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

The result was Delete --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DigiByte[edit]

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

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

Notability not established, primary and self-published sources only, proliferation of link spam Retimuko (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another non notable cryptocurrency running off its own blockchain that only gets mentions and normal-for-business hits. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has received some coverage but not enough. Probably will receive more coverage when/if it spikes again, and could be re-created then. Currently does not meet GNG. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lots of non WP:RS, but there doesn't seem to be any to satisfy WP:GNG . Widefox; talk 16:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2018 (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. J04n(talk page) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murtada Almoussawi[edit]

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

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

Non-notable journalist. The Arabic sourcing either doesn't appear to be about him or is about one event (he was injured in a bombing, which unfortunately happens fairly frequently to journalists in war zones). WP:BLP1E applies here TonyBallioni (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some sources have been translated and indicate somewhat to the markedness of this person English Language --Spainman201888 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Strike CU confirmed sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is one story. That is all the coverage of him is about. I translated all of the articles into English. It is the definition of WP:BLP1E. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the article needs to be improved so we want to listen to the opinions of others--Spainman201888 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find sufficient coverage in RS. Most of the currently listed sources are about the subject being injured while reporting on the Hawija offensive (2017). One is about receiving an award at the Islamic Radio and Television Festival in Tehran in 2015. No in-depth coverage. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I Check his arabic article on wikipedia I think he is notable enough for wiki--MARY018 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Strike CU confirmed sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE fails WP: NJOURNALIST as per nom. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2018 (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. spam by undeclared paid editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmood Ali (producer)[edit]

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

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

This is an Indian film producer and director who has an impressive list of films but no evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I have already cleaned up some blog and IMDB citation, but the remaining ones are either associated with the subject's company Pen N Camera International (which I have just converted to a redirect because it had largely the same content as this article), or offer only mentions or scant coverage. The creator of this article appears to be associated with Pen N Camera International, based on contribution history. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Titane Laurent[edit]

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

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

Apparently not notable by our standards, fails WP:ARTIST. She apparently wrote God's Stuff, but I'm having difficulty seeing how that is notable either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Having a look at God's Stuff and not sure that article should be kept either. NZFC^(talk) 00:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete search turns up diddly-squat in terms of RS.104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - recreation of a deleted page - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titane laurent. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still non notable. I wouldn't take it as G4, though, as the prior AFD is over a decade old, and all but 2 of the participants have been inactive for years. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete or Redirect to God's Stuff: I'm not seeing enough to meet GNG, but the strip itself appears to have adequate indicia of notability. My thinking is a redirect might be preferable so as to not leave a redlink as bait for re-creation, given that this is round two as to this individual. Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Notability not demonstrated, but I agree with Montanabw.Deb (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Deb, Montanabw, NZ Footballs Conscience, I've nominated God's Stuff for deletion also – the article turned out to consist mostly of the publisher's blurb from the back cover, and the article creator has claimed to be the author's husband. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG and not supported by reliable sources. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even though the name is unusual and thus Google results are easy to parse, I'm not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The comic strip has no notability either. SunChaser (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2018 (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. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Adams (lottery winner)[edit]

Evelyn Adams (lottery winner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable lottery winner. Don Cuan (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the references is a book entitled "Virtually Useless Information" and really that sums up the encyclopedic value of this article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was ready to have the article deleted until I did a search in Google on "Evelyn Adams lottery" and found dozens of sources, many of which were added to the article. Many of the sources that include her name are brief mentions, but the two sources from The New York Times are in-depth coverage about her, both from 1986 when she won for the second time (arguably a BLP1E) and in 1993 after she had blown it all. The coverage has continued over the decades, using her example as a two-time lottery winner who lost it all as a cautionary tale. I plan on nominating the expanded article for inclusion in DYK, though the AfD would have to end successfully for inclusion. Alansohn (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Violation of WP:BLP as notable for one event only (technically two, but even so). The only in-depth coverage came when she actually won the lottery. Articles after that were "where are they now?" human-interest stories about multiple people. And featuring the article as DYK would just further violate the "presumption in favor of privacy" in BLP.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete winning the lottery alone is not grounds for notability, and there is nothing else here to establish notability on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to non-policy-based vote All you've done is make an assertion that the individual is not notable. I get, you don't like it; it's WP:NOTNOTABLE. No one has argued that winning the lottery is a claim of notability in and of itself. Winning the lottery twice and being the topic of sustained coverage over a period of decades a rather string claim of notability. The fact that you are unable to address the reliable and verifiable sourcing only detracts any credence from your vote. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As rare as it is, simply winning the lottery twice is not a strong claim to notability. And even though she one twice, winning the lottery is a routine event (hundreds of people win every year), so I still going to call it "notable for one event only". She has not been the subject of significant in-depth coverage since she won the lottery the second time. A few sentences in those "where are they now?" lottery winners stories since are not significant in-depth coverage. This type of coverage actually falls under WP:NOTNEWS. What is the purpose of this article anyway? To embarrass (or possibly shame) a woman who obviously has very poor money management skills and a possible gambling addiction?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E covers *ONE* -- and only *ONE* -- event. She is notable for *TWO* events, having been noted as the first person in the United States to have the distinction, and has received enduring and significant in-depth coverage since her second win. It's refreshing to see that you're appealing to mentions of Wikipedia policy, such as WP:NOTNEWS, rather than just arguing that anything you don't like should be deleted, and repeating that argument ad nauseum at forum after forum until you achieve your goal of seeing an article deleted. Unfortunately, WP:NOTNEWS makes mentions of four specific criteria: 1) Original reporting ; 2) News reports; 3) Who's who; and 4) A diary. None of those apply, and if you're calling thus based on a news report, that is described as "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.", which is not what these in-depth article are. The net result is hardly an argument for anything, let alone deletion. Alansohn (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is winning the lottery not a routine news event? Every single week I see a story on the local news about someone winning the lottery. She won twice, it made a nice "can you believe that happened?" story for the media and now its over. And as I said before since then there have only been trivial mentions of this woman in what happened to former lottery winner stories. Yes, I know it happened **TWO** times, that's not **ONE**, but **TWO** times, I even said that in my last comment, but from previous experience I know you have trouble with reading. I'm not sure if its a comprehension problem or you just need new glasses (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, see an eye doctor).

However, it was the same event twice, winning the lottery ranks extremely low on the list of events ranked by notability. If we take a look at WP:EVENT & WP:ROUTINE, it clearly falls in line with the other routine events there. "This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories)." (emphasis mine) If winning an award is not notable, I doubt winning the lottery is. (even if you do it twice) Adams winning the lottery twice does not meet the requirements of having a lasting effect or duration of coverage.

Let's try another example here. Let's say someone makes the news twice for committing two separate, but similar crimes (let's say it was murder and there were witnesses so we know who did it). And then this person still has not been arrested and five years later they appear on America's Most Wanted or some similar show. Didn't they get coverage for two separate events? Didn't they also get coverage a few years later? Would they also meet the requirements for an article? Unless their crime was murdering some famous person, I doubt it. It would still be routine.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What an ass -- "from previous experience I know you have trouble with reading" -- but let's try to take your ludicrous arguments at face value. The question is not whether you arbitrarily decide that a person is notable, it's coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, a topic that you have studiously ignored. The coverage about Adams has been anything but routine, as a search for sources required by WP:BEFORE would have shown, had policy been observed in this case. One person killing two people is not an independent event; one person winning the lottery twice, an event described in multiple reliable and verifiable sources as a one on 15 trillion occurrence (even if you disagree with the calculation), is anything but WP:ROUTINE. That's why there's no coverage of Adams winning the lottery the first time, but *LOTS* of coverage of her winning twice in the span of four months. Your example of murderers undermines itself and proves the exact opposite of what you argue.

When you write WP:BLP2E and get it approved as policy by consensus, you might have a case. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:BLP2E actually became a policy (instead of an essay), it would support your argument, not mine. Again, I highly recommend that you **READ** things **BEFORE** you post them. The fact that the BLP2E essay is not policy seems to suggest not everyone agrees with such a literal interpretation of BLP1E.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, winning the lottery twice by definition cannot cause a WP:BLP1E issue. Two wins of the lottery = two significant events. Fish+Karate 12:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have reviewed a Did You Know Nomination for this article. epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep won the lottery twice with follow-up coverage years later; properly ref'dDjflem (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by Alan especially the New York Times sources which is a clear sign of passing GNG, also two wins = two events, clearly. Also on it's own this means nothing but i'm not even in the same continent of this woman and i know her name, for a lottery winner in the 80s to get 36,217 [1] views on here, shows there's interest. GuzzyG (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is simple. There is significant coverage of these two events (and their aftermath) in multiple, independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is tabloid journalism. There's a long history of people winning lotteries, becoming sports stars, etc, and then squandering their fortunes because they never learned how to manage money. I'll admit it's a stretch to call winning the lottery twice one event, but it kind of is. We don't need this article, and we certainly don't need it on the front page. If you want to call it WP:IAR, I'm OK with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to easily pass WP:GNG based on the current sourcing of the article. She has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" over the course of many years, not just for the lottery wins themselves, but also for how her life went afterward. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Page has been significantly improved since the AfD was created due to Alansohn's edits introducing solid refs to meet GNG. This is not a BLP1E article as she is mentioned in full pieces over at least the span of 7 years as shown in the refs included on the page, then additionally 20+ years later she is still being mentioned. (Though these passing-mention refs wouldn't be appropriate for establishing GNG, they show an interest in the subject decades later, plus GNG is already proven with the refs from 1986 and 1993.) The article also receives tons of hits so there is interest in her still in 2018. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I-War (1995 video game)[edit]

I-War (1995 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested WP:PROD from years back. Despite that, the article remains a completely unsourced stub. As the contesting editor noted, there are a whopping two reviews from notable/reliable publications listed at Mobygames: one from EGM, and the obligatory review in GamePro, who devoted a whole three sentences to the game. They also list a review from Video Games & Computer Entertainment, but I can't confirm its existence since I don't have any issues of that magazine. My researches have turned up next to nothing in the way of previews, development info, or after-market commentary. There just doesn't seem much significant coverage of this game. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: are sources like these considered to be reliable for subjects like these or are they "too closely connected"? (as it's not a news site or magazine or anything) because otherwise I or someone else could expand it based on this source. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the Mobygames page itself, or the sources it links to? Mobygames is unreliable because it uses user-submitted content, though it can be a helpful resource for finding reliable sources. Some of the sources linked from Mobygames are reliable and some are not; WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources is a helpful guide.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like a notable game, that makes no argument towards notability. Some Reviews from notable publications Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - there are reviews, although almost all are bad. [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] Nonetheless, it did exist and was part of the Atari Jaguar console library. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Existence ≠ Notability. I already addressed the Mobygames listing in my nomination (gotta love it when people vote on an AFD without reading why it's been nominated). Wikipedia's general notability guidelines are that the subject has been extensively covered by multiple notable/reliable sources, so the fact that I-War was reviewed by a grand total of two notable/reliable sources (again, one of which only allotted three sentences to the game), rather than proving I-War is notable, proves that it is not notable.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct a frequent misconception: the GNG requires that coverage be "significant", not "extensive". Also, bad reviews contribute as much to notability as good ones. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your nomination - did you count the sources I listed? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• AtariHQ is in the RS list. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Video Games & Computer Entertainment was apparently published as Video Games - The Ultimate Gaming Magazine from September 1993 to its end in mid-1996. Archive.org has a copy of the issue and the review appears on page 88 with the associated 6 out of 10 score. I think this is a weak keep, given VG - TUGM, Atari HQ, EGM, and the three sentences in GamePro. --Izno (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- these games are a dime a dozen; the article offers no sources and no encyclopedically relevant prose. Coverage offered above is of routine nature and does not amount to WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep reviews aren't amazing (either the depth of review nor the ranking of this game) but meet WP:N. I'd prefer a merge into something like a more detailed List of Atari Jaguar games given that these reviews all seem to lean more toward list-type reviews themselves. Hobit (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I know various magazines from the era that reviewed the title and more recent reviews by some notable online outlets that i plan to add to the article to make it more presentable for Wikipedia, that's one of my projects here on the site when it comes to the Jaguar. I really hate when people want to delete articles to the games related to the system so i say keep the article. I plan to expand it in the future. -- KGRAMR (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2018 (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. Opinions are evenly split but the killer argument is the absence of a clear overview that apparently cannot be written without OR. Noone has really disputed that each Nordic country had a different experience of the war, which again argues that an overview article is unfeasible. Given this it feels like the votesbtgat best reflect the production of a quality encyclopaedia are the delete ones. The outcome would be different if there was prospect of a well supported overview. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic countries in World War II[edit]

