< 21 July	23 July >

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voices of Men[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, entirely self-referenced. Orphaned for over five years. Minimal edit history, recent COI. HalJor (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 06:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is not Voice of Men (a singing group.) Also, there other activist groups with the very similar names, such as "The Voice of Men," (ideologically similar to National Organization for Men Against Sexism,) "The Voice of Men," got enough WP:SIGCOV nationwide back in the 90s that it could support an article. This "Voices of Men," however, seems to be covered only locally, and local coverage in the Appleton, Wisconsin Post-Crescent, is not enough to make a local activist organization notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stub, not properly sourced (or rather sourced to the organization itself, with 2/3 links broken). BEFORE shows mainly local coverage in the Appleton Post Crescent - and not much of that. Does not meet GNG/WP:ORG.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fails WP:NORG--DBigXray 12:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite a modest amount of local coverage over the years, fails WP:NORG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:02, 30 July 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. I suspect there's a certain amount of WP:ILIKEIT going on here, but there's clear consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Crayola crayons[edit]

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

Listcruft. Mostly sourced to crayon-collecting sites and Crayola PR material. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 23:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somewhat mad but I don't know what other types of sources can be expected here- it's not PhD material. Gets a steady 80+ views a day. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was split off from the list of Crayola Crayon colors because the history discussion was too detailed for that article, and the different tables presented historical arrangements that would not have been appropriate there. Your idea of "cruft" is someone else's useful information, and here it's cited to suitable, documented, and apparently reliable sources. Denigrating Crayola's website as "PR material" is disingenuous, when presumably the company that produces a commercial color is authoritative as to that color's official representation in RGB/HSV, at least in the absence of other information suggesting an error or discrepancy. P Aculeius (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stub. This is a legitimate subject and there is some legitimate content here although there is enough garbage intermixed that you might not notice it on a first glance. All the multicolour tables have to go. The text is far too obsessed with individual colours when it should talk a lot more about the actual subject of the article, which is the history of the crayons business. We need facts like: Which markets did they operate in at different times? How many crayons or packs do they sell each year? Do they make they crayons themselves or are they licensed to other manufacturers in some areas? How has this changed over time? Have they ever had to change the pigments or wax for safety reasons? The text needs to drop most of the trivia as it strongly greatly detracts from the actual on-topic content. Once we have this cut down to size then the referencing can be improved. A major international brand with such a long history must have more independent RS written about it than this. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you think the colors themselves are trivial, or as you put it, "garbage", doesn't mean that they are. If you want to add information on those other subjects you think worth discussing, go ahead. Nobody could possibly object. But the solution to missing useful and interesting information isn't to delete other useful and interesting information, much less to remove everything and turn a substantial article into a stub. From the mass nominations listed below, in which you and the others persistently describe information about Crayola crayon colors or related topics "listcruft" and "fancruft", while dismissing or ignoring reliable sources, it seems that you've just prejudged everything to do with the crayons and their colors as worthless. But I think most readers are more interested in the colors themselves than in the history behind them, which is understandable: while I agree that the history is well-worth exploring (and have tried to document it to the extent necessary for this article), and doubtless could be expanded, it would be pretty pitiful if there were no display of the colors themselves, or indication of their RGB/Hexadecimal equivalents, and how the lineup has changed over time. Since crayons and the colors they produce are the subject of this article, it makes no sense whatever to delete that information and have only text about the company or its production methods and merchandising techniques. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point about how this detracts from the good content. If an article has 10 sentences of good content then it is obvious to all that the content is good and that that the article could be expanded with more good content of a similar type. If an article has, say, 10 sentences of good content and a 90 sentences of WP:OR fan writing (and I accept that what is garbage to Wikipedia might be valid content for other people's websites with other objectives but that is irrelevant here) then that 10 sentences will be completely obscured by the rest. If an article is 90% garbage then who is going to read it to pull out the other 10%? People might not even notice that there was anything but garbage in the first place. In effect, the extra cruft reduces the value of the other good content. It is not, as you claim "useful". It is is the opposite because it subtracts value from the rest of the article. Besides, usefulness is one of the arguments to avoid. Do you think this article would even be up for deletion if it stuck to its core topic? The topic is clearly valid and the article can be saved. We just need to find and rescue the real article from underneath the accretion of fancruft layered on top of it. The article should focus on the history of Crayola's crayon products (not individual colours to any great extent), markets, sales, competition and so on. I'm sure some colours may end up being mentioned but the tables with the unverifiable colour data are just no good.

Now, I have been using the terms "unverifiable" and "OR" but it is clear that some of the details in this article are simply made up. Sure, they have been made up in an honest but misguided attempt to approximate the real colours, rather than to mislead people, but that is still not valid. Let's look at some of the "references" for the colour values:

Reference 4 (used 176 times): This refers people to the "Crayola: Explore Colors" website which does not even provide the hex values it is alleged to support. Even if it did it is not clear how much effort they would put into making them exactly accurate given that this is an e-commerce website for kids to decide what colour crayons to buy and then buy them. I'm not saying that I think its content is incorrect but it clearly does not support the weight we are trying to put on it and policy is to avoid using such sites anyway
Reference 5 (used 84 times): "Color values estimated using swatch of original crayon." Nothing even to verify there. That just counts as "made up".

