, they are not really about him - it seems that they only give passing mention of him. Vorbee (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:10, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Baik Sou-linne. Great catch, User:59.149.124.29 and User:24.151.10.165. A Train^talk 07:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baek Su Rin[edit]

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

Non-notable writer which fails WP:AUTHOR. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 10:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 13:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a duplicate or fork of Baik Sou-linne (Korean: 백수린). I do not know which is the better transliteration in English nor can I tell if Korean sources demonstrate notability. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baik Sou-linne as ((R from other spelling)). That spelling is the one on the cover of the book of hers that's been translated into English (ASIN B013W2OSWI) and in most sources [13][14], but for some reason the Korea Literary Translation Institute uses the spelling "Su Rin" instead [15]. The Korean-language sources at Baik Sou-linne seem sufficient to me to pass WP:N but if someone disagrees they should nominate that article separately. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:23, 11 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 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 07:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Sylvest[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, lack of coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 14:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Babu Adhikari[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Lack of coverage in reliable sources. Some of the sources don't even mention him and most are trivial. — Za wl 14:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Sources like this one, this one and this one make the subject notable and verified, and more so than most bios in Wikipedia. Plenty of sources on Highbeam as well. Neodop (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neodop has clearly refuted the arguments for deletion above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while Neodop has provided some coverage, it falls short of WP:MUSICBIO. Any major chartings? No. Any major reviews about his music and his musical life? No. These are just interviews and the like. DrStrauss talk 22:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Regarding WP:MUSICBIO , no official major charting exists for Nepali music. For major review, this one and this one are review about his song 'Raam Naam' and 'Dr KC anthem' respectively.So this satisfy the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 16:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Sourcing isn't notable... -- Dane ^talk 00:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm swayed by Amrit Ghimire Ranjit's point that, without any music charts to speak of in Nepal, we should consider other sources to avoid systemic bias here. There are some very good references here that suggest WP:GNG notability. Look at this profile video in The Diplomat: that's depth of coverage in a major publication. Here's a review of one of the subject's songs in the Kathmandu Post, one of the country's biggest newspapers. There are others. This article clearly meets the bar of the GNG. A Train^talk 07:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per arguments above -- this is a battle between the GNG and an SNG. Since Nepal doesn't have any music charts, meeting MUSICBIO is not possible. It's notable. The subject has received good coverage as a standard BLP. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 11:15, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep Charlene, no action on Barbara. No prejudice against re-nomination of Barbara Jackson (model), as that article was not discussed to any degree in the nomination or the subsequent debate. A Train^talk 07:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Dash[edit]

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

Non-notable model. Only trivial mentions can be found in sources but no significant coverage. — Za wl 15:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related article:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 16:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Battle of Versailles Fashion Show, which seems to be the claim to notability(that she was associated with a notable event). WP:BLP1E would seem to be relevant here. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's the norm to merge the biography of a random model to a fashion show article. It's not like the other model biographies are there. — Za wl 17:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say the page should just be a redirect. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near meeting notability requirements for models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apparently I A3d this several months ago, so it was on my watchlist. But I'm seeing:

An extensive interview in TIME
Pretty decent coverage here, which appears to be a fashion site of some sort
At least honorable mention in WaPo, and HuffPo
Admittedly brief mention in Ebony, but specifically calling her "one of the top black models in the nation"
Probably more than a dozen passing mentions with folks rattling off names of people who were important for some particular reason

Specifically the Ebony and Fashion bomb pieces (and finding things like this) make me expect there is likely to be substantial 60s and 70s era print coverage not available online. Overall, there's probably enough available for someone knowledgeable about fashion to write at least a decent few-paragraphs-long article. GMG ^talk 13:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this person became famous in the pre-google age but there are enough sources to establish notability. Someone needs to do more work here, but the Ebony source and WAPO both are significant. Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein. Commentary appears to only be about Charlene Dash thus far, and does not appear to include analysis of Barbara Jackson (model).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. So Why 06:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The majority of this article is composed of Dictionary definitions - and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I recommend the majority of the definitions which are valid and referenced are ported to Wikictionary, those which are clearly taken from the urban dictionary can be discarded. Aspects of the article talk about the law of profanity, censorship cases and a sex pistols album. These sections could be merged with the relevant main articles. I suggest the page is maintained as a redirect to either Profanity or testicles, or maintained as a disambiguation page. Dysklyver 12:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ignore all rules. 10,979 page views in the last thirty days as of this post. A functional article of functional use for Wikipedia's readers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um ok, but do we really need an article listing every way to use 'Bollocks' in a sentence? I realize we have articles on Fuck, Shit, Bullshit, Cunt, Twat, Dick, Faggot, Bitch, Bugger, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, Tranny, Prick, Bong, White nigger, Gook, Chink, Nigger, Sheep shagger, Wetback, Asshole etc, but there is no precedent here and most of these articles are little more than popular dictionary definitions borrowing material from all mentions of the word, I could literally write a article on any word with reasonable usage and it would be as good, so I suppose the question really is, why is WP:DICTDEF a policy?. Dysklyver 12:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We could probably manage with a redirect of Bollocks to Testicle, with a hatnote at the latter stating that Bollocks redirects here, with a link to nonsense as the other usage. I'm not convinced an etymology, definitions of every term that includes the work 'Bollocks', and tangential stuff about the Sex Pistols album makes an encyclopedia article - it's wiktionary material and stuff that's covered elsewhere. It's all bollocks, but it is encyclopedic? --Michig (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the article is rubbish (I was going to use the article title but an edit filter stopped me), being a collection of examples of the use of this word rather than any encyclopedic description. There might be some useful content in this paper, and I found this letter (the link only seems to work if you come from Google Scholar, for example here) interesting, but useless for our purposes. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that IP's using the 'bollocks' word is prohibited by an anti-vandal measure (I note your comments on the talk page). My point really is that the main 'topic' which the word is used to describe is Testicle, and any other usage / lists of usage is running into being a dictionary definition. the encyclopaedic topic of profanity (usage of any word, including this word, in a derogatory sense) is covered at Profanity. so really I can't see anything that can be made out of this as a standalone article. Dysklyver 13:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that (your first sentence) seems to be the case. I'm perfectly happy to forgo the privilege of using "naughty words", even if they are perfectly justified by the context. I would say that this word, at least here in Britain, is far more often used to mean "nonsense" than "testicles", even though the latter is the original meaning, so I don't think that testicle would be a good redirect target. And the use of this word to mean "nonsense", again here in the UK, is pretty routine, and only very mildly profane: nothing like as bad as most of the other taboo words that you list above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:DICTDEF is a policy, and it should be followed. Hence my !vote. The nom also asked why is WP:DICTDEF a policy, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. I do see a clear justification for not splitting this article up into individual elements, as has been suggested. The article is relatively well structured, setting the scene for the origins and use of this word, both its negative and positive applications and connotations and, significantly, some quite important social and legal contexts in which that word has huge relevance. e.g. the Sex Pistols prosecution and acquittal for obscenity over Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. To refer a reader from that article to a page primarily on the biology of the testicle would not be helpful, I feel. WP:DICTDEF includes the policy WP:WORDISSUBJECT, stating: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources... ...such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary...and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." This article does do that. The article also serves as a "lens" through which other topics are seen (see also Art Bollocks), and here again, this meets WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Mention of other articles in this nomination, whether in existence or not yet created are all WP:WAX. My one concern (though not relevant to this debate) is that the key reference to Wycliffe's 1382 bible is uncited, and this is all I can find so far, which doesn't quite tally. It would be a shame if that quoted use turned out to be Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the previous AfD was overwhelmingly Keep and contains plenty of solid arguments for keeping the page, which are just as convincing (to me, anyway) today. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:33, 10 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 06:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts of Jesus and Mary Parish[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the addition of a facebook and blog reference. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Simply another local church. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not have been flagged for deletion. The editor needs direction to find local print materials. WP's "Find sources" is obviously insufficient for articles related to the Philippines--Google Books, JSTOR, etc. to date only includes materials from US & European libraries. Prburley (talk)

Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and lacks reliable sources. Just another local church, and a relatively new one at that. No historic or encyclopedic notability here. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Like most local churches this looks utterly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. The page is a redirect, not an article, and should be discussed at Redirects for discussion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tutong (city)[edit]

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

Name is inaccurate - Tutong is a town, not a city. Also, it has been replaced with Tutong (town) Zulfadli51 (talk) 10:02, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endogenic and exogenic[edit]

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

1. as dab: 0 valid entries - both terms bypass this dab already and go straight to the articles 2. as article(s) we already have redirects to the two articles (which are borderline dictdefs which is the cause of this) Widefox; talk 10:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This started out as a stub comparing the two terms, as we still have Endogenous and exogenous in the Simple English Wikipedia, was converted to a DAB in 2010, but never grew beyond the two entries. With separate articles, there is no longer any need for this disambiguation article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A page that impedes navigation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but merge/redirect. Assuming a general article on either endogeny or exogeny is warranted (and I don't think this assumption has been challenged so far), then this should be a single broad-concept article that explains the various meanings/usages of the pair of terms, similar to what has been done for example at Horizontal and vertical. I can see the beginnings of such an article in the (misleadingly titled) Exogeny, and I guess the best course of action is to move that to Endogeny and exogeny and to redirect there, and start considering whether that shouldn't also be the target of Endogenous/Endogeny (the biological meaning doesn't look like a primary topic), and Endogeneity (is a separate dab page really needed?). – Uanfala 22:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since the title include both terms, it is not a valid disambiguation page. Plus, the difference between the terms should be obvious to those who arrive here, as they would likely know the meanings of all of the roots. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 12:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 12:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 12:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per WP:NOT#DICT (Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The Wikipedia articles endogenic and exogenic should explain the differences between the concepts. desmay (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the DAB page, without prejudice about the creation of a wide-topic article as Uanfala suggests, but the current contents will not help that. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the circs, an unhelpful article. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:24, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Shraddha Kapoor. Well, actually the consensus was "merge" but since the merge target now already includes the content, the only step of Wikipedia:Merging left to do is to redirect. So Why 06:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shraddha Kapoor Filmography[edit]

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

Too soon for a separate filmography page. Maybe in 3-4 years when she does more films. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge:~~ Much of the description in the article has already been described in Shraddha Kapoor. Nothing out of the extraordinary to merit a stand-alone article. Mark the train^Discuss 13:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I change my opinion to delete as the filmography in the main article has been restored to its original version. Mark the train^Discuss 11:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge no need for the extra article. gidonb (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON (Wikipedia too soon). She has a few major news pieces on her. In 3-5 years she will have more coverage.desmay (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While a well-known figure, there isn't enough content to warrant a unique article. Much of what is already there is rehashing the whos and whats of each film she was in.