Nordic countries in World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Following an extensive debate on the talk page, I argue the category "Nordic countries" is not sufficiently notable to justify an article on WWII. The WP convention is to approach the wartime history by country - and this is a logical category to use. Otherwise, there is a danger of multiple content forks emerging (i.e. Balkans, Low Countries, Baltic States in WWII) besides the basic national articles. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pings to users involved in the discussion: @Erik den yngre:, @Rjensen:, @Manxruler:.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the military history of the region esp re WW2 has been the subject of several scholarly and popular books in English (and many more in the Scandinavian languages)--eg: 1) Bohme, Klaus-Richard. he Defense Policies of the Nordic Countries, 1918-1939 (1979); 2) Elting, John R. Battles for Scandinavia (Time-Life Books 1981); 3) Haarr, Geirr. The Gathering Storm: Naval War in Northern Europe, September 1939 to April 1940 (US Naval Institute Press, 2013); 4) a scholarly article: Krosby, H. Peter. "The United States and the Nordic Countries, 1940-1945." Revue Internationale d'Histoire Militaire Ancienne (1982), Issue 53, pp 125-148; 5) Miller, James. The North Atlantic Front: Orkney, Shetland, Faroe and Iceland at War (2004); 6) Nissen, Henrik S. ed. Scandinavia during the Second World War (Nordic Series, number 9.) (University of Minnesota Press and Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. 1983)--published 25 years ago with scholars from six countries; 7) a scholarly survey: Vehvilainen, Olli. "Scandinavian Campaigns." in A Companion to World War II (2012) ed. by Thomas W. Zeiler and Daniel M. DuBois : vol 1 pp 208–21.-- plus the Nordic theatre gets well covered in overall surveys of WW2: 8) World War II: A Short History (Routledge 2015) by Michael J. Lyons = one full chapter (#6) out of 26 chapters. 9) half of chapter 3 in Max Hastings Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945 (2011); 10) all of ch 4 in World War II: A Compact History (1969, reprint 2017) by R. Ernest Dupuy. Rjensen (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) Haarr's book deals with Norway and the North Sea, not with Finland. 5) Miller's book deals with the islands in the North Atlantic plus Norway, not with Finland or Sweden. — Erik Jr. 14:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening sentence now reads: "Given their strategic locations regarding Britain and Russia, the Nordic countries in World War II were the targets of German conquest or control, along with the nearby islands, while the British tried to stop them." This sets the stage for the article and assumes that the scope is logical and notable. But it is not at all clear if this statement is true. Soviet union tried to conquer Finland, not Hitler. Finland approached Germany for military support and joined Germany against Soviet union. Denmark was swiftly occupied, but Britain did not try to stop the german army, and Denmark was primarily a stepping stone to Norway. Germany did not try to occupy Iceland. Germany did not even occupy Svalbard. There were certainly spillovers between these countries, for instance Norwegian refugees and "police forces" in Sweden, refugees from Finland to Sweden during the Lapland war, German retreat from Lapland through Finnmark, a Norwegian squadron in Iceland etc. But there is no coherent, shared story there to justify a separate article. --— Erik Jr. 15:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erik claims "there is no coherent, shared story." hed provides no RS to support his claim. That is not accepted by historians of the war who treat them together (see Lyons, Hastings, Dupuy) and by the governments themselves, of whom historian Nissen states: The governments of the four countries....have repeatedly emphasized the existence of Nordic cooperation and a common Nordic culture. They did so before the war; they did so during the war in so far as it was politically feasible; and they did so again after the war, when cooperation was institutionalized. Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but it is the other way around. The article should present information from RS that justifies the article (beyond the obvious that they have shared borders and therefore some spillover is expected). I would add that presenting a general claim (such as "have repeatedly emphasized the existence of Nordic cooperation and a common Nordic culture") is not enough, the article should present specific information to support the claim ("show, don't tell"). This issue we pointed out in 2015 and the information is still missing. More importantly, the story that is still missing need to be a stronge one to justify departure from WP convention to tell WW2 history country by country. There are many regions or group of countries that are more natural or logical in the context of WW2, for instance Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg, the Baltics, or Eastern Central Europe. --— Erik Jr. 00:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the main reason for the nomination. The "Nordic countries" is a geographic and political concept, but not sufficiently notable in the context of WW2. There are no strong reasons to depart from the WP convention to approach the wartime history country by country: These countries do not have a shared history during WW2 except for Denmark and Norway that is already covered in Operation Weserübung.--— Erik Jr. 14:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is AFD, not RFC or RM, so let's follow WP:AFDFORMAT. I have for clarity and per WP:TPO struck "Support as nom", changed one "Oppose" to "Keep", and changed "Support delete" to "Delete". Sam Sailor 17:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - The topic, as a topic, of the Nordic or Scandinavian theater in WWII is notable (per sources presented above, and readily available in BEFORE - [5][6][7][8][9] - and is probably a better grouping than a per-country basis as the actions of the various countries up north was not detached. However, the article quality here is lower than the per-country articles at the moment - hence the userfy !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't agree that the Nordic countries is a better grouping. As mentioned previously the history of the Nordic countries during WW2 is very different. Look at the opening statement ("Nordic" removed) that sets the stage for the article: ".... were the targets of German or Russia conquest or control...." This is true for all European countries, including Britain, and Poland in particular. It is true that the "the actions of the various countries up north was not detached", but it is also the case for virtually European countries in WW2. For instance: Allied troops were pulled out of Narvik because of German advance in France. Except for Weserübung developments in these countries were not particularly related. If you look closely at the early stages of the war most countries on the continent were more related, for instance German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia was related to the invasion of Poland, the German invasion of Belgium was related to the invasion of France. Life during the war was also quite different. During the final stages of the war, for instance the liberation of Bohemia was related to allied victory in Berlin, the liberation of Denmark was part of the German capitulation in NW Germany etc. So the point is that each Nordic country is a different story, in particular Finland with its unique story. Grouping the Nordics is much more artificial than similar groupings of countries on the continent. — Erik Jr. 15:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add: Scandinavia and the Nordics are not the same. If we take Iceland and Finland out of the equation (and Orkeneys of course), the scope of the article makes more sense. — Erik Jr. 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Icewhiz' indicate "not detached" as a criteria for grouping, this is a weak criteria as already mentioned as most European countries were related. And it is not clear what "actions of the various countries" means. Iceland (then part of Denmark) and Denmark did not do anything, they were very passive, so it is not clear how their actions should be judged. — Erik Jr. 15:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree that a per country history is the best way to organize. It actually isn't the way most historians work (unless in a vary national setting). Countries themselves shift quite a bit - what was once independent gets subjugated or merged or split. Treating the Baltics, for instance, as we do in German occupation of the Baltic states during World War II is quite straightforward. The Baltics in WWII all faces the same fate and really had little variation between themselves (as temporary Buffer states between WWI and WWII - modern sensibilities for post-Soviet independence aside - frankly most history text prior to 1990 made little separation between them). Treating the Nordics as a group is not a "bad thing" - and it is done externally to Wikipedia. In terms of Wikipedia policy - if this is treated as a topic by scholars, so can we.Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Loads of info on WP is organized by country, and I agree that in many cases that is not the best way. But on WP we do both things, for instance we have articles on identifiable battles and operations (such as Weserübung that covers more than one country), and we have articles for countries during wars for instance Norway in World War II, the same information is found in separate articles. In the case of the Nordics, country is clearly be basic level of analysis because all countries were basically intact as sovereign states and public administration continued operation within existing borders even under occupation. Even if Sweden cooperated with Germany (transfer of troops for instance), the German occupants respected Swedish sovereignty (so 2 meters across the border Norwegians were basically safe). Germany treated Norway as one country in military and civilan affairs (for instanceReichskommissariat Norwegen), same for Denmark. So, given that individual Nordic countries stand out as the natural unit, there must be strong reasons to add yet another level. Events or plans that included more than one country are already covered in articles on Weserübung, Plan R 4, Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive etc., and it is not clear what is the value added of repeating information from these articles. --— Erik Jr. 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it a bad thing to treat the Nordics as a group in relation to WW2? Yes, perhaps. When we create an article about X on WP we also say that "X is something", so this article may give the impression WW2 in the Nordic area was one thing, but quite the opposite is true. So we should be careful not to impose a perspective on the material, for instance the phrase "Attention turned to the Nordic theater." was added to the article without reference. On the talkpage I have already commented on the sources cited as evidence. For instance Stenius etal (Stenius, H., Österberg, M. and Östling, J., eds. Nordic Narratives of the Second World War) is a collection of essays about WW2 seen from each of the Nordic countries, it is not about the Nordic countries as one Theatre of War. --— Erik Jr. 19:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crime and Control in Scandinavia During the Second World War edited by Takala (also published in Norwegian, 1987), is also collection of research papers from each of the Nordic (except Iceland). This is also typical for much of the literature: The heading is "Nordic ...." or "Scandinavia ....", but the content is about individual countries. --— Erik Jr. 19:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• comment It is NOT true that the WP convention to approach the wartime history country by country. We have Latin America during World War II, Pacific War [[European Theatre of World War II and [[Middle East Theatre of World War II The Nordic region was explicitly treated as a unit by the British and the French, as the article explains regarding the planned Norway invasion in 1940. Furthermore the RS state and are quoted saying that the Nordic countries considered themselves a common unit before, during and after the war. Rjensen (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Second World War was, by definition, global in scope. It is conventional to divide it into regions or theatres such as the Mediterranean or Eastern Front and these typically involve several countries. The basis of the nomination is therefore false. In any case, there are obvious alternatives to deletion which are preferred by our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is what we are discussing: Was the Nordic one theatre of war? — Erik Jr. 19:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a minimum I think this article should temporarily be taken out of the mainspace, until most content issues are resolved. — Erik Jr. 19:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a Nordic region? Did it matter as a region in WW2? Erik has based his argument on a false premise--that Wikipedia has a secret policy against regional articles re WW2. His claim is refuted by major Wiki articles such as Latin America during World War II and Pacific War and European Theatre of World War II and Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II. All historians of the war cover the Norway campaign of 1940 --often giving it a whole chapter. Rightly so because the military planners in Britain and France as well as their political leaders such as Churchill and Reynaud treated the region as a whole, and had a coordinated action that involved simultaneous warfare involving Finland, Norway, Sweden and USSR (and also two Danish possessions) all in order to win an economic war that would ruin the Germany economy. They had a region-wide perspective -- as historians have recognized. Butler in Grand Strategy says he deals with "Allied operations in Scandinavia" (p 92) -- Erik assumes the Allied planners of WW2 had separate plans for each country. No they had integrated plans for the entire region simultaneously. As did Germany at the same time and the Germans invaded Denmark and Norway together on the same day not separately, while fighting off the British navy. Furthermore Berlin made diplomatic deals with USSR, Finland and Sweden to support their control of Scandinavia. The Allied and German plans can not be handled country by country the way Erik demands because the war planners thought in terms of controlling the Nordic region not in separate plans for each separate nation. It's the same with the European Theatre of World War II when Allied and German planners envisioned the region as a whole rather than a discrete set of separate units. It's well known how German delays in helping Italy in the Balkans in early 1941 delayed its invasion of Russia. Regions matter more than national boundaries in winning a world war. Indeed, Germany and USSR abolished Baltics/Poland/Czechoslovakia as independent countries, created brand new countries, and redrew national boundaries to suit their larger war plans. Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rjensen: Please stop the mindereading, stop making assumptions about what I think and assume. Focus on facts and issues, please, this discussion is not about me. — Erik Jr. 23:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Erik assumes the Allied planners of WW2 had separate plans for each country." Where did I present this assumption? Please stop misquoting me. --— Erik Jr. 18:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rjensen wrote:"Is there a Nordic region?" Again, you are misrepresenting the arguments I gave. Nobody question the idea of a Nordic region (although only after WW2 the Nordic cooperation was formally established) and geographical proximity is obvious. So can you please stop using unfair rhetorical devices? --— Erik Jr. 18:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Let us take a step back and forget the details for a moment. I think the key question is: What is the value added of having one more (intermediate) geographical level of analysis? If this level of analysis did not function as a unit, the additional level of analysis will merely be an aggregation of information from articles about countries. So the question if or to what degree were the Nordics a unit during WW2. The answer I would say is a «no» with regard to actual events (as been demonstranted clearly in the discussion above), except perhaps in allied, Soviet and German plans. The Nordics did not act as a unit, they were not invaded as one, they were not liberated as one etc., and the countries/sovereign states remained intact. So the shared history for the whole region exists at best only as plans made by the major powers. The danger of having a separate article is giving the impression that the region was quite unified when it is was not. So the reason for such an article that remains is a way to organize information. The key question: Is it useful to organize or aggregate information at one more level? Perhaps, but I am not convinced: Overviews are found in several articles already with links to articles with details. So the article is redundant and we risk fragmenting content. --— Erik Jr. 00:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's a puzzling comment about "giving an impression" Wikipedia's job is to tell what happened and that is done here, no matter what prior impressions people had. The Allies and the Germans both made plans for the region- and they ACTED on the region in accord with their plans--which were all based on Nordic region as a unit. The Allies failed militarily in 1940 and the Germans won, and that victory shaped the entire war years. The Nordics in fact acted as a unit before the war in setting up a neutrality front--they were quite unified. The ww2 experience gave them a strong shared memory that still persists. They did not go separate ways before, during or after the war, according to Nissen. Furthermore historians writing the overall history of WW2 typically them as a unit. I wonder if Erik admits that has abandoned his original claim that Wikipedia has a policy against regional articles in ww2. Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again: Please stop focusing on persons, the discussion is not about what I must "admit". And you are not quoting me correctly: I said there is a convention, I never claimed that there is (a secret) "policy". Comparison to South America is also unfair as that is a continent, and far from the battlefields.
    • "...historians writing the overall history of WW2 typically them as a unit..." Some historians perhaps, but to present this as typical is inaccurate. "The ww2 experience gave them a strong shared memory that still persists." - this is also quite inaccurate, Norway and Denmark yes, as occupied countries, Norway and Sweden yes because of the long porous border; Finland and Denmark had completely different experiences during the war, Denmark was one of the places to spend the war. --— Erik Jr. 18:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A quick search on Google Books verges clearly onto the side that there is notability in considering the Nordics/Scandinavia as a separate geographical/regional unit during WW2. For example, "Hitler's Scandinavian Legacy" (2013), "Nordic Narratives of the Second World War" (2011), "Scandinavia and the Great Powers 1890-1940" (2002), "The Nordic Countries in the Early Cold War, 1944-51" (2011) and "Crime and Control in Scandinavia During the Second World War" (1989). It doesn't really matter what wikipedians think is artificial or if the countries had totally different experiences during the war; instead notability is conveyed from what RS discuss about. Manelolo (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Likewise: "The experiences of the First World War, in which the High Seas Fleet had been condemned to inactivity in the dead North Sea, led to early ideas of securing the Nordic region for the battle against British supply lines." (German S-Boats in Action in the Second World War, 2007); "The five Nordic countries emerged from World War II in widely differing ..." (The Nordic balance since the war, 2008); "World War II and its aftermath was of course the event that shaped Nordic Cold War security policy." (Nordic Defense in the Post Cold War Era, 1995); "THE Nordic area has often seemed to be the quiet corner of Europe. This perception harks back to the era between the Napoleonic War and World War II, when Europe was the cockpit of the world and Central Europe and the Balkans provided the military and diplomatic battlegrounds for the great powers — with the Nordic states only rarely being involved, let alone being of importance." (The Nordic region, changing perspectives in international relations, 1990)