My best advice is for somebody to set up a Crayola fan wiki and to copy all the articles there. That way we can slice our versions down to what is appropriate for Wikipedia and the fans can avoid losing all their hard work. Everybody gets what they want that way, right? --DanielRigal (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are valid arguments. "It may not be garbage, but it's garbage for Wikipedia" and "it's 90% garbage" is just insulting and provocative, and doesn't belong in this debate, to say nothing of prejudging the outcome, and circular reasoning ("this content is unencyclopedic because it's worthless"). Stop calling it garbage, stop calling it cruft, fancruft, useless, and get off your high horse, or stop arguing. "Do you think this article would be up for deletion if it stuck to its core topic" is just another example of circular reasoning: deletion is justified because it was nominated for deletion. Why bother having a discussion at all if nominating something for deletion proves that it needs to be deleted? Your ridiculous assertion that this is "fancruft" has been refuted repeatedly on the other pages you've spammed with deletion arguments. It wasn't created by a "fan" and you're the only one who feels the need to insult it. Contrary to the repeated arguments on this and other pages, it's not a sales catalogue, and it's not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of every product ever produced by Binney & Smith. It's a discussion of one main subject and how that subject has changed over time. That's why it doesn't have prices, availability, sales figures, or the number of rivets used to hold up the roof of the crayon factory. If you want an article that talks about that stuff, go ahead and write it. Don't demand that other articles about other topics be eliminated because you don't personally think they're important! The possibility that someone somewhere else might devote a book or an article in a magazine or an external wiki to a topic does not and has never justified deleting content from Wikipedia. "It could be covered by another wiki" is not a valid reason to delete an article!

Instead of making up policies that don't exist, maybe you should spend more time familiarizing yourself with actual policies. For instance, key to this and other color-related topics, as explained in detail elsewhere, is that the contents of a work (whether a book, article, movie, television show, song, web page, or object such as a crayon) are valid sources for themselves. Note, I said contents, not opinion or editorial. You can describe the plot of a book, or the characters on a TV show, or the color of a crayon without editorializing. If someone else can do it better, they can edit what you write about it. You don't need a third-party source to tell you what color a red crayon is. But if, as is the case here, you have multiple reliable sources that provide a digital (or digitized) swatch of the color, then you also have a third-party source for the RGB/Hex codes! Just as content that anyone who reads a book or listens to a piece of music can hear (i.e. content that is obvious), a digital color code that anyone can read for themselves is a valid source. Go ahead, test them with a digital color meter, or use the eyedropper tool from Photoshop or Gimp or any other program to test swatches, and show that they're not identical to the values shown here. The swatches based on actual crayon wax on paper may have some variation depending on which part you sample, but Crayola's digital swatches are pure color, and should be exact matches no matter how you do it. Anyone who checks the colors should obtain the same results, just as if you looked up a quotation from a book on Google Books and found a copy of the page it's from.

But again, you bypass the real issues and instead focus on made-up policies. A commercial website is not a good source for opinions about a product, or comparisons of one product against another. But it's perfectly good as a source for the product's description, its official name, spelling, the dates from which it was produced, and other similar information for which the company's web site is likely to be as accurate a source of information as any other. You cannot ignore reliable sources for the description of a product merely because the manufacturer provided the information. If the claims were, "this is the best product of its kind" or "this product is produced using the unique, patented widgetry design", then there would be a problem—although it would still be a valid source for the claims, if presented as the manufacturer's claims. The number of times that a source is cited is not relevant to whether it's a valid source, or whether a page citing it should be deleted. If you want additional sources, find some. The fact that you think there should be more of them is not a valid argument for deletion! In all, the arguments for deletion depend entirely on misapplications of policies, policies that don't exist, circular reasoning, and prejudicial claims about the article needing to be deleted because it's worthless, the contents needing to be deleted because they're garbage, the article needing to be deleted because it was nominated for deletion, and other pointless reasons that simply demonstrate why this nomination is a colossal waste of time for everyone. P Aculeius (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the policies are made up then please read WP:V and tell us whether you still believe that the hex values are validly verified? Then maybe read WP:OR and see if you can spot any of the things it prohibits going on in the articles up for deletion. Then please read WP:GNG to see where the line is drawn on notability. If at any point you think we are making stuff up then please hit "View history" and check that we have not been editing the policies to tilt them against you. The only thing made up here is those damn Hex values. I am not saying that they were pulled out of somebody's backside, in fact I think they are a genuine but deeply misguided attempt at original research, but I am saying that there is nothing here to verify that they weren't pulled out of somebody's backside. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listed for deletion by the same nominators:

P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Legitimate encyclopedic topic. If you don't like aspects of the article, fix it. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, although I'd like the result to be "stub" rather than "keep". With a "keep" I fear that, when we remove all the multicoloured tables in order to rescue the article from the crushing weight of cruft it has on top of it, all the bad content will just get reverted back in with the "keep" cited as justification. I'd like to head off that really stupid edit war. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure of some of the other articles, but this one is encyclopedic , and justified. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 29 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Oswals[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability satisfying WP:NBOOK or any other criterion. DePRODded without comment by creating editor. Only "reference" is to the book itself. PamD 22:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if we had a speedy-delete criterion for books, this would be a ripe candidate. The creator of this article clearly needs to grasp the concept of Wikipedia:Notability and should be practicing in draft stingpace and submit articles for review via WP:AFC. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom - fails WP:NBOOK. Maybe the book itself could be used as a reference to improve the Oswals article, but even that is doubtful; the bits I've read of it on Google Books are on par with the lower-quality self-published genealogy books I've read. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I realize that might seem inconsistent with my !vote on AfD:LDS Biographical Encyclopedia. Some of the differences are (1) the age of the work, (2) the level of detail in the article about the process of writing the work, and (3) the use of the article as a link from citations in other articles. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 16:08, 27 July 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. It's clear that there's no consensus to delete or merge. I suppose some people will quibble about keep vs no consensus, but I can't get worked up over that distinction, so I'm just going to call this keep.

One question raised is whether this runs afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG. I find the arguments that it doesn't to be persuasive. My own reading of WP:NOTCATALOG finds only a prohibition against product pricing or availability information, which, as XOR'easter said, this isn't.

The other big question is the sourcing. There's a claim that the color details are unsourced, but P Aculeius makes a strong argument why the sourcing is adequate and appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crayola crayon colors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is listcruft (who would need a exhaustive list of all the crayon colors produced by a company?), and is mostly sourced to Crayola official corporate pages, crayon collecting websites, and broken links to image hosting services. It also attracts a prolific LTA (who I am not naming, for obvious reasons). Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 22:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been speedy kept twice, why would #3 be any different? Also, "It also attracts a prolific LTA" is a poor rationale; we shouldn't let LTAs intimidate us into deleting articles. p b p 23:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think that our standards are a little higher now but I do agree that the LTA should not be a consideration. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limited merge to History of Crayola crayons which this effectively duplicates. This article has been speedily kept before so I am not bothering to !vote "delete" although I'd be quite happy to see it go. I am not sure what state it was in last time it was deemed a "keep" but it looks pretty awful now with much of it being unverifiable WP:OR. A lot of it is referenced to primary sources and most of the rest of it rehashes content from CrayonCollecting.com, which may or may not be Wp:RS although it certainly looks like a serious effort to document this stuff (Maybe so that we don't have to?). None of the Hex values are reliable. If kept or merged at all the article needs to be cut down drastically and have all the unreferenced RGB, HSV and Hex values removed completely. Also the background colours used on the lists should go too. If we merge then we only have one article to keep clean and a flat out "No hex codes" rule would make a lot of sense. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this needs to be separate from any other article or it will drown the other article. Too much detail to have anywhere else. Red Slash 23:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I only suggest a limited merge. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obscure but encyclopedic. Andrewa (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crayola is a brand and the colours are products so this essentially breaches WP:NOTCATALOGUE Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the parent article for History of Crayola crayons and Alternative names of Crayola crayons, all of which have been nominated for deletion by Lojbanist, supported by DanielRigal and Ajf773, on the theory that it's "fancruft", a pejorative meaning, "useless garbage created by obsessed fanatics". Pretty much the same arguments have been proposed for deleting List of Crayola marker colors, List of Crayola paint colors, List of Crayola colored pencil colors, and Timeline of Crayola, in a mass effort to expunge all Crayola-related topics from Wikipedia.

We should begin by dismissing the argument that NOTCATALOGUE has anything to do with this article, as the only part of that policy that relates to products clearly doesn't apply here:

Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.

Neither this nor any of the other articles have anything to do with pricing or availability or in any way constitutes a catalogue. The policy cited is not relevant to the present debate.

Similarly, other policies are clearly being misapplied in support of this nomination. Wikipedia policy does not forbid the use of primary sources; it says that they may be used where appropriate, and one perfectly appropriate use is to supply the official description of a product, which in this case consists of numerical data rather than advertising or opinion. Furthermore, CrayonCollecting.com isn't itself a source, but a web site created by Ed Welter, one of several authors whose work documenting Crayola and other companies, as well as related topics, appears there. The actual source is Welter's "The Definitive History of the Colors of Crayola", which itself is a piece of scholarly work indicating how the information was gathered and analyzed, giving the basis for the author's statements and reasoning, together with images documenting both the product and its packaging at different stages in time, as well as color swatches that anyone can look at and compare in support of the author's claims. This is the definition of a reliable third-party source on the topic, and the only reason it's being questioned is because it's on the internet, rather than a book printed by an old-media publishing house. That's not a reason to dismiss an otherwise reliable source.

The idea that because a subject is documented by another source, in this case Mr. Welter's history of Crayola Crayons, means that "we don't have to", is antithetical to the very purpose of Wikipedia. The editor is suggesting that Wikipedia articles don't need to exist for topics that are documented elsewhere! Imagine applying this logic to articles on history, biography, science, or art! We'd pretty much have to purge all of Wikipedia.