"Aashiqui 2 also featured Aditya Roy Kapur in lead role. The movie was produced by Bhushan Kumar and Krishan Kumar under the banner of T-Series and Mukesh Bhatt and Mahesh Bhatt under the banner of Vishesh Films. The movie met with positive reviews all over and was a blockbuster and held a position of being into Top 10 Highest Grosser of 2013. The film managed to collect ₹ est. 1.09 Billion at the Box Office."

It's all filler that tells us little about the subject. Note that merging is as simple as reverting these edits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:17, 12 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A Train^talk 07:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yogendra Singh Rathore[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO lack of suitable refs to be found in independent pub Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I first thought it was someone related to Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, but it does not seem to be the case. There is no mention in HT/TOI/Hindu. The references are not of good quality. Even the Free Press Journal [16] article is a very short local news article and only mentions that "Sushma Daniel, Shweta Soni and Yogendra Singh Rathore were among others who welcomed the guests". I guess not sufficiently notable as of now.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not DeleteThe page has been updated with more reliable news links (coverage by Daily_News_and_Analysis), about the launching event of book, Book on Memory enhancement Launched [17]. Kindly have a look and suggest for improvement, the article can be updated with more related contents later.
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:19, 16 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 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aneeta Lingam[edit]

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

Competed in a single event at ISU Junior Grand Prix. Not meeting minimum requirement of WP:NSKATE. Hitro talk 10:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for skaters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 10 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 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. Skew towards keep.Merge proposals may be floated at the concerned talk-page. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Nail[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. I found a few sources, but they are just recipes, not significant coverage. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Kendall, who I'm assuming is not Irish. This drink is a classic whiskey cocktail well known in Ireland and supported by Irish Mist and Bushmills some of the biggest drinks brands in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishwhiskey (talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think there's a WP:NCOCKTAIL so the question for this is: are cocktail recipes in otherwise WP:RS sufficient for WP:GNG notability? Based on other cocktail articles, I think there is arguably a precedent that they are. I realize this sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but this objection could apply to the vast majority of a huge number of articles and even a cocktail as standard and established as the Rob Roy has similar references. If this is unacceptable under WP:NOTE then we need a widely-advertised RFC about the entire class instead of random individual AfD's to change it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How do we define a notable cocktail?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Generally I would think this would have to fit the same criteria as cultural topics in general, including food. Maybe someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink could help? Dysklyver 12:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or (second choice) Merge with Irish Mist. As well as the sources already in the article, I found promising sources here and here, and I repeat my observation that coverage for food and drink in reliable sources is generally limited compared to other topics. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:41, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Diana Fosha. So Why 06:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy[edit]

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

This is a textbook chapter, written from the POV of a supporter of the movement. I am unable to edit this into an encycopedia article, but I will withdraw the afd if someone can manage to do it. I hope that will be possible, for there are sufficient references that the topic should be covered DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See the article's talk page for a previous discussion of these issues. – Joe (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a WP:AFC, which has passed through, as it is beautifully written and well sourced. However, there is a number of problems with it. scope_creep (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, you are probably going to have to explain what you think those problems are, otherwise your view is likely to be discounted when this discussion is brought to a close. See WP:DISCUSSAFD. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was called away. Still. Delete regarding the article:

It has its own Institute: [18] You only have an Institute, when you are looking to advance something which is new, or sell something. Here is the Sweden site. [19]. San Diego [20]. These last two sites are cheap wordpress sites. Generally speaking most health sites, are high end, as they care about about the people who are reading it. I know Wordpres has 29%, but it is usually cheap sites. The Swedish one looks as though it was thrown up during lunch.
Why is it not accepted by other country health system. I checked several in Europe, and it doesnt seem to be available.
Gbooks has few reference. Most seem to point back to Fosha. It has been on the go for 17 years, supposedely.
Most online refs seem to point to Fosha or the Institute. Most CiteSeer, Researchgate etc, refs are linked to Fosha.
No large American or European unversity seems to have any articles on it, which means its outside the meanstream.
Although it is well referenced most of the ref don't have a support structure behind them, and seemed to wrap established psychotherapy procedures into AEDP. Out of the 56 refs, 11 of them are Fosha. Within the article there are many words which are not defined in the Oxford English dictionary. There is a possible reason for that, though, snake oil salesman.

Generally speaking, when you look at health, which is even true in the NHS in Scotland, whether it relates to a surgical procedure, drug or some new technique, it tends to be presented in a manner of the highest quality, is spoken about by everybody, peer reviewed all over the shop, and everybody is absolutely sure it is the best, and everybody is sure that is the way to go. You know it is genuine, or it is as possible to get. Here you see almost the opposite. It is not presented properly, there doesn’t seems to be contradictory views, there is only a few people talking about it, and it looks as almost as it is being sold, re: training on Swedish site, and there is not huge coverage, by anybody. It doesn't have that ring of authenticity. Look the cryo microscopy guys for a converse argument. Admittedly, they are nobel prize winners, and its a physical technique, and may not translate but look at the GBook hits. Large coverage all over the world.

scope_creep (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A sure test of acceptance would be if there was an entry for the technique in the American manual of psychotherapy, or psychology. That would mean it was accepted by the wider community, and it was standard procedure. scope_creep (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: What is the "American manual of psychotherapy"? I can't find a publication by that name. – Joe (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have notified the psychology wikiproject of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#AfD: Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy – Joe (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I don't what it is called, or who wrote it. There was a program on Radio 4 about it, here in the UK, sometime before the summer. I remember listening to do, how it came about, how it hadn't changed in decades, until quite recently when it was rapidly updated. It seems to list accepted fundamental therapies, similar to, e.g. Greys for anatomy, a standard. I remember now, they talking about the treatment for Schizophrenia I think, how it changed recently, and how the book needed to be updated. Computing were involved in it somehow. Only reason I remember. scope_creep (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be this they were discussing, which means I am well wide of the beam, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders but I think it was treatments. I will do a search of Radio 4. scope_creep (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to suggest that you might mean the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Scope creep. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and Redirect This topic seems marginally notable; it is discussed in the review Gold 2011, Attachment theory and psychotherapy integration: An introduction and review of the literature and had several pages in the book Unlocking the Emotional Brain, published by Routledge. The article is well-written for a chapter in a monograph. But the article runs afoul of WP standards by being full of synthesis WP:SYNTH and original research WP:OR. While many of the references are secondary sources, few are both secondary and actually discuss AEDP--Gold 2011 is one of the exceptions. Taking out the all the synthesis and OR, a big job, would leave a stub or perhaps start class article. That might be enough for a marginal keep. But pragmatically, it might be best to migrate this well-written chapter to Wikiversity and redirect to Diana_Fosha#Development_of_AEDP and concentrate on a solidly sourced summary paragraph there. --Mark viking (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps worth noting that the several entries associated in the GBook reference, have articles, e.g. Coherence therapy. All apart from IPNB. scope_creep (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Having read it a couple of days later, this seems the best course. scope_creep (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diana Fosha, per rationale given by User:Mark viking above, until the article can be rewritten to better follow Wikipedia guidelines (especially without the WP:POV and WP:SYNTH mentioned above). Like any of the many other "brand-name psychotherapies" (see, e.g., Stuart, J.; Levy, Raymond A.; Katzenstein, Tai (Summer 2006), "Beyond brand names of psychotherapy: identifying empirically supported change processes", Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 43 (2): 216–231, doi:10.1037/0033-3204.43.2.216), the subject itself is a POV; it can be challenging to adhere to WP:NPOV when writing about the psychotherapies, but it can be done. The easiest way to adhere to WP:NPOV when writing about the psychotherapies is to include ample explanation, either in a separate "Criticism" section or interspersed within existing sections, of how practitioners and researchers of other forms of psychotherapy view this particular form of psychotherapy—what they consider to be its strengths and weaknesses, theoretical and empirical (this strategy of mutual criticism of psychotherapies is employed, e.g., in the classic textbook: Prochaska, James O.; Norcross, John C. (2014) [1979], Systems of psychotherapy: a transtheoretical analysis (8th ed.), Australia; Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, ISBN 9781133314516, OCLC 851089001); if such perspectives are not available in published form, then that is a good indicator that it is too soon for an article on this subject, because without including such external perspectives it is not possible to present a sufficiently neutral POV on the subject (that is also not WP:OR). I think it could be shown (as has already been suggested by others above) that the subject of this article is as notable as many of the other psychotherapies in our list of psychotherapies. Perhaps in the future we will not have so many different psychotherapies (see, e.g., Boswell, James F.; Sharpless, Brian A.; Greenberg, Leslie S.; Heatherington, Laurie; Huppert, Jonathan D.; Barber, Jacques P.; Goldfried, Marvin R.; Castonguay, Louis G. (2014) [2011], "Schools of psychotherapy and the beginnings of a scientific approach", in Barlow, David H (ed.), The Oxford handbook of clinical psychology, Oxford library of psychology (Updated ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 98–127, ISBN 9780199328710, OCLC 874118501), but we are not there yet. Biogeographist (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author of the method, Diana Fosha; not independently notable. The article states:

AEDP was developed by Diana Fosha in her 2000 book The Transforming Power of Affect: A Model for Accelerated Change,^[1] and expanded on in later publications.^[2]

References

^ Fosha, Diana (2000). The Transforming Power of Affect: A Model for Accelerated Change. Basic Books. ISBN 0465095674.
^ Fosha, D. (2009). "Emotion and recognition at work: Energy, vitality, pleasure, truth, desire and the emergent phenomenology of transformational experience". In Fosha, D.; Siegel, D.J.; Solomon, M.F. (eds.). The healing power of emotion: Affective neuroscience, development, clinical practice. New York: Norton. pp. 172–203. ISBN 039370548X.