  I mean, at this stage it is starting to be quite irrefutable that Nordic/Scandinavia is a notable entity by itself in World War II talk. Manelolo (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources you mention has already been discussed as mostly irrelevant to the issue. For instance "Nordic Narratives of the Second World War" are merely a collection of essays about WW2 in these countries, not about the Nordic region as a unit. --— Erik Jr. 18:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if that argument stands, a few sources above discuss the Nordics/Scandinavia as a clear unit already. And this is only with a very quick search scraping the surface. "... of securing the Nordic region for the battle against British ..." and "THE Nordic area has often seemed to be the quiet corner of Europe." Manelolo (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if some sources mention the Nordics as an entity, the article (current version) does not show how it was an entity. There were no facts on the ground that support the claim: Finland was fighting wars with the Soviet union and there was nothing particularly Nordic about that war. The attempt to tell a story about the Nordics in WW2 is largley artificial. For instance the opening sentence: "The Nordic countries in World War II, given their strategic locations in relation to Britain, Germany and Russia, were the targets of German or Russia conquest or control." This statement does not justify the scope of the article at all, the statement is largley empty or meaningless, because this statement is true for virtually all countries affected by the war or the statement is so inaccurate that it is not informative. For instance it is misleading to say that Finland had a strategic location in relation to Britain, and Sweden did not have a strategic location although some strategic resources. Iceland was not the target of German conquest, Germany did not even occupy Svalbard. In fact Falkenhorst admitted that the German navy was overstretched in April 1940 and was not able to control all relevant ports in Norway leaving Åndalsnes, Namsos, Harstad, Tromsø and Bodø open to allied landing. Iceland was of course of strategic interest to Germany, but if the german navy could not control the Norwegian coast how could they capture Iceland? In the current version the article hardly provides any information beyond what is found in articles on each country. The additional information the article claims to provide is misleading or inaccurate. --— Erik Jr. 14:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (was keep) It is clearly a distinct theatre of conflict, passes notability, and is relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but the claim that the Nordics was "a distinct theatre of conflict" is not supported. The major powers made plans, but the actual events do not support this claim. — Erik Jr. 18:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My country was invaded by the British due to its Strategic importance, and you are saying what? Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also the Nordic countries are very well defined, what exactly is the problem? Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • My country was invaded by Germany, along with a long list of other European countries. The Nordic countries are well defined, but this definition was institutionalized several years after the war. But the discussion is not about the definition of an area, the question is if it can be regarded as a unit during WW2 (for instance as one theater of war). As a region of Europe we can of course use the Nordic as a way to summarize unrelated information. Except some vague statements the article is currently merely a summary of information from other articles. --— Erik Jr. 13:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Erik Jr. - The Nordic countries had shared rulers and treaties and cultural ties as early as 800AD, some 1200 years ago. The entire region was united during the 15th century under the Kalmar Union, a 120 year period where Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Greenland and Iceland were all ruled by the same 'federal' government with a shared monarch. The fact a new union was established after WWII in no way means this was the first union, the nordic region has been well defined since the early medieval period. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a researcher from Finland, although this is widely held in academica: As archaeological and historical sources testify, the present-day Nordic region was gradually interwoven into a tight network of economical, social, cultural, and political exchange ever since the Early Middle Ages. The most long-lasting political constellation was the Kalmar Union (1397–1523) that united Denmark (including present-day Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland) and Sweden (including the southwestern parts of present-day Finland). In a more recent era, common historical structures and institutions such as a uniform Lutheran state-church, the highly centralized state, the agrarian, pragmatic character of “Nordic Enlightenment,” and the relative freedom and early political participation of the land-owning peasants have been emphasized as elements that have left their strong imprint on Nordic people’s everyday experiences and mentalities (See e.g. GÖTZ 2003a, p. 328–331; STENIUS 2003, p. 21–23; HILSON 2008, p. 11–17)^[1]

• • We agree that the region is relatively well defined, something that happened 500 years ago does not change the key question: Was this one well defined theater of war? If the answer is no, the article is merely an agglomeration of information already contained in other articles - that can be OK (even if redundant), but then we should not give the impression that there is one unifying story. The framing of the article is artifical and the things that do in fact connected these countries during WW2 are hardly mentioned. --— Erik Jr. 14:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The main issue: To use the Nordic region as level of analysis to summarize existing information is OK (although redundant and largely artificial in my opinion). There has been some recent changes of the article to make the region look more "united" than it really was (the article should not make the impression that the Nordic region was one theatre of war, because it was not). Except for a mere summary of events, the only substantive justifications for the article are (1) the major powers viewed the region as one and made plans accordingly, so these plans can be a topic within the article (this is still not well covered in the article) and (2) events in separate countries were connected through cooperation or spillover (this is still missing from the article, except for the winter war) for instance: transport of German troops through Sweden, evacuation of jews to safety in Sweden, Norwegian exiles in Sweden and preparation for liberation, the Lapland war and the scorching of Finnmark, etc. In short: The article now does well on things that are redundant, while the things that could make it a relevant article is missing. Instead of trying to build a case about a shared history, the introduction should be honest and specific about the events that did actually connect these countries. — Erik Jr. 19:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main issue is if there is notability to an article per WP:GNG. Nothing more, nothing less. Manelolo (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erik keeps saying that there REALLY was not a theatre of war that can be called Nordic or Scandinavian. That's his private opinion--he has given zero RS that agree, He ignores the general histories that give a chapter to this theater. He ignores RS that explicitly name it for example: Christopher Chant (2013). The Encyclopedia of Codenames of World War II. Taylor & Francis. p. 489.. 2) Already in 1939 the term was used shown here; 3) Germans used it: "n the far north the capitulation of Finland had rendered untentable the advanced German positions in the Scandinavian theater of operations" [ Von Luttichau - 1960]; 4) military historians use it: Earl F. Ziemke, The German Northern Theater of Operations, 1940-1945 (Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1960); 5) An excellent advanced guide to the historiography: "Chapter 13: Scandinavian Campaigns. The countries of North Europe were important to the great powers in the war because of their geostrategic location." Thomas W. Zeiler ed (2012). A Companion to World War II. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 276–. ((cite book)): |author= has generic name (help) Rjensen (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, again the point is to show that it was something, not the "prove" the negative. There are no facts to support the claim the Nordic area was one Theater (warfare): No fighting occurred across borders within the Nordic area and all borders were intact. If we compare this to the events in central europe the differnce is striking: France, Poland and Czechoslovakia were broken up, fighting rolled back and forth across continental Europe irrespective of boundaries. Finland's borders changed and fighting took place over a wide area across the border, but this was a war with the Soviet union and eventually became part of the eastern front, there was nothing particularly Nordic about Finland's wars with the Soviet, the theater of war was in fact the eastern front. --— Erik Jr. 13:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re Operation Stratford: This was british plan as part of wider plan to take control of the Scandinavian penninsula, where the real target was Kiruna and the iron ore railway (no:Operation Avonmouth) and support for Finland was largely a pretext. Rjensen again makes impolite remarks that I ignore things. I am of course perfectly aware of plans developed by germans and allies, and I have repeatedly mentioned that there was perhaps an idea of a Scandinavian theater in these plans. But the article gives the impression that the military events made the area into a single theater for war. If you want to keep the article you must rewrite the article to reflect these facts according to sources. — Erik Jr. 14:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, no one is obligated to improve the article and possible content inaccuracies are not a deletion reason. You literally say in that comment that the British had a wider plan to take control of the region, and it's already been established that war plans were made by both sides that considered the region as a whole, and this is discussed widely in academia in terms of the "nordic region" and occasionally also the roughly equivalent "scandinavian region", not only in the text, but also in the titles of books and scholarly research. It is clear that the Nordic region is defined, was considered a theatre of war (in the war-plans) and has been treated as a supranational region by subsequent academics, therefore this article is valid and meets WP:GNG. The actual content in the article currently is not relevant, tat is a cleanup/content issue. The concept of the article is sound, so there is no valid reason for deletion. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there were plans that involved several countries in the area, we dont disagree in that regard. "...the British had a wider plan to take control of the region" - no, Britain did not plan to control the entire region, but there were plans to take control of Kiruna and the iron railway, with support for Finland as a pretext (Operation Avonmouth). Operation Stratford was a planned operation to support Avonmouth, a preemptive action in case Germany tried to invade Scandinavia. — Erik Jr. 14:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add: On Norwegian WP there is a gentlemen's agreement that those who vote to keep an article of insufficient quality are also (morally) obliged to improve it to an acceptable level, this is a version of TNT. Several contributors in 2015 noted the issues with this article, only in 2018 there has been some improvments, but a lot is still missing. --— Erik Jr. 15:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Apply TNT i.e. start again. The subject is clearly an important one, but this is a horrid article, where most of the content has disappeared into more detailed articles. Furthermore, the experience of different countries is so different that it is going to require an academic author to know sufficient to be able to provide a thorough overview. This is something the present article singularly fails to do. Denmark and Norway were conquered; Finland has wars with USSR, sometimes with the support of Germany. Sweden stayed neutral. The Baltic Republics were overrun by Germany then USSR. Atlantic island possessions were occupied by UK (or USA) to keep the Germans out. This is all highly disparate, so that producing a synthesis that is not a series of separate articles on each country is not a job for an amateur, which is what many WP editors are. I will include myself in that, as this branch of history is not my special subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that the issues about which Erik Jr. is writing are issues of detail, which do not go to the principle of the issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I agree that it is possible to write an acceptable article about WW2 in the Nordics, but is difficult to make an overview or synthesis because of the differences between these countries. But the article should add something, if not there is no reason to keep in my opinion. So perhaps TNT or move to a userpage until it is substantially improved. — Erik Jr. 15:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I mostly agree. I applied some TNT, leaving only the lead section. I am not adverse to a better article being built from this, inclusive of selective restoration from the deleted content. But again, this is a content issue and not a reason for deletion. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some users were trying to fix it (me and Rjensen, a keep vote) while another just TNT'd it (Prince of Thieves, also a keep vote). Therefore, I'm not convinced this article is of any use to anybody. Kill it. We have the topic covered in other articles. In 2018 we do not need half-assed stubby 'overview' articles. Srnec (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  POV does not trump guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - TNT situation. The article is not worth saving; I think the topic, structured properly, would pass muster for inclusion, but the amorphous title of this makes this a duplication of existing content elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (Without prejudice to recreation). I am not convinced any of the existing or former content is usable, being entirely country specific content with no intergration or overview. I have no objections to deletion according to TNT. However this should not stand as a barrier to later recreation by anyone who can actually do the subject justice. This is because I still think the topic itself is valid. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while there is a valid TNT argument (moreso after 75% of the article was recently deleted), my vote is not per TNT. This is inherently WP:SYNTH. Norway was occupied by Germany, Sweden was neutral, and Finland warred with the Soviets more than the Germans. There might be a case for an article specifically on the historiography, but even the references such as "Nordic Narratives of the Second World War" generally say each have "differing narratives". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While Scandinavia was not a distinct theater, there are plenty of references here that refer to the Nordic area/Scandinavia as a noteworthy distinct location for military activity - for instance: Bayer, James A. "The Scandinavian Flank As History, 1939-1940" (1984): Vehvilainen, Olli. "Scandinavian Campaigns." in A Companion to World War II (2012) ed. by Thomas W. Zeiler : vol 1 pp 208–21.: Nissen, Henrik S. ed. Scandinavia during the Second World War (Nordic Series, number 9.)Elting, John R. Battles for Scandinavia (Time-Life Books 1981). Given this, these seem to substantiate it as having its own distinct character. Also considering how other countries got involved, in their neighbour's situations (in particular Sweden in Finland and Norway), given the close relations between Nordic countries. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per good sourcing. It is clearly a distinct theatre of conflict. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Several reliable sources discuss the Nordic region in the context of WW2 and all Nordic countries were involved in the war. If the Nordic region, according to sources, can and should be regarded as one distinct theatre of war, then it should be relatively straightforward to write a summary based on scholarly sources. So far, this account for a Nordic theatre of war is missing from the article, accordingly this justification for the topic is also missing. — Erik Jr. 22:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with that assessment.BabbaQ (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  In what way? How was it a distinct theater? --— Erik Jr. 08:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per power~enwiki. Even after the needed TNT, this argument persists.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Explain.BabbaQ (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  A combination of synthesized and original research rather than actual sourcing covering the collective topic as a single significant notable subject. Erik Jr lays it out well too.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails notability Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  How?BabbaQ (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was under the impression notability was established, and the rationale for deletion is based mainly on the validity of an overview article which supplies no overview. And partly on whether it is worth trying at all. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability as something distinct (a distinct theater of war) is not established (or still disputed). But I guess it is easier to reach consensus on lack of validity or value of a supposed overview article that does not provide overview. Per now the article does not add value, if nobody is able or willing to fix it then delete. — Erik Jr. 17:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would err on the side of not being able to create a valid overview without doing way to much OR, since there only a half dozen books on the subject. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inayat Bernard[edit]