The nominators seem to be under the illusion that hexadecimal and RGB codes come from nowhere, despite being documented by the cited sources, as well as by the colors themselves. It's well-established that subjects of Wikipedia articles are reliable sources for their own descriptions: editors are entitled to describe what an object looks like, what the plot of a book is, who the characters in a movie are, or in this case, what color is produced by a crayon, so long as it's possible to do so without editorializing about it. Anyone who examines an object, reads a book, watches a movie, or colors with a crayon can see for themselves. But Mr. Rigal isn't just proposing to delete all of the information as well as the colors themselves; he's proposing a rule against including this type of information in this article, and presumably other similar articles, apparently whether or not there are reliable sources.

So, why this crusade against all things Crayola? Serious efforts have been made to document a topic of interest to many readers over the years, and the present page is a great improvement over previous versions that survived nominations for deletion in the past. The original page was split into different articles a few years ago because it wasn't practical to have both a comprehensive table of all colors and separate tables showing the color lineup at different points in time, which is of interest because the color palette has changed significantly over more than a century since the introduction of Crayola crayons, everyday objects that have been found in nearly every school and every household with children for decades. Over the years different colors have shared the same names, and some colors have been known by different names for various reasons. This information seems perfectly appropriate to document on Wikipedia, as are markers, paints, colored pencils, etc. These things were split off into their own pages because the parent topics would become too large and cover too many subjects to fit in one place comfortably. But space is not at a premium on Wikipedia. We don't need to jam together all related topics in order to save space.

One of the most ridiculous arguments put forward for deleting these articles is that some of them have attracted the attention of a notorious vandal. This has had no long-term effect on the integrity of the article, since they're regularly patrolled by a number of editors who ensure that everything added or removed seems to be a serious effort to improve the content. But the fact that an article attracts vandals is evidence that it's not trivial; trivial articles can go months or years without any attention being paid to them.

If the nominators of this and all of the other related articles aren't satisfied by the existing sources, they can go find more and "better" ones if they want to, but they're not entitled to ignore reliable sources that already exist—including the crayons themselves as sources for their names and colors—just because they don't like them, or use that as an argument to delete all Crayola-related articles from Wikipedia, as they're doing. The real reason for this nomination storm seems to be that the nominators consider the subject to be "trivial", hence spamming the pejorative "listcruft" and "fancruft" all over their arguments. Calling it "cruft" presupposes the outcome of the debate: the material is useless, pointless, worthless, and therefore should be deleted. Adding that it's "fancruft" simply makes it personal. But you don't have to be a fanatic, or obsessed with crayons to want to document them. Apart from checking what I had in old boxes, I haven't touched my crayons in decades. I don't collect crayon memorabilia or go to crayon conventions or anything of the sort. And I suspect that many of the other editors who've collaborated on these pages are the same: we simply find the subject interesting and worth documenting. That doesn't make us fanatical or our work-product trivial or worthless. I really think that these nominators should withdraw their mass deletion nominations, and find some more worthwhile windmills to tilt at. P Aculeius (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listed for deletion by the same nominators:

P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crayola is a brand, but historical information is not a product catalogue. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the actual history part of this article belongs in History of Crayola crayons, which I don't think has any real risk of being deleted. What this seems to be is a history of the changes to Crayola's product catalogue. I don't think it is unreasonable to invoke the rule against rehashing catalogues, even when the catalogues are old. Sure, there can be historical details of genuine relevance buried in old catalogues which can be selectively extracted and used but indiscriminately reproducing the entire Crayola colour range seems far more catalogue than history to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reasonable tie-in to the story of an iconic consumer product. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to History of Crayola crayons. This list is redundant, as the colors are presented in a more organized fashion in the history article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to History of Crayola crayons. The most useful part of this article, the color values, are unsourced. Much of its content can never be reliably sourced. Hopefully editors of this article find a nice spot somewhere else on the internet to host their work, but it's not reliable or notable. Daask (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely false. They're all sourced A) from the crayons themselves; B) from at least one of two reliable sources that provide color swatches that can be reliably accessed and measured by anyone. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that describing an object or its contents in neutral language that anyone who examines it can verify is perfectly acceptable as sourcing, and does not constitute original research. The idea that it's impossible for there ever to be a reliable source for the description of common and easily examinable objects is thoroughly ridiculous. Claim that the subject is non-notable is clearly disputed by multiple editors here and in the other topics affected by the deletion spam. P Aculeius (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interesting and historic. Czolgolz (talk) 20:44, 30 July 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. Michig (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crayola colored pencil colors[edit]

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

Listcruft. Sourced mainly to official Crayola corporate pages, with a few social media sites thrown in. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 22:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Crayola paint colors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails verification. The links that purport to "reference" the colours in each pack do not. They go to generic shopping pages which gives the price, shows the pack and gives a rough idea of the colours (You know; The sort of info you need if you are buying pencils for your kids) but there are no colour names shown (in many cases) and no hex codes for those colours (in all cases). In short, it is no help for our purposes. The rest is just WP:OR assuming the content is correct at all. If the original authors of this want to take a copy for a Crayola fansite then they can have it but this does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Also, not notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crayola is a brand and the colours are products so this is essentially breaches WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As documented in related deletion discussions linked below, that policy does not apply here, as this is not a sales catalogue-like description of product availability or pricing information. P Aculeius (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another was AfDd, so I'll list the set:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also listed for deletion by the same nominators:

P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List cruft. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 29 July 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. Michig (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crayola marker colors[edit]

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

Listcruft. Only 1 reference, which is an official Crayola corporate page. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 22:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If a reliable source existed for such a list then that would make the article unnecessary as we could just refer to that. Also, listcruft would still apply. The bigger problem is that this isn't even referenced to such an external source. The one "reference" is a list of colours on the Crayola site which does not give any clue which are marker colours (as opposed to crayon colours) or what dates they were issued. The article is completely unverifiable. It could be almost completely made up for all we know. The Hex values are either made up or sampled out of the website in an act of original research. Some of the other Crayola colour articles are referenced, although I'm not sure how reliable their sources are either. This effectively isn't referenced at all. I see no hope for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crayola is a brand and the colours are products so this is essentially breaches WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That policy is not relevant to this discussion, as this article is not a sales catalogue-like description of product availability or pricing data, which is what the only paragraph in that policy that relates to product listings is about. P Aculeius (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another was AfDd, so I'll list the set:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also listed for deletion by the same nominators:

P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List cruft. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 29 July 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. Michig (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crayola paint colors[edit]

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

Unsourced listcruft. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 22:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If a reliable source existed for such a list then that would make the article unnecessary as we could just refer to that. Also, listcruft would still apply. The bigger problem is that this isn't even referenced to such an external source. The article is completely unverifiable. It could be almost completely made up for all we know. The Hex values are either made up or sampled out of the website in an act of original research. Some of the other Crayola colour articles are referenced, although I'm not sure how reliable their sources are either. This isn't referenced at all. It has been tagged as unreferenced since 2015. I see no hope for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Crayola colored pencil colors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crayola is a brand and the colours are products so this is essentially breaches WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to this discussion, as this article is not a description of product availability or pricing, as one would find in a sales catalogue, which is what the policy in question is about. P Aculeius (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another was AfDd, so I'll list the set:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also listed for deletion by the same nominators:

P Aculeius (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List cruft. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 29 July 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. Precedent aside, solid consensus here to delete. I am sympathetic to the GNG arguments, but not convinced. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Leyton Orient F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the National League is not a fully-professional league. For previous precedent, see AfDs like this, this, this etc. Number 5 7 21:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 07:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails WP:NSEASONS. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006–07 York City F.C. season which is more recent than the other AFDs. Peter James (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles were kept on the basis of GNG not NSEASONS (even editors who were for keeping acknowledged that they failed NSEASONS). Number 5 7 11:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an incredibly semantic argument which ignores WP:GNG. WP:NSEASONS has no requirement for professionalism, as seen with the numerous college sports seasons in the United States. Furthermore the National League receives a high level of news coverage and most if all articles for the National League should be able to pass WP:GNG. It seems silly a professional team isn't allowed to have a season article since they got relegated into a league well-covered by the media. SportingFlyer talk 04:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus from numerous AfDs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in additions to the one I cited above) is that in the case of football, being fully-professional is a requirement to pass NSEASONS. Number 57 10:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Be it as it may, the consensus is arbitrary and completely ignores WP:GNG. There's no reason a team that's professional (even if there are non-professional teams in the league) and well-covered in the media can't have an article about its season. While the sources are primary or WP:MILL, the rule here is there needs to be enough material in order for the seasons page to be more than just statistical, and even though this isn't at the moment, it could easily get there. SportingFlyer talk 15:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not the key rule though, the subject needs to show GNG and primary / routine sources don't do that by definition. Fenix down (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is very few seasons will actually be able to pass WP:GNG on their own - possibly only through history books written about the club? The cutoff line for the English National League is arbitrary, as is the consensus which establishes it, as nowhere in WP:NSEASONS mandates a fully professional league. The National League has been significantly covered for years in multiple reliable publications (some of which have the league as their primary focus), the majority of the clubs I believe are professional including this one, and is a fully national league, and I think it'd be possible to source this article without making one reference to the club's official website. I know this article will be deleted "as per consensus," but I am fervently against the consensus. For instance, if you were to redact which league the clubs played in, there is no reason this should be deleted and, say, 2017–18 Fleetwood Town F.C. season (in this instance, selected due to heavy sourcing from the club website) kept. Leyton even averaged more than 1,000 more people a game than Fleetwood. SportingFlyer talk 04:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - For the record, my specific argument is: NSEASONS does not mandate a fully professional league, and even then, the majority if not all National League-level season articles would satisfy WP:GNG due to the level of secondary coverage of the league. SportingFlyer talk 04:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't but it does specifically state "top professional leagues". This is the fifth tier of english football and cannot really be considered a "top professional league". Consensus over time has been established through AfD that leagues that can be shown to be fully professional can also reasonably be described as "top professional leagues" from a global perspective regardless of the level that an individual competition sits within its own country's pyramid. As such, season articles for "non-league" English clubs need to show GNG and that cannot be done through primary sources or a synthesis of routine match / transfer reporting. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but it can still be done. There's a significant exception for notable amateur college sports in the United States due to the level of coverage, and the top professional league assumption is based on the fact that significant coverage of the league will always exist. Significant coverage of the National League exists as well - I can find match reports on sites such as ESPN, which is abnormal for a league in the fifth tier. I understand the consensus, I just don't see why most National League articles wouldn't be able to pass WP:GNG as there's absolutely nothing different about the synthesis based on the level of coverage received by the leagues. SportingFlyer talk 14:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is clear consensus that a league needs to be fully professional to pass WP:NSEASONS. The sources in the article are either primary or are routine match reporting / transfer talk, the likes of which are not sufficient to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Salford City F.C. season (another article on a season at this level) has just ended with a "delete" outcome. Number 5 7 08:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Missed commenting on that one - would've voted keep. SportingFlyer talk 17:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a lot of citations, but they are all pretty much WP:ROUTINE and consensus of WP:NSEASONS is pretty clear, the season isn't a top flight season. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should all of the minor league seasons in England be deleted as well? The National League gets sufficient coverage for one of these types of articles, which should be the test if it's not a top professional league, similar to university sports in the U.S. SportingFlyer talk