The approach's conception and development is all traced to Fosha, so two separate articles are not required. In the current form, the article is WP:ADVOCACY and is not suitable for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with User:K.e.coffman's claim that the subject is not notable (although obviously I agree that a redirect is appropriate), and I would like to see more justification from User:K.e.coffman for this claim. Not even the nominator claimed that notability was a problem—the nominator's cited rationale for AFD was style and POV, not notability. A search for "AEDP"+experiential+therapy in Google Books, Google Scholar, PsycINFO, and other databases seems to me to return enough sources to meet notability guidelines. Particularly in Google Books and Google Scholar there are plenty of secondary sources. Also, how could Diana Fosha be notable if AEDP were not notable, when AEDP is precisely what Fosha is notable for? There are reasons to redirect, but lack of notability does not seem to be one of them. Biogeographist (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diana Fosha per Biogeographist and K.e.coffman's well-reasoned arguments. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would not oppose a redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be OK with me also DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 14 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 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. As this seems to be devolving into "how many hockey all-stars can skate on the head of a pin", it may be worth addressing the apparent ambiguity in WP:NHOCKEY. A Train^talk 07:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Slade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article AfDed for non-notability in 2008 when the standards were looser, after his playing career was already finished. Fails NHOCKEY (his all-star citation in 2006 was a conference honor, not a league honor as Criterion #3 requires), no evidence he makes the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 14:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the WHL had a single First Team All-Star team in 2006 then I agree with the nomination on NHOCKEY #3. But I don't think that is how the WHL determines its All-Star teas; I think they just have a separate East and West team, in which case I think his West selection should qualify. Rlendog (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like many leagues, the WHL selects and announces an All-Star team for each conference so the characterization of this as a conference award is incorrect (compare to the NHL and NBA). This means WP:NHOCKEY #3 does indeed apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It really doesn't; we meant exactly what we asserted. The WHL declining to name a single All-Star Team (and I can't possibly imagine how awards presented only within a single conference aren't conference awards) doesn't mean our standards automatically lower to suit; it means that Criterion #3 doesn't apply to the WHL, and that WHL players must stand or fall on other criteria or upon the GNG. Ravenswing 17:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of us is mistaken and it will have to be the closer who decides. The WHL's naming of All-Stars works exactly the same way as the NHL and we don't say that, for example, Wayne Gretzky only received a Campbell Conference award in 1989. No, he was a NHL All Star that year. The same applies here. The Western Conference of the WHL only exists as a scheduling convenience and has no actual organization that can hand out awards. The WHL All Stars are not presented by the conferences at all, much less within a single conference. There is a link above from the WHL showing this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errr ... if that's your example, you're entirely offbase. Gretzky was, indeed, a league All-Star in 1989, but certainly not by virtue of playing in the annual All-Star Game, something a few dozen players do every year in any league that holds them. He was, instead, named to the league's second All-Star Team, a completely different honor. That being said, how the NHL makes such awards is entirely irrelevant, since NHL awards form no part of Criterion #3. #3's direct intent is to accord presumptive notability to the top six position players in the named league's in any given year. Slade, who was not even the best goaltender in the WHL in his year (Justin Pogge won that honor), was not one. Ravenswing 20:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:NHOCKEY,per above discussion. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because of the argument above, but because I can find no evidence they meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't imagine how being named to the First All-Star Team doesn't make you a First Team All-Star. That's literally the exact same thing. Smartyllama (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When one is named a conference All-Star rather than a league All-Star, is how. Ravenswing 20:03, 12 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as a keep following relist, nac SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myx[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. Passing mentions can be found but no in-depth coverage. — Za wl 09:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; no SIGCOV. WP:PROMO also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it unusual that the U.S. channel of the same name is notable owing to the existence of readily available online references, but the Philippine parent channel is "not notable" because of a lack of the same. Given that this is the only local music channel in the Philippines (and for a time, it was the only music channel overall until MTV reopened), it's hard to believe that the channel is not notable. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it generally passes WP:BROADCAST and being a notable music channel in the country (as I am from). Per Sky Harbor's comment. It is similarities with MTV and VH1. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there any sources in Filipino, Tagalog, or Spanish?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, here are some sources in English: 1 2 3 4 5. And that's all from just one newspaper (of which a Google search shows 7,620 hits from that site alone when searching for Myx), which means that in the bigger scheme of things, I'd vote Keep. So with all due respect to the nominator, how well did you do your search before determining the article should be deleted? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:BROADCAST, especially with having a successful US counterpart. Also kind of troubling that the nominator didn't see out the first seven days of the nom and had a self-block of their account applied halfway through, thus I feel like this should be considered an abandoned nomination. Nate • (chatter) 00:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a notable music channel in the Philippines. I can't understand why the nominator nominated this for deletion in the first place. -WayKurat (talk) 11:44, 11 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Stuart Roy Clarke. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Homes of Football[edit]

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

Effectively has only primary sources, fails WP:GNG. Is tagged for PROMO but I think the whole article is promotional. Most the content is a duplicate of what is in Stuart Roy Clarke. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that. Appears the account The Homes of Football created THOF as an article and also created an article Stuart Roy Clarke with almost all the same content. There may also be a sock puppet problem, as Encyclopediadia and KatoKato exist only to make additions or subtractions to the THOF and SRC articles. And SRC is making changes to the article about himself. David notMD (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an undisclosed COI as well, whoever closes this should probably check it out. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 11:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely WP:PROMO with no indication of significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:36, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else care to weigh in on the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(redirect to and merge parts that are missing) to (Stuart Roy Clarke) Clarke's article isn't that big, can move the mains parts into it. Did you people even read the article or review the sources? There is an article by The Independent newspaper, that is national coverage by a newspaper source. GiantSnowman, that counts towards notability! There is more on the web if you bother doing your research! No evidence of notability my ass. Govvy (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Govvy. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are almost no independent refs listed for this photo project; fails notability. Could be a redirect, but look at what it would redirect to: the Stuart Roy Clarke ony has two refs. Both pages are materpieces of puffing up nothing into something. Delete both...96.127.242.251 (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do IPs really get to vote? It's like a sockpuppet vote. Govvy (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we do. You unfortunately fail to assume good faith, and attack me for making a constuctive contribution to the dialogue. Have a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't even be allowed here with guest user access and that's what IPs are, if they bothered to fix that they you wouldn't be able to vote twice. By logic, due to your failure to cast a vote with a username indicates to me you have something to hide and I can't trust anything you say. There-for whoever those closer is should consider anything you say null and void to this discussion. Govvy (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my particpation here. It's your attitude that is clearly the only un-Wikipedian thing goign on here. I'm placing a warning on your page for civility.96.127.242.251 (talk) 02:10, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some sources were presented here, but failed to convince the other discussants that neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORGCRIT were met. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roc City Thunder[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. They attempted to join a couple of leagues, but ended up playing independently against other non-notable semi-pro teams. I was not able to find any non-self published game coverage. Reliable non-primary sources are significantly lacking as well as a severe lack of significant depth of coverage. 99% of media coverage (most of it local) was only about the announcement of the team, which might also run afoul of single routine announcement. Yosemiter (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a misapplication of WP:ROUTINE. Nonetheless, I'll concede that the coverage largely lacks depth, but I see at least two sources in the article that seem to satisfy under the GNG. Powers ^T 19:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LtPowers: I did say "might" run afoul, mostly because the first line in routine is "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements,..." and it is certainly mostly covering the announcement of the team. But WP:routine in general is very subjective. If they had played a game against a notable team or two, I would likely never have nominated it. I added all the references I could find (it only had one dead one before I came across the page and it is still there as I could not find an archival source for it) and it does not appear to meet WP:GEOSCOPE. Which two sources specifically would you say meet GNG? Yosemiter (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Reporter and the Finger Lakes Times articles. They're thin, but sufficient IMO. Powers ^T 13:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources: [21][22][23][24][25]. From nl.newsbank.com, "AMERICAN INDOOR FOOTBALL New arena team coming to Roc City". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiOriginal-9: I already saw all those (look at the edit history of the page, I actually added them when I nominated). The problem I see is that the only coverage is of the announcement that the team was formed, but never any coverage of them playing. They never launched in the AIF and they apparently played independently against semi-pro teams but got no coverage. So they only had coverage over a their announcement, so it lacks continued and diverse coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete looks pretty weak either way. We're not talking about an individual here but a group. It could be worthy of an entry in the league article, but it just feels like too much of a stretch for me for a stand-alone article. I don't believe it passes WP:GNG although others may interpret that it does or that it might... so instead I'll just go with ignore all rules for my reasoning simply because I think including this article does not improve Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's marginal, but I err on the other side; I think it's useful to record what information we have on a team that represented a good-sized community in a professional sports league. Powers ^T 01:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @LtPowers: Correction: they never played in any league, professional or otherwise, so they could not have represented any community in a league. It was an independent semi-pro team (likely anyways, we have no sources for their pay) filled with former non-notable high school level players that played other non-notable semi-pro teams in a non-notable university rec center (a nice student rec center is still just a rec center) for one season before being replaced by another pro team in an actual league. I fail to see how your argument that WP:ITSIMPORTANT with that combination makes anything close to important or useful. Yosemiter (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:UNOPPOSED comes to mind -- An unopposed AFD is really like a PROD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sorry for not being clear, but I do oppose deletion. I think the available sources are barely sufficient. Powers ^T 17:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources in the article or those found by WikiOriginal-9 meet the bar of WP:ORGCRIT or the GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and his subsequent comments. The team never played in a proper league as far a see no claim of notability. I don't think any of that coverage is GNG level in that it is neither in depth nor persistent, and is all about saying this new team is coming...even though they never really did. WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS applies. ClubOranje^T 04:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, they did play games. They just weren't in American Indoor Football when they did so. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And none of those games even appear to have been covered in their own local media. Only records I ever found were posted on the Thunder's social media pages. Yosemiter (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The team seems to fail WP:GNG, when even local media doesn't address it. Ifnord (talk) 17:44, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. So Why 06:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 Inches of Sin[edit]