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

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

Nothing special about him (why we need an encyclopedic entry about him?) Nothing significant in sources. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:02, 28 February 2018 (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. If anyone really thinks it should be merged, that's independent of AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manchu studies[edit]

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

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

This is a one-sentence sub-stub which has been tagged for lack of references for eight months and nobody's bothered to find any sources. It was brought to AfD by @TheGracefulSlick: at which point I noticed it and tried to save everybody some time by WP:A7-ing it. But, based on the number of complaints that people have left on my talk page, I guess folks just want to spend the next week arguing about this, so I've restored it and brought it back here. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer the one-sentence sub-stub I originally took objection to, and people have found some sources, so striking that. I'm neutral on whether the newly found sources are sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete There are papers in Manchu studies, but we need an article that says something more about it than that people do this sort of research. At the moment we're stuck at a WP:DICTDEF. Mangoe (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC) struck per expansion Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per my original nom statement. Sorry we have to waste seven days on this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Change to merge as editors have offered reasonable target articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic is clearly notable, so deletion would make sense only as a WP:REDLINK incentive for people to write an article about it. – Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2018 (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/2018 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to either Sinology or Mongolian studies (deliberately avoiding an opinion on exactly which, because I can see a can of worms there). There would appear to be enough information to merge to one or the other of those places - the latter is the shorter article, if that's any help - but seemingly not enough for a standalone article itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that the article has been expanded. One of the sources used is the "Manchu studies" entry in the BRE (the big Russian print encyclopedia), and there are plenty of sources around, so questions of standalone notability are moot. Neither of the two proposed merge targets are remotely suitable (and I agree that there's a can of worms if we decided to go that way). – Uanfala (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Manchu language or similar. There's not enough here to justify a stand alone article, and it's hard to see how there possibly can be. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination complains that "nobody's bothered to find any sources". I take a look and immediately find a Comprehensive Bibliography of Manchu Studies] which is over 200 pages long. How hard was that? Andrew D. (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew above. In additions 4 current journals are devoted to the subject: [10] Timmyshin (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as article has been expanded and per Andrew D. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a legit area of study. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2018 (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. See WP:RM for requesting a title change and to gather consensus on what the title should be, redirects for the suggested titles below have been created and tagged as ((R from alternative name)). (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Usage of Social Media by The Islamic State[edit]

The Usage of Social Media by The Islamic State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely orphaned essay with a weirdly capitalized title, which appears to be a pure content fork of Terrorism and social media with very little ISIL-specific material as opposed to generic material which applies to all terrorist movements. (From the comments on Talk:The Usage of Social Media by The Islamic State, it looks suspiciously like this is an essay produced as part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of California, Berkeley/Social Movements and Social Media (Fall 2017) but not declared as such.) AFDing rather than unilaterally merging, just in case there is something unique to the way ISIL recruits and propagandizes on social media as opposed to (say) Al-Qaeda. If this is kept, it needs a better title.  ‑ Iridescent 19:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (Delete) Regardless of whether the topic is valid or not, we should not host poorly sourced articles about the recruitment methods of proscribed terrorist groups. I would say ISIL/ISIS/whatever has used social media to a much greater extent than any group before them. But whether this fact requires any acknowledgement beyond a short paragraph in Terrorism and social media which Iridescent identified is another matter. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but only if renamed to something along the lines of ISIL and social media to increase its scope. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Highly notable topic covered in depth in news and academia (and yes, IS is quite distinct social media wise in relation to AQ - contributing to their recruiting sucess) Not a content fork of Terrorism and social media which barely covers IS. Title caps should be changed to Wiki standards (which are different from the standard outside of wiki). Article is not an ESSAY, and is not close to TNT. Being created as a wikied project is not grounds for deletion (and it actually usually means someone actually reviewed it for a grade). Wikilinking this into the project would not be difficult. Sourcing in the article is pretty good. Unless an actual fork is identified (and even then the correct call may ge merge) there are no grounds for deletion.Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is significant coverage relating specifically to ISIS use of social media. For example: This showed up in my inbox today:

  Shehabat, Ahmad; Mitew, Teodor. "Black-boxing the Black Flag: Anonymous Sharing Platforms and ISIS Content Distribution Tactics". Perspectives on Terrorism. 12 (1). ISSN 2334-3745. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

The page, as it stands, is pretty poor and I seriously doubt that the media makes the distinction between ISIS, affiliates, AQ and their spin offs etc but there is enough material out there relating to ISIS social media strategy and the people who execute that strategy to sustain an article on this topic. Jbh ^Talk 22:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article is incomplete and needs more content but subject is notable. — MapSGV (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - May I suggest, if this is kept, that the article's title be changed to ISIL and social media? Seems more to the point and in tune with Terrorism and social media.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and that will boost its scope. — MapSGV (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article does need more content, yet the subject is certainly notable. ISIS at its peak power was intensely covered by the press along with its modus operandi - including its recruitment methods which included social media. The formatting of the title of the article does need to be changed though.Knox490 (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and NUKE As this stands, it warrants deletion on the basis of what is written as the content is pretty much atrocious, however the topic is quite noteworthy and covered by multiple RS. We should keep the article, but remove most of the junk and replace it with some high or passable quality material. Elektricity (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that bad, because there is a lack of copyright and BLP violation. Rewriting is the only solution. — MapSGV (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep valuable coverage of a relevant, important, and widely discussed topic. Improving the article shouldn't be hard at all given the widespread RS and expert coverage. No this must not be subsumed under just "Terrorism and Social Media"--Calthinus (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without doubt this is a significant and valid topic. It is supported by solid sources, but, and more importantly, there is an enormous amount of sourcing available on this topic. Here's a google search on article title, The Usage of Social Media by The Islamic State: [11]. The fact that article has room for improvement/expansion is not an argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IS have shown notable usage of social media, in fact exceptional and far reaching. notable for an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the subject is notable. The title should be moved to an appropriate one like Use of social media by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant etc.  samee  ^talk 22:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important and highly notable subject, which is well-reported. Mattyjohn (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2018. No consensus on K2-187c, etc. It seems reasonable to redirect them as well, but since that wasn't discussed here, I'll leave it out of the consensus. Feel free to be WP:BOLD, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K2-187b[edit]

K2-187b (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. No popular coverage. The only technical publication is the announcement of "275 CANDIDATES AND 149 VALIDATED PLANETS ...", so just one of many. No secondary or tertiary sources at all. Lithopsian (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So why keep K2-187c and and want to delete only K2-187b?