Delete per nom and especially Fenix down who succinctly points out how the article fails WP:GNG, which is the only keep argument I see as it's evident that the article fails WP:NSEASONS. Ifnord (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fenix down. Daask (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NSEASONS and then also WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 14:53, 31 July 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. Michig (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Salford City F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the National League is not a fully-professional league. Deprodded with a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale referring to 2017–18 Leyton Orient F.C. season, which I have also put up for deletion for the same reason. For previous precedent, see AfDs like this, this, this etc. Number 5 7 21:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 07:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails WP:NSEASONS. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is clear consensus that a league needs to be fully professional to pass WP:NSEASONS. The sources in the article are either primary or are routine match reporting / transfer talk, the likes of which are not sufficient to satisfy GNG. Perhaps the season will meet GNG, but that is something that can only be decided after the event, there is no way the club plays at a sufficiently high level to satisfy any guideline for inherent notability. Fenix down (talk) 14:30, 26 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Skolnik[edit]

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

Cordless Larry thinks it is spam. I think that an article that has survived more than four years deserves an AfD discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had already speedy deleted this, RHaworth? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Thought"!! If you are not capable of saying explicitly whether or not I deleted it and if so when, I venture to suggest that you should not be entering into discussions such as this. See also this page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, RHaworth. My choice of wording was rhetorical and worked better in my head than on the screen. I knew that you had deleted the article, which is why I was surprised when you pinged me here with what appeared to be a decline of my speedy nomination on the grounds that you disagreed with it. I hadn't seen the undeletion request, but now I have, it all makes more sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the article is written today, it reads like a promo piece about a run-of-the-mill business person. Notability does not come across in this article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article needs a fundamental re-write to make it comply with WP:NPOV, which is why I originally nominated it for WP:G11. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When the only discussions have been speedy delete vs. delete, it's a sign. Ifnord (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of sources, but I agree that most lack the depth of WP:SIGCOV. But WP:BASIC says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I see significant coverage in two sources: NYTimes and The Grio. When combined with lots of mentions in discussions of national legislation and social debates, this is more than sufficient for that standard. Daask (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO. The NYTimes article ran in the local edition, and a single profile in the local paper is not enough. And there is not enough accomplishment or sourcing to support notability. The article lists many initiatives he has started, organizations he created, and careers he has begun - but the organizations did not take off. The one film he directed got reviewed. His new career as a political activist (subject of the 2015 article in the New York Times) has not taken off. I'm just not seeing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The article, by the way, was created and improved, if one dare use the word, by a single-purpose account. -The Gnome (talk) 14:57, 31 July 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. WP:G12 -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starfinder (novel)[edit]

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

Failed WP:NBOOK. Cannot find any sources that establish its notability. All I see are sources for a game. Rogermx (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article consists of a plot summary that seems to be taken from the back cover of the book, so is a copyright violation. Mortee (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I kept trying to find the source of it - I knew it was a cut and past. Thanks! Rogermx (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:G12. Ifnord (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G12. Daask (talk) 20:33, 30 July 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Galaxy Lollywood Awards[edit]

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

Fails basic GNG. Galaxy Lollywood Awards is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia. Apparently we don't have article on 1st Galaxy Lollywood Awards... Saqib (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft Space Not notable.Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also can't find any indication that this is notable, in which case working on it in draft won't help. Mortee (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No draftification per Mortee. Ifnord (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Quick search revealed only minimal coverage of this award generally, much less the 2nd. Daask (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was speedily deleted by Ansh666 (non-admin closure). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noha El-Bassiouny[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the creator has a COI. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 22 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Shang[edit]