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

I don't know why it has a paid tag, but it worries me, I PRODded it, as the references seemed flimsy and contrived (although oddly well formatted for a new user who has no prior work). the prod was removed so I am nominating this for deletion under WP:GNG as it does not, IMHO pass the criteria. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 08:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the references are flimsy and contrived, that's an article quality issue and not a reason for deletion unless sufficient coverage doesn't exist. There's plenty of coverage around, e.g. [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], so it appears notable enough. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the nominator's query, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Capeman7/Archive. This page is likely to be a commissioned article. MER-C 10:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was directed to look at the proposed deletion and inquire if it is being targeted because of the mission of the organization. This page serves as a reference point for many academic, art and nonprofit organizations. Information is not up-to-date, yet relevant links. Reviewed discussion links and do not understand references to support deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:3106:a700:8425:dbb0:ea82:d7c2 (talk) 03:13, September 27, 2017‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas Weekly, Vice.com and Nevada Public Radio as found by Michig and these are all WP:RS. The paid/commissioned concerns can be addressed separately as WP:DINC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources are decent: Huffpo, NPR, LV Review Journal... There is enough writing about this show in reliable publicaitons to meet notability. I trimmed some promotional writing and bad refs.96.127.242.251 (talk) 08:59, 12 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Between Heaven and Earth (film)[edit]

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

WP:NFILM issues are apparent. No references provided; only an IMDb external link. DJAustin (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two references have since been added by Sdslkd which appear credible and demonstrate WP:GNG compliance. Particularly since this is a 1960 film from Egypt, online sources should be expected to be light, but the Google Books search link and a Google Scholar search both indicate scholarly interest. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 09:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sdslkd (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think these old Egyptian film articles can be expanded, notability can be established and they can be of encyclopedic value. Hoverfish Talk 20:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:NFILM now. -- Dane ^talk 00:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the additional sources added to the article and the evidence of academic coverage enable WP:GNG to be passed. It is better to prod before AFD to enable refs to be added. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:45, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammadu Aminu[edit]

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

Notability unclear, not mentioned explicitly in many sources searched Ammarpad (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The head of a native polity that was used by the British as part of indirect rule. Broad sources on British rule in Nigeria will give us more info on this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have cited a reliable source confirming that he held this position, passing WP:POLITICIAN. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:57, 8 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 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. A Train^talk 07:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Bevacqua[edit]

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

Non-notable executive of sports organization; the references are pretty much about the PGA, not Bevacqua. Orange Mike | Talk 04:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sports executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes the GNG and is president of PGA America. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Dedicated to the guy
- another article about him RS checked
Mentions which basically disprove NOTINHERITED
- he's the president of PGA. Its golf. You know Trump? Yeah, notable all right.
- Quoted as pres, USAToday
- I will hand it to the Nom, article is pretty terrible, but gimme some time and I'll fix it. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have chopped the article down to 40% of it original size per BOLD and TNT. before and after. I reworded sections, removed duplicate thoughts and promotional/awkward/weird phrases, linked it and fixed a cite. I am done Wiki-ing for the moment, so the lame state of sourcing still remains. If anyone wants to revitalise the reference section overnight or tomorrow I'm glad to share the workload :). Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:52, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) PamD 08:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Junction Gas Explosion[edit]

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

Gas explosion, people evacuated, no injuries reported. No indication that this event is likely to have any lasting significance or ongoing media coverage. WP:NOTNEWS. PamD 08:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw now that further source has been added to indicate that there have been deaths. Early version of article gave no indication of any injuries. PamD 08:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:PamD,

I wrote this article us the story was unfolding and if you where to be patient enough you would have noticed that I put a stub tag there showing that its not done yet. There are so many sources and more texts I would be adding to the article soon. I suppose you would take the deletion notice down since this is a notable article worthy to be on Wikipedia.

Thanks --196.44.103.74 (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User_talk:196.44.103.74. PamD 14:45, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Mic[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. A somewhat promotional article, being entirely sourced by a band website and their record label -- both primary sources -- does not help make a case of passing WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for nine years and I think it is about time we come to a decision on the notability (or lack thereof) of this group. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, poor sourcing in an article has no bearing on notability. You need to follow WP:BEFORE to try to identify any coverage that exists. A quick Google search found these: [35], [36], [37], [38]. Personally I don't feel the coverage that exists is sufficient to justify an article, or that it demonstrates sufficient significance for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the sources identified by Michig--plus those I searched for myself--are fairly run-of-the-mill, small time and insignificant. Getting press for the sake of getting press does not equal notability. The article appears to be original research by an SPA editor wishing to promote subjects for which he/she has an interest. TheGracefulSlick, you may want to consider AfD nominating the editor's other articles, which are of similar promotional bent with only small time/insignificant coverage (I'm a bit too "code writing deficient" to know how to do it myself) ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:43, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sorry Eugene youths. :( A Train^talk 07:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Youth Symphony[edit]

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

Longevity is not a claim for notability in this case. The organization fails the general notability guideline. We are left with a primary source to determine any encyclopedic value in the subject but no secondary sources from a recent search. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete. TheGracefulSlick's characterization is spot-on. The most significant mentions I've found are mere event listings and a surprising number of people who have done other things after being involved with this organization listing their previous involvement. Unfortunately, that doesn't help demonstrate notability under either the general or the specific notability guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete per Eggishorn. I checked the databases at my disposal but there is simply no real coverage, just some event listings or one-off mentions. The best I could find was an article in a local newspaper about the foundation that supports it. Regards So Why 06:44, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Yassine in the Navy[edit]

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

WP:NFILM issues are apparent. No references provided; only an IMDb external link. DJAustin (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two references have since been added by Sdslkd which appear credible and demonstrate WP:GNG compliance. Particularly since this is a 1960 film from Egypt, online sources should be expected to be light, but searches for the Arabic name of the film appear to bring further sources to light. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 09:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sdslkd (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think these old Egyptian film articles can be expanded, notability can be established and they can be of encyclopedic value. Hoverfish Talk 20:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFILM. -- Dane ^talk 00:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the additional references added to the article enable WP:GNG to be passed Atlantic306 (talk) 01:51, 15 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 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. Merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page. A Train^talk 07:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar Network News[edit]

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

Unsourced, in-universe material collected from the primary source. No demonstration of real world notability. (Deleted via prod, restored via WP:REFUND.) SummerPhD^v2.0 16:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No apparent notability, and a generic term that could apply to hundreds of sci-fi works and doesn't lend itself to a redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete consists entirely of in-universe plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) and while there do seem to be mentions of it in sources which might be usable such as [39] I don't think there's enough to establish notability or provide much of an out of universe perspective. Hut 8.5 09:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote stands after the rewrite. The article is still entirely plot summary, it's just that the plot summary is now referenced to books which give very detailed descriptions of Babylon 5 episodes. From WP:NOT#PLOT: Wikipedia treats creative works...in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. I don't see any of that here. Hut 8.5 06:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So what would you like to see me come up with in addition to what's already sourced? Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - What kind of reception has the subject got? Has there been any critical analysis of its significance, how it relates to real world news networks, or other fictional news networks? How did the makers of the show come up with it, and how did they change it over time? What kind of impact or influence has the subject had on other fictional works, popular culture, or anywhere else? Any of those would do, or any other significant encyclopedic content which isn't ultimately a summary of what happens in Babylon 5 episodes. Hut 8.5 17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you want primary sources for what the creators intended, I can do that easily. For independent RS on that specific topic, I've ordered yet another two B5 books, which will take about another week (they're used, so not prime...) to arrive. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm happy for this to be draftified when closed if Jclemens has more sources to add later. Hut 8.5 17:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How very discourteous to nominate for AfD before I've had a chance to improve the article, which was restored yesterday. I'm going to add some RS'es (I have plenty of hardcopy sources), but ultimately I am planning on merging this to an as-yet-to-be-created Organizations in Babylon 5 list article. Zxcvbnm knows this, as he is a current participant in two other current AfDs for Babylon 5 fictional elements, yet has chosen to conceal his knowledge and provide a less than forthright appraisal of the article: it is both notable and redirectable. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than going with the assumptions of bad faith, if you have coverage establishing the real world notability, now would be a good time to tell us what they are. Otherwise, you might ask for the current article to be moved out of mainspace so that you can work on it until it demonstrates notability. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No ABF here: your rapid nomination without discussing it with me was discourteous, in that it assumed I had no intention of fixing the problems in the article. If you'll review my recent contributions, I've been busy adding reliable sources to OTHER B5 articles nominated at AfD. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article sat for 6 years waiting for sources, then you were going to merge it or redirect it. Now, six more years have gone by and I was supposed to guess that you had plans to do all sorts of stuff? Oh, and another editor is concealing knowledge and being "less than forthright" in agreeing the article demonstrated "no apparent notability"? Let me be clear: Not to be rude but I see nothing but in-universe material. Delete, with no prejudice against the creation of other articles which might use concise summaries and serve as a target for a re-direct here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guess? No, you weren't supposed to guess: all you had to do is ask. Why else would an established editor challenge a PROD unless they believed they could do something about it? What motivation did you believe I had? What did you expect that I intended to do with it? Jclemens (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cleanup request you ignored for years was the community asking you to fix it or lose it. I did not expected you to ignore the noted problems for 3 more years, have it deleted, wait three more years, then restore the article, source it, ask what the problem is, buy more books to source it, then turn it into a redirect for an as-yet uncreated page. I also didn't ask if this time you were actually going to do something with the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your chronology is incorrect. I decided to merge it this weekend when I noticed it had been deleted via PROD, not six years ago. Not 24 hours had passed (estimate, someone else can do a detailed chronology if desired) between when I decided to ask for it to be restored and you AfD'ed it. Jclemens (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In May of 2011, it was noted: "Completely unsourced since its creation more than six years ago and extremely unlikely to be able to be sourced except to primary sources (WP:PRIMARY). All information is in-universe plot summary. Fails WP:GNG categorically." You replied that it shouldn't be deleted, but perhaps "consider redirect or merge". Then it sat for three more years, completely untouched (save for one edit by a bot toiling away in the desert). It clearly wasn't going to be cleaned up any time soon and it still looks like "cleanup" means "delete", so I proded it in January 2014. No one said anything, so it was deleted. It remained deleted, unwept, for three more years. You then asked for it to be restored with the explanation "Expired PROD, please restore." In my rush over our deadline, I failed to understand the implied ordering of texts to finally source it before merging it to an uncreated article, after twelve years. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had entirely forgotten about the 2011 PROD, and had no access to the history of the article before I requested it be restored, so I suppose you're correct. The 2014 PROD was, of course, out of process and illegitimate: No article is eligible for PROD a second time. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by which I actually mean keep it around until I merge it into a not-yet-created Organizations in Babylon 5. I have just done an extensive rewrite, which answers all the objections of the nominator and both delete !voters. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending rewrite and merge. Nobody should be in the business of nominating for AfD anything refunded within the previous 24 hours, except in case of COPYVIO or BLP violations. IDONTLIKEIT is not a rationale. Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody should be in the business of restoring unsourced, in-universe trivia with a plan to turn the article into a redirect. IDONTLIKEIT is not the rationale given. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a new policy I missed? Please, enlighten us. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think we would need a policy to say, "Don't bring back long dead collections of unsourced in-universe trivia if your plan is to turn them into redirects anyway." It goes along with "Don't randomly renumber all of the mailboxes in the neighborhood." and "Don't shove sharpened pencils up your nose." They're all good suggestions that you would hope would be obvious. Incidentally, if your plan is to simply merge this with some other stuff, wouldn't the path of least resistance be to have the article saved as a draft, rename it "List of stuff in Babylon 5" (or whatever) and build that article? I mean, we'll lose all of this valuable back-and-forth about the discourteousness and hidden agendas and such, but you'll have time to wait for your sources to show up. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the value in that. Drafts used to be a safe place to store "useful someday" stuff, but G13 has eliminated that. But really: merging isn't redirecting, bringing back stuff to work on it isn't harmful, and mainspace is not limited to things currently meeting guidelines. Note that I've never accused anyone of having any hidden agendas, merely pointed out that subsequent !votes in connected AfDs should not intentionally ignore the editor's participation in connected discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, this article did not meet guidelines and was abandoned for years, leading to its deletion. Now you've brought it back and seem to want to keep it without having it meet guidelines, even if it is abandoned in that state.