I didn't say I wanted to keep K2-187c. Seems about as (non-) notable as K2-187b. 10:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now there is K2-187, K2-187d and K2-187e. Either these should be added for consideration in this discussion too, or leave the lot alone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They all look to me to be in the same boat: they exist, but nothing to meet WP:NASTCRIT. Just my opinion, but it seems like pretty poor taste to create all these articles while this discussion is ongoing. I would be happy to see them all included within this discussion, but adding them retrospectively feels a bit dodgy. Lithopsian (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Praemonitus (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No RS to establish importance, size or notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I added a page for K2-187b and K2-187c because of the system’s unique architecture (K2-187 is the only star with 3 other planets so close to a planet orbiting less than 20 hours). Also, I’ve been analyzing this system since May 2017, and by September I had found the candidates that would become K2-187b and e (as well as a fifth potential candidate that wasn’t mentioned by Mayo et al). My findings are all on Exoplanet Explorers. ProtoJeb21 9:55, 28 February 2018 (EST)
• If the decision is to expunge this article, I recommend making it a redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2018. Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (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. Satisfies WP:PROF#C5. Moving to Marcel Martel (historian) (after closing this) and creating a disambiguation page at Marcel Martel per WP:TWODABS that will list both this Martel and the musician. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Martel[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of an academic, who has a valid potential notability claim but lacks the reliable source coverage needed to properly support it. The only "references" here are his primary source staff profiles on the websites of the institutions where he teaches, and I can't find any independent coverage of him anywhere else: on a ProQuest search, what I actually get is a lot of hits on a country singer who should rightly be primary topic for this name (thus explaining why an anonymous IP filed this in Category:Canadian country singer-songwriters earlier today, and why two of the five inbound links here are expecting a country singer). And if I search "Marcel Martel -country" to filter the singer out, I do find a few glancing namechecks of the historian's existence as a provider of soundbite, but no coverage about him: even in the narrower search, he's still vastly outnumbered by a former mayor of Jonquière, a mafia hitman, and a convicted spousal abuser. (Those are three distinct people, just to clarify.) I just can't find the depth of coverage about him that would be required to get him an encyclopedia article, and academics don't get a free exemption from having to be referenced just because their own university faculty profiles verify that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Meets WP:NPROF Criterion 3 5 as the holder of a named chair at York University, which is by any measure a major university. Furthermore, most of the guy's impact seems to be via his scholarship in French, so the google searches described above may have missed much of it. A scholar search turns up some well-cited monographs, and google searches for him in French reveal a great deal of coverage.192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C5 as a named professor at a major university. The independent coverage is scholarly literature that either cites or reviews his work. A not-particularly-thorough search turned up dozens of reviews in French and English before I gave up [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. – Joe (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit beside the point, but after skimming some of the sources above I don't think that the singer should be the primary topic either. Martel seems to be a highly influential historian. I've just created a stub at Marcel Martel (musician). If kept, I'd suggest this article be moved to Marcel Martel (historian) and we create a disambiguation page for the two. – Joe (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need a dab page for two articles. An "other uses" hatnote solves the problem. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TWODABS, a dab page for two articles is the appropriate solution if neither of the two articles has a strong claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights over the other for their name. Bearcat (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clear pass of both WP:PROF and (by Joe's results) WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In addition to the points raised by Joe above, also passes WP:PROF#C3 as an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (I added a ref to the article). Nsk92 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF as shown in the above responses. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The problem with this article is that it is only a stub. Tag accordingly. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2018 (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. Satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rabiya Javeri Agha[edit]

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

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

Not suitable for an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep inappropriate nomination. Subject is a high profile government official who has received very substantial coverage in teliavle independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- She is the Federal Secretary of the Ministry of Human Rights in the government of Pakistan. This clearly satisfies WP:NPOL as a extremely high-ranking national office.192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the same basis as 192.160.216.52. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Satisfies WP:POLITICIAN for "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" and "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." She has also receieved "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" to satisfy WP:GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2018 (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) 21:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Kapoor[edit]

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

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

Apparently not notable by our standards, does not meet WP:ARTIST. It seems she has had at least one exhibition at the Agora Gallery. I can find no news coverage whatsoever (perhaps because Kapoor is a common surname, and one very famous artist has it). This was a much longer article until I started removing some fairly fanciful unreferenced content, and a number of sources that were either patently unreliable or did not mention her at all. I stopped when there were just two "sources" left. They are: "Art Galleries Europe", an on-line selling site where for €100 a year you can list up to fifteen artworks for sale, where she is listed as "Olivier Kapoor"; and the Global Art Awards site, which apparently does not mention her at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity page: no RS In article and none found elsewhere. There is really only one Kapoor who is well known in the arts, and it is not this one. Olivia is more of a niche Kapoor. Non-notable, obviously.104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No secondary sources to indicate notability. Appears to be a vanity project, created by an editor who has written little else. DaveApter (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2018 (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) 21:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Nuttall[edit]

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

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

This is the third iteration of the article, deleted once A7 and once G11. Coverage already provided seems to be either of dubious reliability, coverage in the local paper, or coverage in the local paper on sites of dubious reliability. Admittedly, they've made it in the Birmingham Mail at least three times, but three mentions in your local paper does not make notability. The claim that they've been on the BBC seems to boil down more to a claim that they've uploaded a youtube video to a BBC site that hosts youtube videos.

Besides that fairly obviously either an autobiography or created by some other type of COI account with fairly promotional language throughout. Most of the content that might indicate notability re: winning international competitions, I didn't find anything to back up really other than this Wikipedia article, so they appear to be either made up, or apparently not important enough to warrant coverage in secondary sources. GMG^talk 18:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak deleteI was unsure about this, there does appear to be some limited mentions, and maybe there is more. Not helped by this [40] (knew I recognized the name).Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even clear that's the same person. There is apparently someone by the same name associated with Raspberry Pi, who all things considered, might not be notable, but seems like they may be more notable. GMG^talk 19:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that the Rugby player is the saem person (sorry if my point was not clear) what I was saying is that there is more then one Ben Nuttall and this complicates trying to verify notability.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I dunno. When you just search for the name you get a ton of unrelated stuff, when you search for the name plus related phrases you get nearly nothing, and then only local coverage. At least the bit about "10 thousand fans on social media and over 1 million lifetime views" appears to be an outright lie, given 600 Twitter followers and ~3000 views on YouTube. Given that, and what appears to be a total lack of sources available, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other unsourced claims are also fabricated. GMG^talk 20:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet either sports notability, and marginal as to general notability. Marginal notability should be decided in favor of neutrally written articles and against autobiographies and other conflict of interest stuff, and this appears to be an autobiography. In short, delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think you can even apply NFooty here Giant, I think this straight down to, does he pass GNG, I'd say No. The article feels self written, and not enough independent citations for me. Govvy (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sure what AFC were doing. Szzuk (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Szzuk. It wasn't AFAIK accepted through AfC, but was created both as an article in mainspace and as an AfC draft, and the histories of the two were then merged. GMG^talk 20:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Articles fails WP:GNG and possible COI. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although it looks like this is actually a not yet approved AfC submission, so is this a sort of preemptive action, on the basis of the fact that AfC is set up so that the articles do not meet the same scrutiny as when they are actually created, as we have seen from recent cases where articles that had been deleted and salted were still approved through AfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. However, we should consider Draftifying, perhaps he might perform in a major avent soon. Avaay

Maybe you'll forgive us if we're a touch suspicious of an account whose first edit was to add several userboxes about how much featured content they have contributed to? GMG^talk 14:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2018 (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) 21:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Teideman[edit]

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

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

Reason Voicetv1234 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Voice actor with no evidence of notability. The nominator has not advanced a reason and inexplicably placed a db-author speedy deletion tag on this page at the same time. If the nominator no longer wishes to support deletion, then please consider me to be the nominator. SpinningSpark 18:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 18:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 18:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Martin Teideman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete. Neither searches for sources on the article title nor on subject's full name bring about any reliable sources with significant coverage. Fails [[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:GNG]] delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 15:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Refs are youtube, blogs, etc, nothing to indicate notability. I googled and looked on news, nothing i can see. Szzuk (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Astound Commerce[edit]

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

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

No significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Referenced to press release and primary sources. Mduvekot (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Cited sources are not WP:INDEPENDENT. I was unable to find sufficient coverage elsewhere. ~Kvng (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2018 (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 on the basis of clear consensus after long discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin E. Park[edit]

Benjamin E. Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:PROF, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. The coverage provided is either not independent or are mere mentions. While the subject has been mentioned elsewhere I don't think any of that passes WP:SIGCOV. I don't know what notability is connoted by mentions in Patheos, either. This article was deleted before and simply re-created, ostensibly as advertisement as the article features external links to the subject's NN publications. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not 100% convinced that he shouldn't qualify as notable, but regardless, he was overwhelmingly rejected as non-notable less than a year ago and this article shouldn't have been re-created so soon. Orser67 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - almost there, but not quite enough for WP:PROF. (E.g. if he was editor of one of those journals he would qualify, but he is merely on the editorial board.) StAnselm (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A deletion doesn't stand for all time and in fact that discussion specifically held only for deletion until such time as Mr. Park has a book within his discipline of American history published. Park has subsequently (2017) become published about nationalism in the U.S. by Cambridge Univ. Press (and, furthermore, another of his tomes, this one about Nauvoo, Ill.-period Mormonism, has become accepted for publication by the major publisher of U.S. historical tomes Norton.) If such doesn't satisfy publishing concerns I can't fathom what realistically could.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As was established last time, having published a book that was reviewed does not make one notable. The fact that you re-created a deleted article not once, but twice, indicates that you likely have no objectivity on this matter. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if there were multiple reviews each of multiple books, it would make the subject notable per WP:AUTHOR. But a newly published book and another one in the works, without reviews yet, are not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put notice of this discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Benjamin_Park .--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not seeing any significant changes since the last AfD. Publishing a book is nowhere near enough to get an academic past WP:PROF. We would be looking for multiple lengthy reviews and/or significant impact on the field. I'm sure Park's American Nationalisms is a fine work, but as it was published just three months ago, it's unlikely to have either.

As a general rule, assistant professors are very rarely found to be notable, so @Hodgdon's secret garden:, if you are interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of Mormon scholars, I would start with people higher up the academic career ladder. I'm not convinced we have a systemic bias there, but it wouldn't hurt. – Joe (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.There's only one book by a major academic publisher of research-level books. Norton is primarily a publisher of text books and general interest books (for evidence see its website [41]). Furthermore, the source given for it is just the subject's own blog, and it only says a contract for it was signed, and admits that the book is only half written, not finished, and not finally accepted, and not published. Two actual published books by highest level publishers is the standard for tenure used by the most prestigious research universities in the humanities, (lower level ones tend to accept one book and a few papers). That's the level of distinction which indicates the person is not only influential in their field, but is expected to remain influential, and to remain sufficiently influential to be able to attract other first-rate scholars. I think it's fully enough to always meet WP:PROF unless there are other factors. One can't expect reviews until actual publication, but a book accepted by Cambridge University Press is certain to get such reviews -- the same sort of reasoning we use for major works in production by major companies artists and performers of various sorts. But the academic record is not yet sufficient for WP:PROF. It was not a wise decision to try the article again at this point in his career,. It would have had at least a chance if it had waited till the 2nd book was published and reviewed.Joe Roe's advice to start at the top to increase the coverage of Mormon historians is just right. It's the right advice for any under-covered subject here. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. wp:PROF itself clearly says it does not in any way rein in wp:GNG. What this guideline does is to provide a means to document notability in cases where a prominent academic lacks sufficient treatments within the mainstream media.
2. This blp subject's case clearly is not that he's reached advanced status within Academe but that he's obviously notable as an wp:author owing his place within Mormon letters, as an essayist/public intellectual often sought out as an opinion maker, and because of his next book-length work of ostensibly "popular" history that's being acquired by, yes, the trade press Norton, which allows editors to presume this historian/author will gain even more notability in the near future. See this article about historians and "mere"(?) trade presses (which Norton's not so shabby of one. From Norton's website):

   "... The Nortons soon expanded their program...acquiring manuscripts by celebrated academics from America and abroad and entering the fields of philosophy, music, and psychology, in which they published acclaimed works by Bertrand Russell, Paul Henry Lang, and Sigmund Freud (as his primary American publisher).

   "... Since those early days, W. W. Norton & Company has consistently published books that reflect their social moment and resonate well beyond it. Some of the era-defining books published by Norton include The Feminine Mystique ... A Clockwork Orange ... Thirteen Days, Robert F. Kennedy’s firsthand account of the Cuban Missile Crisis; Present at the Creation, by Dean Acheson ... ; Liar’s Poker, which launched Michael Lewis’s decades-long chronicle of Wall Street’s greed and hubris; and The 9/11 Commission Report ....

   The company...continues to print the work of some of the world’s most influential voices. Nobel Prize winners include Nadine Gordimer, Seamus Heaney, Eric Kandel, Paul Krugman, Edmund Phelps, Joseph Stiglitz, and Harold Varmus; Pulitzer Prize winners include Dean Acheson, Jared Diamond, Rita Dove, John Dower, Stephen Dunn, Erik Erikson, Eric Foner, Annette Gordon-Reed, Stephen Greenblatt, Maxine Kumin, Joseph Lash, William McFeely, John Matteson, Edmund Morgan, and William Taubman.

   "In recent decades, Norton’s national bestsellers have included books by Diane Ackerman, Andrea Barrett (also a National Book Award winner), Vincent Bugliosi, Andre Dubus III, Sebastian Junger, Michael Lewis, Nicole Krauss, Mary Roach, Jonathan Spence, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Wilentz, Edward O. Wilson, and Fareed Zakaria. ..."