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

No notability established. This is a bizarre case: the article was created in 2013 about a musician/actor, apparently also born in 1996 in America. The article claimed that this individual had numerous roles in notable Chinese movies, pop songs and TV shows. However, I cannot confirm any of those claims. Then in 2015, someone made a request for deletion (see here) and a few hours later user:Fryanda simply redirected the page to Xu Jingren, who is apparently the grandfather of the "entrepreneur" Aaron Shang. I should point out that Fryanda and user:Jhangck have edited only topics related to the "Xu investment family". The fact that Fryanda wrote this sentence: "Xu's daughter, a practicing physician in the United States, has been heavily protected from public scrutiny at the family's request." without a reference suggests to me there is probably some WP:COI going on. Timmyshin (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a student. No notability.PRehse (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think this will be speedily deleted soon.Nobody's Keeper (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject here is no where close to passing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ANYBIO, no claim to any other notability guidelines. Ifnord (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. thank Nom Timmyshin for finding this and bringing it to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The article, by the way, was created by a permanently blocked editor and then improved upon, if one may use such inexact wording, by a sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 15:03, 31 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Jayne[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails every point raised by PORNBIO. She has not received a significant award, made a substantial impact to the industry, and/or appeared in mainstream media. At least, that is what I have concluded from a before search.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete dies not meet notability guidelines for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not meeting WP:PORNBIO. Ifnord (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails ANYBIO, fails notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for subject failing WP:PORNBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 15:04, 31 July 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. The clear consensus is that the article meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tabarnia[edit]

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

This article has not been improved. Has been with the disputed neutrality label since January 2018 yet nobody has improved the article. Information has stopped flowing shortly after february 2018 (newest source is from march 2018). Press sources do not agree in what Tabarnia is nor its purpose. If it is satirical or a political movement. Others propose it is an astroturfing campaign or grassroots movement. "Political claims" section is an invention sourced from a blog (bcnisnotcat.es). Apparently those claims was propagated and magnified by the media. There is also a section devoted to Historical revisionism which does not cite any verifiable source, only anti-catalanist propaganda. Filiprino (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non-improvement is not a valid reason for deleting a whole article. If the article needs improvement, improve it. Impru20^talk 19:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The article meets at least reasons 4, 6 and 7 for deleting and even 8. Impru20 stated a fallacy of false dilemma by ignoring the rest of given reasons. Filiprino (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you are the nominator, so it is not needed that you propose to delete it twice in the same discussion.

Secondly, you are the nominator, so it was up to you to thoroughly explain the reasons for deletion, not for others to guess them out. You have presented the article's non-improvement (with a short explanation of the issues in need of improvement and which, according to you, were not improved) as the only reason for deletion. You have not explained any one of the new reasons you are suddenly numbering now (4, 6, 7 and 8) in response to my comment.

On the now numbered reasons:

You have not explained how this is "spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content", so it does not meet reason 4.
I cannot see how it does meet reason 6 when a lot of sources are cited in the article (and if you think that BBC, El País, El Mundo, RTVE and eldiario.es (among others) are not reliable sources, you should probably take it to WP:RSN. Otherwise, it would meet WP:VERIFY so reason 6 does not apply. I also think you are confusing the concept of an article being an hoax with that of an article which is describing an hoax. It is not the same).
For the same reason, reason 7 does not apply either, as reliable sources are indeed cited throughout the article (that there is a section lacking source does not make the whole article eligible for deletion).
As for reason 8, seeing as how the article does indeed meet the notability guideline, being that there are reliable sources providing a significant coverage of the subject, it would not apply either.

For all of it, my vote is against deleting the article. If you think it needs improvement, then improve it rather than propose its deletion altogether.

Also, I do not think I have been disrespectful to you, so please tone down your comments as they seem somewhat aggressive. Please, don't be an ostrich. Thank you. Impru20^talk 20:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The spam is in the "Political claims" and "Historical revisionism" section.
The only article available in Google Scholar regarding the matter is this one: https://www.naiz.eus/es/actualidad/noticia/20180101/tabarnia-y-la-construccion-del-adversario, a low quality article. It says that the influencers of this fad social network phenomena ocurred between 16 and 26 December 2017 are 12 twitter users: se han detectado 12 comunidades estadísticamente significativas en la red. Mediante el análisis de sus líderes (los más mencionados), sabemos que la comunidad más grande, la azul, la conforman fundamentalmente independentistas como @jmangues, @arnauriwz, @jonathanmartinz, @CNICatalunya o @ericcatalunya. El resto de comunidades, las lideran usuarios españolistas como @tabarnia, @Bcnisnotcat_, @josepramonbosch, @dexamina o @DolcaCatalunya. The rest of sources (newspapers) are just disseminating what these actors said. Tabarnia article is of low quality and there is no source available to improve it. A collection of tweets and anonymous blog entries doesn't make an encyclopedic article. Filiprino (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then your issue is with two sections only. Good. You must know that reason 4 means that the article itself must be spam for it to merit deletion. Just because some of the content within an article may be considered as spam does not mean the whole article deserves deletion.

I see The Guardian, BBC and other English reliable sources cited throughout the article which describe this as a parody and give some input on it ([1] [2] [3] [4]). Even if we were to take what you said for granted (that newspapers just disseminate "what some actors said" and that we should consider only the source you provide), the very fact that English reliable sources consider this notable enough to merit a specific coverage make it obvious that this "phenomena" (as you call it) does comply with the notability guideline, because it would mean that the topic has achieved enough notability to receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

An article being of low quality is not by itself a reason for deletion. Related to this, check WP:NORUSH.