Yes, abandoned drafts will be deleted under G13. If you don't want a draft to be deleted, don't abandon it. Draft space is not for "storing" stuff that might be useful someday. It is for working on articles that don't yet meet guidelines. Actually no part of Wikipedia is a junk drawer for saving bits of string, twist ties and archaic connectors that you might need some day. Wikipedia deletes abandoned drafts.

Yes, article space is limited to things that meet inclusion guidelines. That's what the guidelines are for: deciding what should and should not be in article space. To argue otherwise is absurd. Wikipedia limits article space to articles that are suitable for inclusion.

Yes, you can bring stuff back to work on it, but it doesn't go in article space until it is ready for article space. How do we know when it's ready? When it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Draft space is for working on articles that aren't ready for article space.

Yes, you did accuse an editor of "(choosing) to conceal his knowledge and provide a less than forthright appraisal". What is that editor trying to do? We don't know. Their plan is concealed -- a "hidden agenda". - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mainspace is not solely for things that currently meet guidelines: there are plenty of things that have been tagged for notability or as unsourced for years. I don't think you're denying their existence. Yes, stuff that doesn't meet guidelines but can meet those guidelines should be worked on in mainspace: without mainspace, there are essentially no eyes on a topic. If you could, would you wipe out every article with a cleanup tag on it, and not return it to mainspace until it was perfect? Then you'd be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good--or even 'adequate'--and in the process removing much of Wikipedia's utility. The existence of draft space doesn't fundamentally change the tolerance for incomplete yet useful articles having potential in mainspace, no matter how much you might prefer that it does. If you thought the article should have gone elsewhere to be worked on, that difference of opinion could easily have been resolved with a small modicum of communication, which you chose not to exercise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 18:02, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

Let's cut right to the chase: We are here discussing whether or not the article should be deleted. The reason put forth to delete it is that it does not meet our guidelines. Your counter-argument, it would seem, is that not meeting our guidelines is irrelevant. Article space, in your opinion then, is for articles that meet our guidelines or don't. Draft space, rather than being for preliminary articles, you feel is for storing stuff that might be useful someday. Abandoned drafts, like this one, you feel should be moved into article space to protect them from being deleted as abandoned drafts. Is that about right? I think we need to userfy the article or make it a draft with the clear understanding that yes, Wikipedia deletes abandoned drafts and no, Wikipedia is not a place for storing stuff that might be useful someday. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article meet guidelines as it stands? Absolutely: multiple independent RS'es discuss it in detail. Should it have been AfD'ed just because it didn't currently meet the guidelines? That is where we differ: I say no, not unless it's demonstrated that it cannot meet guidelines. You disagree. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing your position: It should be merged or redirected. Wait, no: It should be an article. Wait, no: That's only until you merge it into a new article. Wait, no: It will meet guidelines as soon as my sources arrive from the antiquarian bookseller in Milan. Wait, no: don't make it a draft, that used to be storage for stuff that might be useful someday, but since they delete abandoned stuff there we should re-abandon it it article space where inclusion guidelines don't matter. Wait, no: It's WP:USEFUL.

Wait, no: Just no. I remain on the delete side, with no objection to userfy or draftify. But not as permanent storage because it might be useful someday. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason you're being so unpleasant? Of course I believe it meets guidelines, and the fact that I'm trying to answer objections I consider unreasonable and unfounded does not invalidate or compromise my position. It meets notability, and could easily be kept per guidelines. BUT, I think it's better presented in a list format, even if it is notable. If you'd bothered to actually ask me what I intended to do by asking for it back, this entire kerfuffle could have readily been avoided. As of now, it's sticking around in mainspace because you nominated at AfD; otherwise, it may well have been merged by now. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason your assessment of other editors {"discourteous", "conceal his knowledge", "less than forthright", "unpleasant", "unreasonable", etc.) might be relevant here?

We're here to discuss whether or not this article meets our guidelines. Yes, Wikipedia deletes abandoned drafts. No, that's not a reason to put what might be a draft into article space. Yes, there are articles that do not meet guidelines. No, that doesn't mean we should ignore guidelines to let this one in. Yes, maybe you want to merge it (or is that a redirect? or maybe those sources will arrive? or none of the above?). No, that doesn't explain why you object to making it a draft or putting it in user space. Yes, you want the decision on this article to be "keep", promising that you'll then merge it to some future article, or demonstrate notability, or redirect it, or store it in case it is useful someday. No, that doesn't make sense. If you have a notable topic for an article that you're gonna kinda maybe someday write, tucking this possible piece of that puzzle into draft or user space gives you time to do that, provided the article isn't abandoned again. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to discuss letting it in: it was in. It was temporarily removed against guidelines, but it's not like anyone is proposing a new article from scratch, merely trying to repair what had been out-of-process deleted already. You do acknowledge that WP:PROD did not apply to the article when you applied it, I presume? Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jclemens. This probably shouldn't have it's own article, but can very justifiably be upmerged into a parent article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or userfy. I used to be opposed to userspace in general, preferring draftspace as a place where articles could be worked on before they're ready for prime time. But, there's been a whole lot of hating on draft space lately (i.e. the G13 nonsense), so maybe userspace is a safer harbor now. In any case, it sounds like this isn't ready for mainspace yet, but there's a plan to work on it, so move it someplace where it can be worked on. When/if it meets mainspace requirements, it can get moved back there (perhaps under a different title). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- RoySmith, would you object to me merging it directly into a list article? Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm confused. I wrote above, it sounds like this isn't ready for mainspace yet. So, yes, I would object. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - RoySmith, what would you like to see improved about this article before agreeing that a merge to a list article of similar elements would be appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Talk page is currently a red link, which proves that there was no attempt to discuss concerns about the topic before it was nominated. As per WP:BEFORE C3, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as ((notability)), ((hoax)), ((original research)), or ((advert)); this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it." Looks like instead that only 7 hours elapsed before there was an AfD tag on the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Actually, the redlink proves the talk page was deleted with the article three years ago. The article was tagged as unsourced. That tag stayed in place for two years before it was tagged for deletion: "Completely unsourced since its creation more than six years ago and extremely unlikely to be able to be sourced except to primary sources (WP:PRIMARY). All information is in-universe plot summary. Fails WP:GNG categorically." The article's main defender, Jclemens, removed that prod, suggesting it be redirected or merged somewhere. It then sat for a few more years with zero edits, tagged as unsourced the whole time. I then tagged it as in-universe and not notable. Seeing it hadn't been touched in roughly six years, I decided to prod some editors into action, so to speak. That prod lead to a deletion. Three years after that, Jclemens had the article restored. Why? Because "Expired PROD, please restore." Summary: Before we got here, it was tagged as unsourced for six years. It then spent two weeks tagged as in-universe, not notable, waiting to be deleted because it lacked evidence of real world notability, along with the unsourced tag. Did anyone WP:BEFORE C3 "(add) a cleanup tag"? Yes. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep NPASR And now we know that you put an AfD tag on half of this article, and that it is impossible for editors to assess this article. It is the nominator's role to prepare the community for a deletion discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking your !vote based on BEFORE.

I'm rather confused as to the explanation for your new !vote. NPASR discusses options if there are "few or no comments...with no one opposing deletion" and opting for "no consensus", allowing for a speedy renomination. It seems there are more than a few editors commenting (8 !votes), there is opposition and you are asking for a "keep", not a no consensus.