   --"Norton History"

   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per the existing consensus, insufficient justification has been provided for why the last AfD shouldn't stand. Hodgdon's secret garden argued strenously for "Keep" in the first AfD, didn't like the result, and recreated the article 6 months later. They should be admonished at a minimum. The participants in the first AfD also ought to be pinged. Abductive Xxanthippe Johnpacklambert Bearian Uhooep Peterkingiron Narky_Blert (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ((ping)) received. I have little to add to what I said last time round, except to say this. IMO 'Best Graduate Paper Award to Benjamin E. Park for "Early Mormonism and the Paradoxes of Democratic Religiosity in Jacksonian America," written last year at the University of Cambridge' bears no relation to the University of Cambridge. To me, as a Cambridge graduate, that claim rings all sorts of alarm bells. Notably, in UK we do not use "graduate" as an adjective. "Graduate Paper" makes no sense to me at all. Neither does that University award any such prize. Narky Blert (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narky (I mean Blert, per British usage), I accept ur assertion uv graduated from a college at Cambridge. Kudos and well wishes in whatsoever ur endeavors (which may be or end up quite substantial, despite ur seemingly habitual tone of a mere crank.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question to User:Narky Blert: I'm just curious. Do folks at Cambridge use the word since to mean "because" or only in also its meaning of "after"?

The fact is, the blp subject got his M.Hist.-"with distinction", via his research, from Cambridge Univ. -- the one that's in England -- a few years back. Since Owing to the U.S. being kinda low rent, Yank academics with just such a degree (note that he already had a M.Sc. in historical theology from the Univ. of Edinburgh) routinely designate it as a "PhD"[!] when they return to the United States. And, instead of his doing what would be considered the stand-up thing and get a real academic job in the U.S., the bio's subject stays a grad. student (sorry for the usage of graduate as an adj. there) in Cambridge. But, he accepts a "post" under Brigham Young Univ. prof. Flueman, who'd been asked to start up a review journal for the new subdiscipline of Mormon Sstudies at the Maxwell Institute. See link for mention @ the Max. I. of awards given to both doctor Flueman for his first published book at the Univ. of N.Carolina Press and to our yeoman Park, twice that year, for a paper and an unpublished graduate paper, in the subdiscipline of Mormon letters/academics. Does that clear things up for you?

But, anyway, I may as well now go ahead and complete this story: While helping Flueman edit Mormon Studies Review (and writing a fair number of reviews of some academic press-published book that he publishes elsewhere than Mo.Stud.Rev.) the subject hangs around at your alma mater as a lecturer and supervisor in the history dept. while he earns a (sic; um /"another"? <shrugs>) doctorate, then takes a "named" visiting scholar gig at the U. of Missouri in the States. Then gets an assist. prof. post at Sam Houston State. By then, I mean now, he has a dozen or so articles pubbed in peer-reviwed journals. His first book published at Cambridge Univ. Press.

Mo.Stud.Rev.'s editor Flueman, PhD from U.(Cheese)Wis., has also pubbed papers and is getting his 2nd book pub'd at Ox. Univ. Press. (...Fair enough. That's why "J. Spencer Fluhman" is the title of a blp here @ Wikipedia; but, Ben Park is a full editor somewhere, too: [Added later: among co-editors] of Mormon studies monographs published by Fairleigh Dickenson Univ. Press in N.J. and he has received as many as a half dozen total awards in in that same academic area in the span of only the past few years.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)--amended.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Along with his book he's pub'd a dozen peer-rev'd papers and another dozen peer-rev'd book reviews.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to question. @Hodgdon's secret garden: A good and a fair question. In British English, "since" is sometimes a synonym for "because". "He fell over, since he had dropped his walking stick" (in U.S. English, "walking cane") is good British English. When I trained as a patent agent, I was taught never to write "since" except in relation to dates because of its ambiguity between different variants of the English language. (Note my refusal there to split an infinitive!)

The American use is cane, not walking cane.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a reverse example, in British English "comprises" means "consists of". ("Beethoven's Opus 18 comprises six string quartets.") In patent law, "comprises" means "contains or consists of". In U.S. usage, it can more broadly mean "includes". U.S. usage also seems to have "comprises of", which is not British English and to me looks ugly.

In Wiki, I try to avoid constructions like those; and if I find them, to edit them to ones with which all English-speakers can agree. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tiny cites on GS, No improvement since last AfD so salt. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

There is improvement. There is a substantial published book. He might become notable in the future. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. H-index is still in the single digits. Advocacy for a particular person (since I can't see how this is advocacy for an article with single digit page views) isn't sufficient. Abductive (reasoning) 23:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One new book without any published reviews isn't enough to change my opinion from the last time around. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No - he's written one book, he's written some book reviews. Has no profile on Google scholar. Not even close. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:TOOSOON for this recent PhD (2014) assitant professor. Fails WP:PROF. He does have some coverage - [42][43][44][45][46][47][48] (some interviews, some mentions of his writings, Newsweek mentions a blog post by him) - however this does not rise up to WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG. Looking at what he's doing it seem he will be notable sometime if he continues - but not at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Icewhiz, GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Park clearly fails academic notability guidelines. Maybe after his two in progress books get published (assuming that ever happens) things will be different, but at this time no. I would have to say in general Wikipedia is faily good at having article on the main scholars of Mormon studies. How well written and comprehensive some of these articles are, on people like David F. Holland or Hugh Nibley is another question, but we have the articles on most of the truly major contributors. Park has yet to produce the significant level of articles and books to make him a truly major contributor, despite the criticisms of some of his ideas that have been lobbed by Hancock and Hamblin. This article too much relies on coverage of things where Park is an incidental, non-defining member of a large group of people, and also too heavily relies on quotes from Park's own work. None of it adds up to actual significant coverage of a level to pass the general notability guidelines. Response articles to a book review by an individual do not count as the type of substantial 3rd party coverage of that individual that consititutes indepth coverage for GNG purposes, and the rest we have that is indepdent 3rd party, like the Salt Lake Tribune articles on the reworking of the set up of the BYU Maxwell Incident say almost nothing about Park, basically they just name check his existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A prospective article needs two reliable sources specifically about it. That's it. There's no seperate tracks w rgd this profession or that. Ben Park has a half dozen articles that are reliable sources which are specific to agreeing with, putting nuance to, or countering his--without co-author--views. According to foundational principles of the project, Wikipedians should be encouraged to create articles as often as possible whenever that threshhold is met. That builds the project. Instead what we have is people who try to align Wikipedia with what goes on in the academy (see !votes above by user:DGG and by user:Johnpacklambert). Most simply put, if this blp subject was an author who was not an academic and there were half dozen articles in RS, by people with their own WP blp's no less, entirely devoted to taking up positions she champions (of which Johnpacklambert briefly alludes), such notoriety alone would guarantee notability. Instead, deletionist cabals hover around afd's who but glance at an article for two or three seconds blithely mumbling "not notable" or grabbing whatever acronym seems handy. (Um, wp:TOOSOON says film/actors s without two specific media mentions aren't sufficiently notable; what's that got to do with a blog co-founder and author of essays, etc., sought out for quotes a number of times by the MSM, who's published a major book?) ...or their sniffing about good usages per the Fowler brothers or godknowswhatelse!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A prospective article needs two reliable sources specifically about it. That's it. – how on earth did you come to that conclusion? To pass the GNG, we need significant coverage, and JPL has eloquently explained why that threshold isn't met in this case. WP:PROF provides an alternative set of criteria that is easier for academics to pass, because they are rarely the subject of significant biographical coverage. But unfortunately Park does not seem to meet that either. There is no conspiracy; we're just trying to apply fair and consistent standards for inclusion. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, user:Joe Roe, I'm game. My sense there exist deletionist cabals owes to my observations that so many glance-and-call-out-"delete" !votes become weighted w/in closings. Slam dunks to delete? Really?. Huh? My encapsulation of notability guidelines was pretty fair. But, fine, let us get more into the weeds then.

With a tip of my hat to the Bio's section @ wp:TOOSOON:

"an individual is presumed to be notable 'if they have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject', and expands that 'if depth-of-coverage is not substantial, then multiple less-than-substantial independent sources may be needed to prove notability'". It re-states that coverage 'must be more than trivial and must be reliable'".

If the above is the criterion, how can ppl give a quick glance at Park's blp and come to "delete", after noting:

1. Citationd to themselves notable figures who address an in-depth intellectual thesis of Park's at great length in multiple reliable sources. This type of coverage is "trivial"? Says who!
2. Threshold #1 already met, fact is, WP editors are even given discretion to judge by gads of less-than-substantial sourcing (that are not merely trivial). What about the MSM coverages regarding the subject's new media platforms presenting his research/ideas as well as his trad. media op-eds/research papers & reviews published in journals?

IMHO to discount #1/huff at #2 seem deletionist ad hoc tools wielded to achieve what's their real objective which is to bypass WP's actual guidelines about media coverages so they can resort to their preferred mode of merely zeroing in on formal academic statuses. But, you know, it is what it is.-Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I see two problems: TOOSOON and COI. Having acted as an academic referee is something that is known only to the referee and the editor. I thus suspect that this is an autobiography. Is that what the blacklist tag is highlighting? Secondly, this is a young academic who got his doctorate only about 4 years ago, and appearsto have published little. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

erratum - Somewhere above I equated a Ox-/-Bridge MPhil(by research) to a phd Statesside. I just read that unlike the sixties/seventies and before, nowadays "securing posts" in academia with such a degree is quite rare.[49]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Some people put lists of the journals they referee for in their cvs. Not that that affects any of the rest of your comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user:Peterkingiron: I'm not him (oh...and, e.g., neither am I Nathan Oman, Matthew Grow, etc., to whose early stubs I've also contributed. Nor am I Dan Peterson (C.f.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture. Ha ha ha, although (even though I'm Buddhist) I wouldn't mind being any of the four. See Being John Malkovitch.) Full disclosure: I've not read this blp subject's (2017) American Nationalisms: Imagining Union in the Age of Revolutions (one doesn't need to have, to help contribute to a tertiary source) but I have read--well, OK, posts on Park's web platforms, also a number of his opinion columns and a smattering of his papers.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Arnold[edit]

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

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

Apparently not notable by our standards, does not meet WP:ARTIST. News coverage appears to consist of one passing mention in the Deseret News. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jean_Arnold&action=editlist of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete External web search turns up diddly-squat for RS.104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh Malik[edit]

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

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

Non notable actor and businessman. References based on google plus and Facebook Sonia89f (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2018 (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/2018 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:09, 27 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IAFL Team Ireland[edit]

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

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

• Delete: I can't find any independent third-party reliable sources for this completely unsourced article. There are several wikis entries which are no doubt mirror of this article but nothing else. ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree - there are a couple articles on gridiron in Ireland but I can't find anything specific about this team after doing some research. If sources are found the closer can assume my vote would change. SportingFlyer (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Rizvi (poet)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:NPOET. Störm (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just writing poetry does not make someone notable, and that is all asserted here. We would need to see that his poetry is actually impactful and noticed to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails to meet GNG for me. As per this source I don't see anything remarkable or any notable award. --Saqib (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ibad Rehman[edit]

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

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

Not elected. Fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete insufficient coverage in reliable sources and BLP issues. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. no in depth coverage in RS. cited sources are either non-independent or unreliable. --Saqib (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2018 (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. Meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Occupation[edit]

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

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

Crystalballing, especially for a computer game many of which are always "about to get released". Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article meets the general notability guideline. The EuroGamer article is significant coverage and covers the game in depth. EuroGamer is listed on the WikiProject Video games list of reliable sources WP:VG/RS. WP:Crystal does not apply, as this article is not based on a product announcement or rumour. - X201 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added 3 longer sources to the talk page for use, combing past many of the shorter announcement articles. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems to meet WP:GNG, if only barely Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sources are solid. Merely being unreleased is not grounds to delete an article, non-notability is._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK a question, what month is it going to be released in? If that date in unknown it is not yet in na fit state for release, which means it may still not be.Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a release date is not a requirement for meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a requirement, but without a release date we have an unfinished product, thus it may fail wp:crystal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being an unfinished product is not a reason to fail Crystal. We have articles on products that were never released. - X201 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