I do not know what you mean by saying I nominated "half of this article". - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "half" is a metric that considers the "Article" and "Talk" tabs at the top as a group of 2; and counts the non-red tabs within that group. Do you agree that this AfD cannot proceed? Unscintillating (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources - the only coverage I see is embedded inside routine coverage of the main topic. And saying the material is going to be used in a different article is not a valid argument for the existence of this particular article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Embedded inside routine coverage of the main topic' is a novel objection. Which policy requires that independent RS coverage have that additional attribute? Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:N and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wekpidea (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what part of WP:NOTREPOSITORY are you referencing? Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Jclemens. -- Begoon 23:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Interacting with Babylon 5 and Creating Babylon 5 both arrived today, and I've integrated both into the article. Both RS'es deal with ISN, but not in as much specificity and depth as I would have hoped. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 10 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. joe decker ^talk 05:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Orphanage of Iran[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG nothing of note found on the web Domdeparis (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NFILM criterias. It was screened nationwide in Iran and grossed over 10 billion rials. I'll improve the article. Pahlevun (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I got to learn about the Persian famine of 1917–1919 only after watching this movie. Kazemita1 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure that that is a valid argument for keeping the page as per WP:ILIKEIT. Domdeparis (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I went ahead and read the WP:NFILM guideline. To me, it seems the film is satisfying the following criterion:

"The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."

I say it based on the several national and this international critic.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film is covered by independent third-party sources, as well as screened at notable film festivals. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:06, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. joe decker ^talk 05:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northern (genre)[edit]

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

Aside from the one reference, I could only find a couple of other passing mentions of this so-called genre.[40][41] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). My original source was Scarlet Riders, which was in the references for a time but appears to have been removed at some point. I've put it back in again. I do not have my copy available at the moment, so I cannot add inline citations nor quote from it right now. I am sure I have had other sources as well, which I will try to find again (this was an early article for me and I'm afraid I didn't properly cite things as I should have done). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added a few references to the article (but I won't have access to my earlier sources for some time). I've found a few basic sources that simply mention the existence of the genre:
- International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. Routledge. 2007. ISBN 9781134317066. ...from the dozens of early Hollywood Mountie films or 'Northerns'...
- Rutherford, Paul (1993). "Made in America". In Flaherty, David H.; Manning, Frank E. (eds.). The Beaver Bites Back?: American Popular Culture in Canada. McGill-Queen's Press. p. 267. ISBN 9780773511194. The chief American agency was Hollywood, which during the 1920s marketed a large number of 'northerns,' portraying Canada as a great, often snowy wilderness...
On top of which, there are some sources I've found but can't read in their entirety:
- MacLulich, Thomas Donald (1988), Between Europe and America: The Canadian Tradition in Fiction (Google Books snippet view)
- Drew, Bernard Alger (1990), Lawmen in Scarlet: An Annotated Guide to Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Print and Performance (Google Books snippet view)
- Strange, Carolyn; Loo, Tina Merrill (2004), True Crime, True North: The Golden Age of Canadian Pulp Magazines (Google Books snippet view)
- Baker, Richard G. (24 Jun 2015). "'Nothing But Hill and Hollow': The Canadian Border as American Frontier in the Hollywood Northern". Comparative American Studies. 13 (1–2).
Combined, I hope this is enough to at least confirm that this article refers to a documented genre (and hence suitable for future expansion rather than deletion). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Matthew Solomon and Esther Adams also use the term extensively, but the references seem to be thin on the ground. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anyone else agree with AdamBMorgan?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has enough references to be kept. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 13:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A heavily researched, detailed analysis and compilation of books, poetry, photographs, films, radio and TV series, etc with 9 extensive inline cites, 7 titles under "Further reading", 8 extensive "External links" and 6 picture files (there are numerous picture files on this subject in Wikimedia Commons) qualifies, without a doubt, as a helpful entry for users, and Wikipedia would be diminished through its potential loss. I cannot find a single other article within Wikipedia which compiles such a thorough dissection of this subject and researchers on the topic would be bereft of a valuable source. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After much improvement after the nomination by AdamBMorgan, the article more than meets WP:HEY for a notable topic and well-structured article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this does seem like a recognizable "thing", and it does have sources. On the other had, there are only nine sources and it does seem like an academic essay trying to establish the existence of the genre. Needs more refs. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:54, 13 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 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 06:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beton (company)[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be much independent, reliable coverage of this company (note that this company is Macedonian, not Indonesian). Thus, we cannot verify the information the article gives to the standard we would like. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 02:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 05:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 07:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 12 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 06:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kinyumba Mutakabbir[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON .Paid article created by a socking paid editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cada mori and The subject's notability is in question, as the majority of the sources cited lack any depth, only mention the subject in passing, or are user-generated content. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources: [42][43] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zane's The Jump Off. While there is one article that supports GNG notability, the RS status is debatable and that's the only maybe-RS available. There are social media sites, passing mentions, PR announcements, and other non-independent sources but nothing that supports WP:NACTOR and one article is not enough on its own for GNG notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my comment? Thanks, WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @WikiOriginal-9:, I did. They were two articles that covered him as a high-school athlete. Since they have no bearing on the article's claims nor on notability, they do not help the case for "keep".

Just for the record, they are from when he was playing college football. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Paid and it fails GNG? 190.10.8.116 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly because we need to be vigilant in upholding our rules for editing. Also because there is just no sign that Mutakabbir is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There's still some question about whether certain specific entries should be included in the list, but those questions can be discussed on the article talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nazis of non-Germanic descent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The list represents an indiscriminate collection of information and original research. The names appear to be random, and inclusion of some is dubious, such as: "Horst Ohrloff, German, Wehrmacht Oberleutnant, Silesian" -- is this "non-Germanic descent"? Other entries include "Germanised Slavic descent" or equally vague categorisations. Some on the list have distant non-German ancestry, such as "Hugenot descent", which seems immaterial.

One gets the impression that the entries were included because of the non-German sounding last names, such as Joachim Mrugowsky, whose ethnic background is not discussed in the linked article. At the same time, some are just foreign nationals (British, Latvian, etc), so it's unclear why "non-Germanic descent" is even relevant.

The list does not meet WP:LISTN and should be deleted. First AfD closed as No consensus in 2015, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Right at the moment, this is an article which doesn't do what it says on the tin, in that it combines assorted fascists (including the British and Belgian sorts) with Nazis, despite ostensibly being only about the latter. Per nom, it should therefore be deleted. It's possible that there might be a viable list of - for example - non-Germanic Nazis with a very strict set of criteria, but I'm running on barely any sleep and can't begin to think of how that could work, so won't advocate for it at the moment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Having seen arguments regarding how the list could be reworked, I'm generally in agreement with them. Very careful criteria will be required, though, as will be/should be sources discussing the resultant group as a group. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets notability and the phenomenon is present in reliable sources, especially regarding Jewish examples. As for accuracy disputes, entry removal, inline tags and discussion on talk suffices. The list should be edited, not deleted. --Zoupan 06:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pretty much a keep comment - basically a list of Nazis granted German Blood Certificate papers would work better, these papers granted exemptions to Hitlers racial laws. It should be reasonably easy to check the list to make sure all the entry’s fit this criteria, and renamed this list to something more specific to suit. This is a very relevant WWII issue, which reveals some of Hitlers own hypocrisy. It ought to be rescued, if it needs cleanup - fine - but AfD is not cleanup. Dysklyver 08:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- There are about 8 people on the list whose Jewish descent is mentioned, out of 88 included (10%). So it's unclear to me whether or not this list is intended to solely focus on those with the German Blood Certificate papers. Other names include Chiang Wei-kuo (Chinese), Pierre Daye (Belgian Rexist); Jef François (Flemish); Martin James Monti (American); Hermann von Oppeln-Bronikowski (German); Hans-Joachim Marseille (German) -- did they also receive the German Blood Certificate? This seems doubtful.

The list mixes foreign nationals; German nationals with Jewish descent; Germans with Polish-sounding last names; Germans with French-sounding last names; etc. It appears random and a non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation, with unclear inclusion criteria. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:LISTN. Accuracy issues should be addressed in article. It is possible, for many figures, to accurately state racial descent without OR. We routinely mention the ancestry of people in bios, when available in RS, which may differ from their country of citizenship - e.g. List of Italian-American actors. Determining that a non-German ancestral group is non-German is not OR for most ancestral groups.Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, on notability but does need work as to "accuracy" and more RS citing. Kierzek (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neutral, but needs a rewrite. Many of these people were not Nazis. Serving in the Wehrmacht did not make one a Nazi. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge. It might be useful to brake this up with subheadings by ethnicity, etc. There are enough blue-links to warrant having this as a list. Not sure that I would like it as a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Korean studies. Will add hatnote. So Why 06:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Studies[edit]

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

WP:TWODABS, with the area of study getting ten times the traffic as the journal. Areas of study are often fully capitalized in university department names and course offerings. Delete this page and redirect the title to Korean studies, with a hatnote for the journal. bd2412 T 04:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. A WP:2DABS page with no utility. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as housekeeping per nom. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:28, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. So Why 06:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galvanize (Bootcamp)[edit]

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

Article about a coding education program, not referenced to anywhere near enough reliable source coverage about it in media to clear WP:CORPDEPTH -- this is referenced almost entirely to its own primary source content about itself, with just two pieces of purely local media coverage in the local media of its own head office location. This is not how you source something like this as notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete borderline promotional article. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Forbes and USAToday. Bootcamps are pretty popular, I imagine there are more sources. Article is lame. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:13, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to AKB48. Since even the other delete !voter did not explicitly object to the redirect, it seems the best way to handle this article. So Why 06:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Nakanishi[edit]