)On the whole ones whose lack of release was historically important. Also otherstuff is not a valid argument for retention. But it looks like I am outvoted so it is all bit moot.Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL applies more to far less developed things. Things like Final Fantasy 17, something that will almost certainly exist, but has never officially been announced. Or speculative things, like "Untitled Final Fantasy Project 2019", based off of a comment made by a developer saying something like "Yeah, we'll keep making yearly Final Fantasy games indefinitely" or something. It's not meant to be applied to officially announced products with names, working builds, and reliable third party sources giving hands-on previews on already. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sourcing added to article since nomination make it clearly meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have just added Edge info too. It's covered in the latest issue - subscriber copy arrived today - Will add more from it. - X201 (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was leaning keep after digging for sources myself earlier, which brought us to at least 5-6 in depth online sources. Since then, some offline sources have been added as well. Offline source to me, in this day and age, shows a lot, as unlike online webpages they can't just throw out every little tidbit without a care. Undoubtedly, there will be more. At the very worse, the article might be draftified for a while, but I believe it a short while and a waste of time, so Keep. -- ferret (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's another offline source on the way, I've just found a two page article in the latest issue of GamesTM too. - X201 (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A number of references, clearly going to be released. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Solid sources, appears to meet WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2018 (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. This is a very difficult close due to the high number of participants that can be said to have either a pro-India or pro-Pakistan POV. On balance, I am persuaded that the article does have a strong POV and large parts are a content fork. Many have brought up the WP:ATD argument that it is better to improve than delete. Against that others have argued, per WP:TNT, that it is better to start over with a clean page. On this point I am particularly influenced by the research of Gazoth into the quality of the refs. To argue that the page should be improved presupposes that there are sources from which an improvement can be built. Many sources have been put forward, but no reliable, neutral source has been presented that discusses RAW in Pakistan in detail as a subject. To be sure, there are sources out there that discuss individual actions of RAW, but no scholarly source giving a balanced overview of the whole subject that could be used as the basis of a neutral article has been put forward. It is not essential to have such sources to build an article, it is possible to construct an article from sources that are not neutral and do not cover the whole subject, but this is much harder. It would need an editor of unquestionable neutrality to achieve that, and there would still be a need for at least one source that treated the title as a subject in itself to show notability. SpinningSpark 23:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RAW activities in Pakistan[edit]

RAW activities in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:POVFORK of Research and Analysis Wing. The entire page has a total of 4 sources all Pakistan newspapers. Has been proposed for deletion multiple times but the same editor insists that they have "balanced" this article. Much of the article is based on speculation and large parts of it are either poorly sourced or unsourced. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How is the India Today (newspaper) a Pakistani newspaper? One of my references is India Today newspaper. Let the Wikipedia designated staff decide after they look at the article what the facts are. You clearly say on your User page that you are from Bombay, India. How can you be the ONLY JUDGE about this article's fate? Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrewal1 Another independent editor GeneralizationsAreBad had also marked this page as a POV fork earlier (a year ago) and proposed it for deletion. You were the same editor who had removed it then by adding some "references" from Pakistani newspapers. Even now after it was proposed for deletion a year later you again removed it by adding more references from Pakistani newspapers and a single line from an Indian newspaper. Please look at WP:NPOV which this article grossly violates. Also, have a look at the Research and Analysis Wing article where most of this is covered with WP:DUE weight age. Now, when it comes to my nationality, please be careful about your wording. I don't claim to be a judge of anything and have thus bought this at a common forum. If you doubt the effectiveness of this forum then I cannot help you. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article written to promote a specific POV and fails WP:NEUTRAL. Already covered under Research and Analysis Wing. --Hagennos^Talk 04:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW KEEP The nom should peruse WP:BEFORE. There are numerous academic sources that discuss this in detail. For example India: Foreign Policy & Government Guide, Volume 1 ^[1], What We Won: America's Secret War in Afghanistan, 1979 89 by Bruce Riedel ^[2], India's External Intelligence: Secrets of Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) by V. K. Singh ^[3], International Security and the United States: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 by Karl R. DeRouen, Paul Bellamy ^[4] etc. etc. Elektricity (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a hastily put up list of references. The second and fourth references don't have more than a few lines about Research and Analysis Wing itself and make a passing reference to Pakistan. The first and third references contain some more information again which is about in general Research and Analysis Wing. if there is some information which can be integrated with the main article with no reason to maintain this fork. I am yet to see any form of substantial information which can sustain an independent article and cannot be added in the main one. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamgerber80 Your argument for deletion was The entire page has a total of 4 sources all Pakistan newspapers. I have shown you multiple academic sources discussing RAW activities within Pakistan, hence rendering the deletion argument null and void. You claim that information from these sources (and perhaps the 32 thousand other book results as well) can be incorporated in the main article, but I disagree. The main should focus on RAW and its day to day business, with a prolonged operational history in Pakistan; this should have been forked a long time ago. Your Second argument that you made in a comment is that the article may vioate POV forking. This is again, I'm afraid, not true. The article does not point to anything as fact, which is common in articles about clandestine agencies. Rather it says what the reliable sources have said and then attributes the information to reliable sources. As I said , you should have read WP:BEFORE. Elektricity (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you point are about Research and Analysis Wing and not it's activities in Pakistan. I can "find" references for many things but the question also remains do we have enough neutral reliable content which is needed for an individual article or can it be incorporated in the original one. You haven't shown any significant content here which merits a separate one. Just running a quick keyword search on Google Books is not going to work. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep of course. Nominator hasn't explained what is POVFORK about the topic. Issues about article material, if any, should be taken to the talk. That's not what WP:AFD is for. So far as the topic is concerned, it meets WP:GNG from all criteria. There's a long history of espionage and cross-border intelligence from India to Pakistan, and it's covered in all reliable, academic sources. The cases of Kulbhushan Jadhav, Ravindra Kaushik, Sarabjit Singh and Kashmir Singh are amongst the most notable ones to merit mention. And at the international and diplomatic level, Pakistan and India have for decades traded allegations on RAW activities, right from the heads of state to military and government levels. So there is no question as far as notability is concerned, and this article is of equivalent scale to topics like ISI activities in India, CIA activities in India etc. Mar4d (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yeah, may be the article needs expanding to become more readable, but compering it with Research and Analysis Wing isn't correct. The latter concentrates on the organization itself, where this one is more specific. Why need a separate article? Well, enough coverage exists for this topic to qualify WP:GNG.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 09:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:POVFORK per nominator. The above WP:OSE argument for pursuing NPOV violation makes it even easier to a ackowledge why this article should be deleted. — MapSGV (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see you acquainted with all these acronyms in your such short time of editing. Perhaps if you had actually also read WP:OSE, you would have known it's an essay, and more fittingly, the following: The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in other. The argument about notability stands and you have not dis-proven it. Mar4d (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources never establish notability however... — MapSGV (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mostly unsourced WP:POVFORK. Expand Research and Analysis Wing if you want, but I am sure much of the content of this POV fork can get rejected there too. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete clear WP:CFORK of Research and Analysis Wing that was created by an SPA[50] to promote a POV. Lorstaking (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. Non-notable subject, creation also seems suspicious. Capitals00 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to the article on RAW, India's intelligence agency (or stubify). As Pakistan is India's most likely military opponent (if it goes to war), Pakistan must inevitably be a major focus for India's spying. This is a horrid article, which seems to be built on Pakistan's arrest of two alleged spies. If that is what they are, the article will still only be dealing with a snippet of what RAW musty be doing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough sources or coverage to pass GNG. Either way it is only based on some heavily disputed allegations and article itself reads like WP:SYNTH. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, article is ill-sourced, POV article treating as fact Pakistani government allegations that the government o of India is supporting Baloch "terrorism" in Pakistan. Here's a little backgorund form the BBC: What lies behind Pakistani charges of Indian 'terrorism'.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This issue is gaining greater momentum these days. Quite notable in the region, so it should be a keep.  M A A Z   T A L K  06:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why we have no reliable sources to confirm it? Can you address the issues raised above regarding lack of notability? — MapSGV (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just mentioned 6 more reliable sources. There are many actually, if you search them.  M A A Z   T A L K  07:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not scholarly. You need to find totally independent ones. MapSGV (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned many references now. Most references are international or scholarly. Only 5 or 6 references mentioned are from Pakistan news media. 23-24 are exclusive of Paki references.  M A A Z   T A L K  23:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I looked at your references. Most of them still state the same thing "according to Pakistan". Also, please do due diligence when you add references. For one, you literally added someones comment in the comment section as a reference here. Just don't google and add, please spend some time in reading the reference you are adding. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I haven't found the according to Pakistan words in may references. Secondly, if an international news channel mentions a Pakistani narrative, it doesn't mean that its an unreliable source, but on the contrary, it adds to notability.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clear WP:POVFORK of Research and Analysis Wing. —MBL ^Talk 08:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no content there that cannot be covered in Research and Analysis Wing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - add and update Research and Analysis Wing, this does not need to stand alone. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is as notable as other related articles like Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India etc. The fork-based arguments are seemingly are quite close to WP:ITSCRUFT and then there is WP:ATD.  samee  ^talk 14:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is nothing but WP:ILIKEIT because you are using WP:OSE argument and thinking that it becomes automatically notable just because there is another similar article, which is actually notable. This WP:POVFORK is not notable. — MapSGV (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure as if your pretzelling ain't WP:IDL. I don't get your bludgeoning to keep !votes, you've already made your point, why such a desperation.  samee  ^talk 15:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should I WP:ILIKE a multiple times prodded article? If I had, then your reaction would be just different but I am fine. Right now every comment is up for debate and you can also debate until things AFD is over. — MapSGV (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2018 (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/2018 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by WP:GNG. We can always dig out non-Pakistani sources to protect NPOV. A topic like RAW activities in Pakistan seems nothing difficult.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:GNG. You are suggesting that we should abandon concerns of this article and work on them in future.. why not now? By deleting the POVFORK. — MapSGV (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am seeing the article has been expanded since the nomination but now it looks like an WP:OR and still remains a non-notable WP:POVFORK. desmay (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

34 references mentioned. Probably 5-6 references each paragraph. How is this OR work?  M A A Z   T A L K  00:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because all of those references fail to describe the importance of this trivia. By your own comment it seems that you have worked on over citing references than actually providing any relevant references, but that's not really possible because subject is itself not qualified for own article. — MapSGV (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of what you are saying makes sense to me. I have worked on citing references than actually providing references? that is quite contradictory. And references, especially international sources and google books doesn't fail to describe importance of an article, but on the contrary it adds to their importance. I think you are being slightly inconsistent here.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - individual issues can be discussed without resorting to total deletion of the page. Also agree with user samee ‘s reasoning above.Willard84 (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues are with failure of notability, WP:POVFORKing none of which can be addressed without deletion. — MapSGV (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a lot of at least alleged activity and information, especially in regards to recent events with Jadhav. I retain my view as keep.Willard84 (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge to Research and Analysis Wing: I see no reason why this subject meets GNG when it is just a WP:CFORK, largely depending on two allegations refuted by everyone. It also seems to be a violation of WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. I recommend merging this into the "Research and Analysis Wing" article, where we can devote an appropraite amount of space to it. A separate article is WP:UNDUE. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, POV. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nominator that this is a WP:POVFORK. The article only focuses on a single viewpoint of RAW involvement, in spite of many refs giving substantial weight to opinions that accusations have been made to cover-up internal issues. ([51], [52], [53], [54]). A substantial part of article is either a list of accusations or statements of Indian involvement in general rather than RAW specifically. There are also multiple sourcing issues in the article including statement contradicted by reference placed near it ([55]), op-ed used as a ref ([56]), news reports on other reports used to artificially inflate ref count ([57] reports on [58], [59] reports on [60]), usage of opinions from fringe theorists ([61] from a 9/11 truther) and using WikiLeaks ref to cite an unreliable website ([62] originally from [63]). The remaining well-sourced content can added to Research and Analysis Wing article. —Gazoth (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reason to delete the article. An article should be neutral and feel free to add/remove the content with the references you want to add or remove. I haven't mentioned non-reliable sources.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obvious POVFORK. --RaviC (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My formal !vote for this article is still 'keep' after a thoughtful consideration besides the above first 'Comment' in this discussion by me. If there is room for articles on Pakistani intelligence agencies (Pakistan's ISI etc.) on Wikipedia, then we all know Wikipedia's policy is all about 'striking balance' and being fair. That's exactly why I attempted to improve the article when I first saw it nominated for deletion on 24 February 2018. I still hope and ask that people who wish to 'keep' it as an article, are given a chance to improve it further. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrewal1 Please let's set the records straight if we are going there (not that it matters). I looked at the history of the page and this not the first time you have de-prodded the article. The article was also proposed for deletion (by GeneralizationsAreBad[64]) on 11 July 2017 a day after it was created. You removed this on 16 July 2017([65]) and inserted a few Pakistan newspaper sources. It's been more than 8 months now and only more POV content was added to it prompting me to propose it (after I came across it) for deletion again. This was again removed by you by adding a few more Pakistan newspaper sources. Also, on your second comment, WP:GNG is not inherited or associative per WP:OTHERCONTENT and this was even said by Ma'az (user maing the same point below) on a AFD sometime ago ([66]). I wonder why does that argument change now. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our main argument is, because the article is notable and passes WP:GNG, its notability is proved. You are misinterpretting by bringing in WP:OSE. Look if a person says that article Canada should be created because article USA exists, it doesn't mean that main point for article Canada is WP:OSE. Main point is WP:GNG, and after that we are calling for consistency. And you mentioned WP:OTHERCONTENT, it reads "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument".And about my famous AFD :) (as it was featured by media) :) i think even you know that you are trying to confuse one thing with another. That article was on a biography which is a different discussion.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you to go back and read your argument once again since it seems very incoherent to me. You go from WP:GNG to consistency to explaining how connecting this to WP:OTHERCONTENT is per policy. But you forget to mention that WP:OTHERCONTENT also states that is comparison can only be made "with Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating" and should be "compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view and no original research". This article is definitely not NPOV as pointed by multiple editors and quite a few of the references itself are questionable as pointed by others and what WP:RSN has told you about Wikileaks. Second, the point on WP:GNG, you are mis-associating the WP:GNG of R&AW with the topic of this article. WP:OTHERCONTENT argument is valid in all subject discussions, unless you don't want to see it or are ignoring it. Lastly what you mean by our main argument. You are here to make your personal argument, not represent others. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing inconsistent, I just said that WP:OSE is valid under WP:GNG, just like an article about Canada is valid if USA exists. And to WP:NPOV, look we all know that in political issues(especially bipartisan issues) on Wikipedia, its almost impossible that the article would be 100% neutral (that's why there are edit conflicts on political issues almost everyday), as a reliable source from one country might be opposite to a reliable source of another (that's why the article mentions mostly foreign sources and google books), so its not that non-neutral. And I don't get why you cannot edit the article just like User:FloridaArmy did here [67] and User:Adamgerber80 did here[68], Nobody challenged their edit. You can also edit the article and can also use WP:ATD. And about WikiLeaks, the RSN agreed that a WikiLeaks source can be mentioned with another RS(good context), in the article, Reference 11 (WikiLeaks source) is mentioned with reference 10 & reference 19 with 21.  M A A Z   T A L K  01:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a a few foreign media/Wikileaks mentions that "according to Pakistani officials or Pakistani newspapers" does not make it neutral. It is still POV since they are directly quoting Pakistan here. Here is one in non-Pakistani media which is the interview of a Pakistani minister, another mentions that "Pakistan has complained", yet another states that "Pakistan officials accuse", another says "blamed by Pakistani authorities". And these are not Pakistan newspapers but foreign media sources you have used. I am sorry if you cannot see the POV which multiple other editors can. Also, by your comments that not all article are neutrals are betrays that even you think that the article is not truly NPOV. FloridaArmy My comment might answer some of your questions. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yes, good point by User:Ngrewal1. If similar pages like ISI activities in India can survive, then what's wrong with this page? Inconsistent criteria is a sign of a failed argument. Wikipedia is not inconsistent.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE for a non-notable POV fork? It's a bad argument. — MapSGV (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is not absolutely invalid criteria. It can be valid and in this case, the article is as notable as its equivalent; Wikipedia should be consistent. Consistency is the hall-mark of any reasoned discussion.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - In my opinion, the current version of the article fails WP:NPOV, a core policy. The subject is notable and is briefly covered in the main article, this fork could be useful, but after a weak at AfD, the lede sentense and background sections are still, I feel, strongly POV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the WP:NPOV argument, i would say that, this can be improved via WP:ATD. Wikipedia always say, that if an article could be saved from deletion by an alternative, the alternative shud be used.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for NPOV is not a permanent solution. Given this is a fork, it isn't clear why it should be mantained in its current state given our readers might be better served by the operations and controversies section in the base article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting articles is also not a solution especially those that are notable. Multiple reliable sources mentioned.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not an article about RAW (The Indian intelligence services) activities in Pakistan. It is an article about accusations against RAW by Pakistani officials. It is a clear POV fork. I don't see how it is redeemable. The subject is best covered in the main article. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think RAW's activity in relation to TTP, Balochistan, CPEC, ISI is quite significant and well established by many sources(including foreign). However, in political and especially bipartisan issues, one can always raise this point, that its all accusations. A source saying Pakistani officials have shared a video, doesn't mean that its accusation, it means its a proof of RAW activity. Webster Tarpley, James Dobbins, Praveen Swami, and many other authors, all these are quite significant mentions.  M A A Z   T A L K  01:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which Indian sources have you cited? How about non-Pakistani sources? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For users arguing for merge into the main article, they still need to explain how it would be feasible taking into account content size per WP:SPLITTING. It would be impossible to merge and expand such large amount of content, unless you want the RAW article to mostly be about Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, far too many users voting on this AfD seem to be involved. Would be good to get neutral views. Mar4d (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. An attempt to generally discount those editors who have not agrred with Mar4d's views. AshLin (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. POV fork. Also WP:Undue. AshLin (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation of how it is either, another disposable !vote for the sake of !voting. Mar4d (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is one of Mar4d's standard attacks pn the vote of an Indian voter. :) AshLin (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I attacked anyone? I have just stated my observation on the lack of clarification with regards to many of these votes. Mar4d (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would lean keep and want a improved article. I agree with User:Elekricity. There is definitely an Indian WP:CABAL who is flooding the nom with 'Speedy delete' and 'delete' votes. Can you tell me why 'speedy delete'? They're only trying to influence the result. I suggest the closing admin to through check the rationale and even discount Pakistani and Indian votes. There are two or three Pakistani users who voted 'keep' but dozens of Indian users who are actually cabal try to influence every discussion: be it Kashmir, Rape in India or Violence in India against Muslims. I think this discussion need more neutral votes from western perspective. It is similar in nature to article, ISI activities in India or other place. Please don't be bias and work to improve WP. There are less Pakistani users so don't take advantage from it. Thanks. 119.160.116.141 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are plenty of book sources. Whatever the current article quality, it doesn't merit deletion. Now that the article is in the limelight it could be brought to Wikipedia quality and policy standards. For example:

1. "There are also some indications that the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the Indian intelligence agency, may be involved in fomenting terrorism, sectarian and otherwise, in different parts of Pakistan, particularly in Karachi and Balochistan."^[1]

2. "On January 29, 1999, an Indian saboteur, Subhash Chander, was apprehended by the security agencies of Pakistan for carrying out bomb blasts in Sialkot. The then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, brought this Indian activity to the notice of the US Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot, who was on a visit to Pakistan."^[2]

3. "RAW reports to the Prime Minister and is reportedly involved in disinformation campaigns, espionage and sabotage against Pakistan and other countries. Throughout the Soviet/Afghan War the RAW was responsible for the planning and execution of terrorist activities in Pakistan to deter Pakistan from support of Afghan liberation movement against India's ally, the Soviet Union."^[3] --39.48.42.250 (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning these sources in the article.  M A A Z   T A L K  10:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable tertiary source. No authors listed. Not a repued publisher. Lacks even a website. AshLin (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Authors are mentioned and the sources are reliable. I think there is high skepticism going on over sources. Its like you are finding reasons to somehow belittle an authentic source.  M A A Z   T A L K  19:22, 5 March 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E-Square Talkies[edit]

E-Square Talkies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Despite searching with several keywords, the company doesn't seem to pass notability. MT Train^Talk 14:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:47, 27 February 2018 (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 AQR Capital. J04n(talk page) 14:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Liew[edit]

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

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

The latest bout of promotion for this non notable businessman. Just like the previous incarnations this spam lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a review of the sources show they're all primary. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect yo AQR Capital management. There is some coverage but it's as part of the leadership team of the conpany. FloridaArmy (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2018 (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. Except two WP:GOOGLEHITS !votes that did not present any sources, there are no arguments made for the subject's notability. SoWhy 11:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hafnia (food company)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable canned food company and meat brand. The article was PRODed by me, but the PROD was removed without addressing the notability concerns and with a request to perhaps take to AfD for a wider discussion without specifying why. The article is currently based on one single source from Liverpool Echo.

The Danish company Hafina Konserves A/S (earlier name Hafnia Skinkekogeri A/S), one of many Danish canning factories in the 1960s,^[1] existed as a company until 1971 when it was bought by Jydske Andelsslagteriers Konservesfabrik^[2] (no article on Danish Wikipedia either), perhaps better known under the acronym JAKA for products like this. JAKA and a number of other food companies fused in 1990 to form Tulip Food Company [da],^[3] which is today owned by Danish Crown.

"Hafnia" and "Hafnia Ham" had existed on the British market since 1956.^[4] As a brand name, Hafnia continued to exist on the British market after the 1971 buyout, and sponsored the shirts for Everton F.C. between 1979 and 1985 supposedly. Hafnia Ham, a U.K. subsidiary of Tulip, continues to exist as a dormant company.

Hafnia products were also sold in North-America, at least as early as 1925.^[5]

Still, I'd be surprised if anybody can source this to [[WP:NCORP]] and [[WP:CORPDEPTH]]. I can't. Should the article be kept, it should be moved to Hafnia (company).

I'm fond of ATD-R-solutions, and if someone wants to translate da:Tulip Food Company and seriously flesh it out (pun intended) with a good § History section, there is the theoretical possibility of redirecting Hafnia (company) to Tulip Food Company. A redirect to Everton F.C. would be more straightforward, althoug I'm not sure how much value it has for the readers. Sam Sailor 13:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I sent to speedy on A7, declined by Sam Sailor on the basis it has a claim to significance. I can see no assertion of notability. It is a defunct company. Szzuk (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of coverage on Google Books for this conpany's products over many decades. FloridaArmy (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep long estabished company with a lot of covereage on Google Books, and google. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, having spend several hours trying to find sources with significant coverage, I am well aware of the the number of trivial mentions, but finding significant coverage online proves difficult. And I say that with the added benefit of understanding the Danish sources, and in general enjoying rescuing articles from deletion.

The WP:SOURCESEARCH, and WP:ITSOOLD arguments should be avoided, and I'm not impressed with the first "keep" voter posting here after only 10 minutes of research (06:05-06:15) and the second "keep" voter after only 4 minutes of research (11:23-11:27).

But do please bring sources here for evaluation, e.g. presented in ((Assess table)) and ((Source assess)), and start building the article. Sam Sailor 12:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The New Torker article from 1925, the San Francisco Magazine article, the articles cited in the article, and the recently added article about the brands relaunch and team sponsorship establish notability. As you noted lots and lots and lots of mentions too. But the sources discussing the company and its products are enough. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A. The citation to The New Yorker was presented by me in this discussion, and from the snippet view we get in Google books, it can not be considered significant coverage about the company.

B. San Francisco Magazine article - it would be helpful to link to the sources, here is what I presume is the citation: San Francisco. San Francisco Magazine, Incorporated. 1965. p. xliii. Retrieved February 28, 2018. with the insignificant snippet "The most widely distributed brand of canned bacon in this area is Hafnia, which is imported from Denmark. I have used it many times ..."

C. the articles cited in the article, and the recently added article about the brands relaunch and team sponsorship establish notability - there are only two, both of them from the local media Liverpool Echo, both of them more about football than about Hafnia. I'm not even sure they are correct, when they claim Hafnia ham was never sold in Britain, cf. the sources above.

So no, merely asserting that the sources discussing the company and its products are enough is not enough. Sam Sailor 13:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Article fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Searching through Danish sources, I found very little for "Hafnia Skinke" or "Hafnia Konserves," let alone any in-depth coverage. There are only simple mentions -- just as in the English language publications and Google books mentioned above. (And some of it is fairly confused such as info in the small Liverpool daily paper.) I agree with Sam Sailor's analysis; and am surprised that an article does not yet exist for Tulip Food Company which had the first registered trademark in Denmark. That could be a place to redirect. But there is not enough clear information yet to establish a stand-alone article for Hafnia. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A thorough analysis of references by Sam, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 4 March 2018 (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.