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

An unremarkable adult performer; significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet PORNBIO either: no significant awards or contributions to the genre. The article is sourced to passing mentions; online directories and other sources otherwise not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources seems to be her adult videos, not any significant coverage about the subject. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AKB48 due to the bands huge popularity. Not much exists in English, but I strongly recommend it because of the cult status of the group, very likely that many English speaking fan/cultists/idolatrers will search it. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I considered suggesting the same redirect, but I wonder about the search utility. There are 125 members of AKB48 at this time and hundreds of "graduates." Is one that left the group 9 years ago likely to be searched-for? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Redirection has the benefit of not leaving a redlink to recreate the article and start this drama over again. Montanabw^(talk) 06:29, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Dlohcierekim (talk) per WP:CSD#a7 Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pune Kalakar Cricket League[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket league that fails WP:GNG. – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is WP:TRIVIA. Jack | ^{talk page} 04:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-professional sports league, nothing notable about it at all. Ajf773 (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline in this case - there is not "significant coverage in secondary sources" which are "reliable" and "independent of the subject" that I can see. In fact, there's very little coverage of any kind that I can find which suggests, in this day and age, that there's very little coverage of any kind. In terms of WP:CLUB, it is clearly not national or international in scope and, when the lack of sourcing is considered, seems to not even be particularly regional in scope or have an historical claim to be notable. For these reasons I would suggest deletion in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG, and per WP:TRIVIA. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Trivia. Johnlp (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is WP:TRIVIA. Non-professional sports league and there is nothing notable about it.desmay (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 15:32, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Prohibition Party#Electoral history. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark R. Shaw[edit]

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

Virtually unsourced biography of a person notable only as a non-winning minor party candidate for political office. Being an unsuccessful election candidate is not a notability claim that passes WP:NPOL, so the only other path to keepability is to properly source him over WP:GNG as notable for some other reason -- but the only "sources" here are The Political Graveyard and a profile on the website of his own political party, meaning all we've got here is one unreliable source and one directly-affiliated one. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, agree it fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, and I couldn’t find independent sources to add anything notable on him either. There’s just nothing about him that warrants his own page. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would also support redirect as described below, if that helps build consensus. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prohibition_Party#Electoral_history. WP:NPOL suggests that redirects are appropriate for losing candidates for a federal office. While there is not a great redirect target, such as list of Prohibition Party Vice Presidential Candidates, the electoral history of the party, or the United States presidential election, 1964, would direct a reader to information about the subject's vice presidential campaign. --Enos733 (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect -- He was clearly a very persistent candidate for a minor party with little prospect of election. The general rule is that failed political candidates are NN. That does not apply to major party presidential candidates, but they are usually notable for other reasons already: most are senators or governors first. Donald Trump is of course an exception. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 9 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Centre for Corporate Public Affairs[edit]

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

Delete. Fails notability; checked Google (lots of hits, all advertising/promotion), Google Books (nothing), Google News (nothing), and Google News Archive (nothing). Page created in 2008 and recently re-vamped but still has no sources provided. Corporate promotion with material lifted directly from organization website (copyvios removed). Possible COI from recent editors. Loopy30 (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't really think that all of the Google results are promotions. Some of them are independent of the source, like https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238277666_Re-examining_corporate_community_investment_Allen%27s_Australian_Centre_for_Corporate_Public_Affairs_ACCPA_corporate_community_involvement_report EMachine03 (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My Google search seemed to find quite reliable sources, like:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ddHUDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT39&dq=accpa&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=accpa&f=false, and http://about.abc.net.au/speeches/annual-corporate-public-affairs-oration/, and http://www.communitybusinesspartnership.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/giving_australia_2016_literature_review.pdf, and https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2017/09/australians-giving-time-not-money/, and https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Wtu2AAAAIAAJ&q=accpa&dq=accpa&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y, and https://www.ceda.com.au/CEDA/media/ResearchCatalogueDocuments/PDFs/15372-spp2013.pdf, and https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2016/12/australian-businesses-go-beyond-giving/, and http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/queensland-business-monthly-silverchef-bhp-flight-centre-recognise-importance-of-philanthropy/news-story/6cabc1f45950b8ef460088311ee5a918

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get more than one !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the sources given, only this represents significant coverage. We need multiple such sources in order to satisfy WP:ORG and write a balanced article, but I can't find any others.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent reliable sources, appears to be promotional (and self-created given similarities between original content and subject’s own website). Shelbystripes (talk) 23:22, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. Consensus is that WP:CRIME & WP:BLP1E apply here. Content remains behind the redirect for a selective merge into the target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arid Uka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

According to WP:CRIME: "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead". Well, that is complete here at 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. The subject is not notable for anything else and all the coverage referring to him was written within the context of the incident. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, merge or delete per my first AfD nomination: "This article fails WP:BLP1E. The subject is only notable as the perpetrator of the 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting, and unlikely to become notable for anything else. This article, which was created today, essentially duplicates the content of the article about the shooting, which also makes it a content fork." Sandstein 17:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting per WP:BLP1E. His name is a plausible search term, but what coverage exists is in the context of the event. -Location (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting; not independently notable / WP:BIO1E. No need for a merge as the target article already sufficiently covers the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:CRIMINAL. Article contains sourced bio information pre and post attack that would not be ideally merged. Subject's Islamic radicalization a continuing interest, generating coverage. His radicalization is separate from the attack.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really Icewhiz? Anything of "continuing interest" is in the context of the attack. Every single terrorist was radicalized at one point and the news media talks about it; should they have articles too? The article on the shooting already has relevant biographical information and WP:CRIME, the very policy you cite, recommends avoiding these types of articles on the perpetrator.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all terrorists are radicalized, some come from societies that support the action against a perceived external enemy. In this case we have a formerly seemingly peaceful member of a Western society turning against it. As can be seen in a simple google books and scholar check his online radicalization has bcome quite a topic. This is quite separate from the attack itself. His radicalization is quite possibly more notable thanthe attack itself in terms of LASTING coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His radicalization is a topic because of the attack. I can't understand why I need to argue this when the policy you cite contradicts your rationale for keeping.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His radicalization is a topic of study, widely referenced, due to it being a template for future Islamist radicals. The particulars of the attack are quite distinct from the radicalization vector.Icewhiz (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely referenced", yet I haven't seen a single source that doesn't go something like "The shooter of the Frankfurt airport was...", "Arid Uka, the shooter at a Frankfurt airport..." or "Arid Uka, who killed two at an airport...". If he was truly notable outside this incident, every single source wouldn't need to constantly refer back to the one event that made him recognizable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a whole bunch of book and journal sources to the article. And no - actually most of them focus on his radicalization - leading off with the Youtube videos and other influences such as music - mentioning the attack itself only in a minor fashion. The actual shooting of US servicemen is "not interesting" - what is interesting is how a subject (in this case someone who was in Germany since he was a one year old baby) - becomes radicalized via online influences - and chooses to attack. This is why he is covered - and this is what is covered. It is quite separate from the attack - which actually in terms of LASTING coverage has less than the radicalization (though the latter does mention the former).Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources merely demonstrate what I have been saying: everything written about him was in the context of attack. Without the incident, he would have never been mentioned in any sources; that is WP:BLP1E. I understand you consider yourself an "inclusionist" but ignoring policies, which I believe are very easy to comprehend, should not be the solution.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:NPA. As I said before - his radicalization is the subject of most of the coverage and study of him as a subject - not the attack. This is not BPL1E, as his radicalization and attempts to travel to Afghanistan or Iraq - are separate and distinct from his later decision to carry out an attack on German soil. Why is his radicalization covered? Since he was one of the first, survived, and there is ample evidence of the path he took - in any event this has LASTING coverage which is quite separate and distinct from the attack in which he was captured (and DIVERSE to the point that his Islamic-Jihadist music preferences - [44] have been analyzed).Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Describing your editing patterns and how you describe yourself on your userpage is not a personal attack, sorry to say. Not a single source seperated itself from the attack. It was always, basically, "Arid Uka, the shooter at a Frankfurt airport" was radicalized or tried to travel here or there. Every single incident such as this have these types of reports, as you should hopefully know, yet we do not write articles about the suspects/perpetrators because of these policies. Whether the source discussed his radicalization or his travel plans, the descriptor remained the same: "Arid Uka, the shooter" in one incident for which he is known for. The historical significance, as displayed in the sources, was from the attack he carried out, not his musical tastes or travel plans.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This - but ignoring policies, which I believe are very easy to comprehend is a personal attack directed at me. Most perps do not rate a separate article if they were in a single attack and have no other grounds for fame. This particular one - does - as his radicalization is a subject of quite a bit of journal and book coverage by several researchers.Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PERPETRATOR 2. "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." The ongoing coverage Uka's self-radicalization seems to me to make him independent of his crime. See, for example, Lone wolf terrorist: The security official’s worst nightmare, Deutsche Welle, 2016 [45]; Profiles of radicals reveal numerous paths to extremism, Associated Press, [46], more similar in both German and English. Plus SIGCOV of his path to radicalization in an extraordinarily large number of books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting, I ran a gBooks search. See, for example, this: [47] multi-page, deep dive into the process of Uka's radicalization, or this one: [48], another example of how scholars are looking at Uta as a case study, an interesting example of self-radicalization, an unusual amount of in-depth coverage for a terrorist. And there is this [49] (in final paragraph), assertion that he has been influential because his story has attracted young people to violent jihad. Of course, he is young, healthy, alive and in a few years he will be free man living in Kosovo. But the point is that is is already the topic of a scholarly conversation on Islamist self-radicalization that appears to make him a notable topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BLP1E. Coverage of this person seems to only be in relation to this event, and doesn't seem to rise to the level of a John Hinckley. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough information for a stand alone biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) "enough information" is irrelevant to notability and WP:BLP1E...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it is for WP:GNG ... --RAN (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) you do realize BLP and being something Wikipedia is not trumps GNG, right? A merge or redirect is rationale if you follow policy. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person according to BLP and WP:CRIME.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources, per enough info as stated above as well. I see no reason for deletion hereBabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME and is notable the first terror attacker by a Salafist Jihadist in Germany and Uta has been cited as an early example of the trend of lone wolf terrorism.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoh of the Wizards, just curious, did you consider WP:BLP1E at all and are you aware WP:CRIME -- the very policy you cite -- advices covering the incident, not the perp, when his or her notability stems from one event?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability stems from the documented radicalization in the months prior to the attack, not the attack.Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize you aren't Pharaoh and the "documentation" is a result of the attack, correct?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you respond to multiple comments here (BLUDGEON?) repeating arguments raised above, expect a response. The attack is what generated interest in this person initially, however most of the coverage (including in journal papers) is of his radicalization path which is distinct and prior to the attack.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz I'm pinging you in case there is anything you want to selectively merge. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete/Merge to the shooting article: Textbook case of WP:CRIME: 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. This proposition can be very easily checked. Consider the version right now. Look at the "Background" section and check the citations. Leave aside this source from "Anchor Publishing", which is a self-publishing outlet, and thus source shouldn't be in the article at all. Every single one of the sources cited in this section is in connection with the shooting. Here, I'll list out some of the headlines of the articles for you (translated if in German):
- The Frankfurt pistol shooter and his contacts
- Frankfurt Attack Mystifies Suspect’s Family
- Airport assassin Lifetime for Arid Uka
- Airport assassin Arid Uka condemned -- Maximum penalty for US soldier murder

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Closing admin, when this is merged to the article on the shooting please make it very selective. Most of the background information is useless and obviously the content on the incident will already be addressed at the merge destination.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Delete/Merge per Sandstein and Kingsindian.Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting per WP:BLP1E. I searched in vain within the article and the sources for evidence of Uka's radicalisation being itself the subect of study, as proposed above, there were only 'mentions'. In so far as Uka is an early example of the 'lone wolf' phenomenon, that would anyway belong more on that page. There is little here - if anything - that is not already covered in the event article. Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. 23 editor (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. The story of his radicalization would be of little interest to anyone other than his closest family and friends if he had not murdered two people. Any such content belongs in the article about the murders. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I agree with IceWhiz that it clearly meets WP:CRIMINAL. Article contains sourced bio information both pre/post attack should ideally not be merged. Subject's Islamic radicalization is of sufficient newsworthiness that coverage will follow. Furthermore, keep as per WP:PERPETRATOR 2. "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." The ongoing coverage Uka's self-radicalization seems to me to make him independent of his crime. There are several examples of this matter. See, for example, Lone wolf terrorist: The security official’s worst nightmare, Deutsche Welle, 2016 [50]; Profiles of radicals reveal numerous paths to extremism, Associated Press, [51], more similar in both German and English. Plus SIGCOV of his path to radicalization in an extraordinarily large number of books. The article also mentions that he is an early example of "lone wolf terrorism" and gives a number of sources to support this matter. Lone wolf terrorism is on the rise and is a particularly pernicious form of terrorism that security experts/forces are finding hard to combat. So the historical importance of Arid Uka is such that one would expect historians and other scholars to cite this individual. In addition, the article mentions: "The shooting was the first terror attack by a Salafist Jihadist in Germany". So again, So the historical importance of Arid Uka is such that one would expect historians and other scholars to cite this individual. Due to the growing friction between the growing numbers of right-wing nationalists in Europe and a growing population of European Muslims and the continued rise of Islamic fundamentalism, the historical importance of Arid Uka will only rise. A majority of Muslims are also resistant to assimilating into European cultures and wish to retain much of their own cultures and this is further causing a clash of cultures. Terrorism is often a form of fourth-generation warfare. The militant Islamacists vs. Western democracies conflict shows signs of accelerating judging from the increased pace of Muslim attacks in Europe. From a fourth-generation warfare military history perspective, one can argue that this article will grow in importance. Knox490 (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CRYSTAL, about not predicting his hypothetical future notability as a basis for retaining an article on just one more stooge in the terror wave.These articles are written by editors who, were the subject Hispanic, would be writing up the slim bios of every Mexican/Central American murderer in the US under the category of Hispanic immigrant killers, as part of some WASP hysteria about a presumed Catholic/Latino threat to the USA. Nishidani (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Most terrorists do not appear in multiple journal articles, in fact many are not named in such articles at all - with non-news sources limited to "terror encyclopedias" and other books that cover every terror event in some scope. this particular individual has 170+ google scholar hits - Google Scholar for Arid Uka (170 after jumping ahead to last and verifying he's in the article preview text) - some of which are passing (as a lone wolf example) some are quite in-depth regarding his radicalization. Uka has become a bona fida illustrative example in academic circles.Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that his fundamentalist islamisation is widely cited does not constitute grounds for a biography when that fact already exists in the Frankfort airport article (unless the point is to create several thousand articles on people who have become Islamic fundamentalists, and a couple of million on evangelical fundamentalists, since 57% of the US population thinks federal law should be based on Biblical principles,-70% approving state executions which in huge disproportion affect Afro-Americans far more than Caucasian murderers- just as Islamic fundamentalists think the law in Arab countries should derive from the Sharia). This hysteric focus on Islamic radicalization reflects the toxic news cycle's bias, rather than, encyclopedically, throwing light on the nature of such phenomena.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the subject is treated separately, it does. As for media focus on Islamists vs. evangelical fundamentalists - we follow the coverage when assessing notability for WP:GNG, WP:SOAP of possible media/scholarly bias regarding lack of coverage of attackers who shout "Jesus Christ" prior to carrying out their attack is a matter to be taken up with the media/scholars, not here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PERP #2 Agathoclea (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. No real coverage of him exists independent of this one event, and it should not be confusing for readers to be redirected to the shooting article or to read about the shooter’s motives there. Although multiple reliable sources were added to the article page showing Uka is an example of “lone wolf terrorism”, they don’t seem to be about him specifically and only list him out as one of multiple examples. That coverage isn’t specific to him and we don’t need separate articles on every single person motivated by Islamic fundamentalism to do something. Lone wolf terrorism already exists, already mentions this shooting as one of several, and already redirects to the shooting page. The shooter’s motives are not so unique to give this shooter lasting notability on his own. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:49, 8 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chennaiyin FC. content remains in the history for a selective merge to parent ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chennaiyin FC Fans[edit]

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

Request for deletionas subject Lacks Wikipedia:NOT .Fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports), Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and third party references Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article. Kante4 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am against a Merging.it will makes the main Chennaiyin FC article too big. There is the Supporters section which is covered very well.thus Delete. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not the whole article should be merged, just a few things. Sorry for that... Kante4 (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chennaiyin FC Fans, possibly with a limited merge. At the very least, it's a plausible search term and should be redirected, though. Smartyllama (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into club's article.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:25, 13 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson House (Dumfries, Virginia)[edit]

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

Unreferenced and does not meet GNG. Its claimed to be historic, but apparently not rising to the level of NRHP. I did find some info from a local historic group in Dumfries, VA [52] but that is not enough. MB 00:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD after technical issues. ansh 666 01:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A book called George Washington's Country was published by E. P. Dutton in 1930. This book contains nine pages about this mid-18th century house. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the house where The Grand Old Man of the Marine Corps was raised, one of the most important figures of the early days of the Corps. Interesting DYK, it was also hit by a cannonball during the civil war as a result of the fighting nearby. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It’s a house. Per WP:NGEO, houses don’t inherit notability from people. Someone being raised in a house doesn’t make it notable on its own, otherwise we’d have a lot of articles on houses. Also, if we did an article on every building that was damaged during the Civil War, we’d have a whole lot more articles on houses and buildings. There aren’t even articles for all the childhood homes of every President of the United States. This house isn’t on the National Register and doesn’t have historic park or monument status that I can find, and I can’t find anything else to establish its notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage identified by Cullen together with the other source highlighted by the nominator. Wikipedia has many thousands of articles on houses of historic notability and this one passes GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because a house is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places, does not mean that it is not historical. The house in question was built by Alexander Henderson a merchant and politician in the British colony and American state of Virginia who is notable enough to have his own article in Wikipedia. The house was also the home of another notable figure, Archibald Henderson the "Grand old man of the Marine Corps".Tony the Marine (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A house does not inherit notability because it was built by someone notable or lived in by someone notable (as previously stated by Shelbystripes). It needs to have significant independent coverage in RS on its own. No one has provided any sources except one book "George Washington's Country", but I can't read the relevant pages in the Google preview and thus can't discern the depth of the coverage. The source I provided is not independent; it is a local historical group in Dumfries, Va (pop. 5000) that is trying to promote tourism in the town. MB 04:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dumfries was one of the largest towns in America during the tobacco period of the late 1700s. Where did you come up with the comment about the historical group...specifically where you stated, that it "is trying to promote tourism in the town"? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This search shows (at least for me - Google Books can be very unpredictable about what it displays) that this house is the topic of a nine-page chapter in that book. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I concur with User: FieldMarine who wrote: "This is the house where The Grand Old Man of the Marine Corps was raised, one of the most important figures of the early days of the Corps." I added a link in the external link section.Knox490 (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, buildings do not inherit notability, so this is not really a valid reason to keep under Wikipedia policies. Being a place someone notable lived does not make that place notable in itself. Also the "external link" you added is to the current proprietor of the house, which means it is not an independent reliable source and does not add support to keeping the page. Are there multiple independent reliable sources supporting encyclopedic notability? So far I've heard mention of nine pages in a single book, but that's all. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions the house being used as a hospital for both the north and the south during the Civil War, depending on who held the territory at the time. I'm sure there's more to that thread with a little more research, and certainly notable IMHO. The article also states there's a 1930s-era Marine Corps museum history of the home. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the 1930s article from the Marine Corps Museum that says the house had many notable men entertained there during the revolution and was used as a hospital during the Civil War. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on two editors asserting the nine pages of coverage of the house. However, the article is just one or two sentences without sources (unless the external link is one), and by now in an AFD usually the article in question should be developed more. (Though "AFD is not for cleanup", it usually is helpful to simply develop an article and take it off the table. However, if some editor seems to be using AFD to force cleanup (I don't know if that is happening here), it seems more beneficial to fight that by arguing for Keep without cleaning up.) --do ncr am 04:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have cited the book mentioned above if I had access to the full text. As it is I can see from the table of contents that it has a chapter about this house but I can't see any of the content. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does not NOTINHERITED apply? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 15 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Aygün Kazımova. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sevərsənmi[edit]

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

No rationale given by nominator, Mister Memmedov.

Mister Memmedov, I'm not sure what you're doing with all these malformed AfDs of articles you created. If you want to delete them, then as creator you can speedy them. Again, do not revert another editor's work without an edit summary - it's unhelpful, unclear and plain rude - and put your reasons for nominating heree, you seem to be wasting everyone's time. WP:Communication is required on Wikipedia, not optional. Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist, could find no evidence it meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator has now just been blocked for promotional only/undisclosed paid editing, on articles about this artist, so will no longer be able to join the conversation. Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 8 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.