And all of this was your own opinion. But I also see from Talk:Tabarnia that you have been engaged throughout the last months in content disputes in the article's talk, and that you are proposing to delete it just now despite you yourself having actively contributed to it in the past. You must know that deletion proposals are not meant as a way to circumvent discussion and/or to supersede consensus when you do not agree with it. If you think the article needs improvement, seek to improve it. As of now, I do not see any reason as to why should this article be deleted. But that is my opinion. Impru20^talk 21:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider that tabloid journalism is a valid source then we can accept Tabarnia is an article in good shape without neutral point of view problems, something asserted in the tag at the head of the article which has been sitting there for months. Filiprino (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider The Guardian or BBC as tabloid journalism? Then surely the more obvious it becomes that this deletion request has little sense. Besides, all of the issues you raise can be solved through editing and discussion, and none of which justify deleting the whole article. This is a discussion for article deletion, not for solving out the article's possible NPOV issues. Impru20^talk 23:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles provided yes, are tabloid journalism. No matter if they are written for (not by) The Guardian or for the BBC. Sensationalism can appear in any newspaper. It is not science what we are talking about. Filiprino (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at another deletion discussion here in which you have been involved, it looks like you do consider El Mundo, El País, eldiario.es and other such sources as reliable depending on the occasion. I cannot see significant differences from the sources provided there with the ones provided here (except that the ones in here do cover the issue directly), so it would seem like your criteria for choosing what to dub as "sensationalism" is dependant on both the topic and on your own personal point of view. Even so, "sensationalism" is not a reason for deletion or an attribution which makes an article to fail to meet the notability or the verifiability guidelines (sensationalist topics would merit inclusion in Wikipedia if being notable and verifiable), so I am lost as to what is your point here other than trying to undervalue such sources. Do you wish to remove the article because it has not been improved, or because you do consider it as a sensationalist topic? Note that none of which is a reason for deletion.

Also, after seeing WPancake's comment below and after checking your record at this article's Spanish wiki counterpart and while I will not engage into a content/conduct dispute here (as this is not the place for it), I will remind you again that deletion is not an alternative to try to circumvent consensus and/or discussion. Impru20^talk 08:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's consensus on the media you might find it reliable. But notably the reliance is found because there is proof of what they say. Photographies and other content which is not anonymous and clearly identifies the people involved. So it is not a matter of WP:PPOV. What other users think or say is irrelevant. They might be affected by a strong bias towards whatever is their bias. The same as you, seeing your record too. It's amazing how all of you keep using ad hominem falacies. Filiprino (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

If you think that the sources cited throughout the article are unreliable, you should bring the issue at WP:RSN. Otherwise, yes, it is only your personal viewpoint against these sources' well-known reputation as reliable sources.

And what is my record on the issue, if may I ask? I have not been involved in the Tabarnia article at all ever since its inception. You have been heavily involved in it, and your deletion request so far seems to come only from your own inability to convince others of your viewpoints on the article's content (as may be seen from Talk:Tabarnia#Article's lead consensus, Talk:Tabarnia#Fake News, Talk:Tabarnia/Archive 1#Filiprino's recent edits, etc). As I said, for requesting an article's deletion there must be a valid reason for deletion, which does not seem to be the case here. I think we are now going around in circles here. Impru20^talk 12:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the answers you write down here, I think that who has been heavily invested in the article is you, not me. My contributions are minimal. And your text is overflowing this AfD discussion. Filiprino (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions were so minimal so as to see you involved in several discussions in the article's talk in defense of them (even having a whole section specifically to discuss your own edits, which some people seemed to dub as controversial), as well as seeing you blocked in the Spanish wiki for your contributions at the Spanish counterpart of the article. You are free to think as you wish about my "investments" in the article, yet it is easily verifiable that I am entirely uninvolved both from the article's editing history ever since its creation as well as from any of the discussions in the talk page. Now, if you are still unwilling to explain how this meets any one of the reasons for deletion, I think we may end the discussion here, because it is obvious you are not even close to convince me of changing my stance from "Keep" to "Delete". Impru20^talk 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really, this chit-chat reached its end long ago. Your continuous use of ad hominem falacies does not make you any good. Filiprino (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping repeating your accusation of me using "fallacies" (something you have done ever since your very first reply to me), as well as other unproven claims, will not make your deletion request to be more successful either. Now, I suggest that if you have any personal issue with me on this issue, that you really wish to have addressed, bring it to WP:ANI so that an admin may scrutinize both sides' comments. Otherwise, you should limit yourself to try to explain how does Tabarnia meet any of the reasons for deletion. Thank you. Impru20^talk 13:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I struck the duplicate !vote from the nominator above; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Voters should be warned that the nominating user has been indefinitely banned from Spanish Wikipedia for constant and aggressive POV-pushing in articles related to Catalan nationalism, including pulling a very similar stunt with the Tabarnia article, which was considered an attempt at boycotting the article and immediately shut down by the administrators. Not only did this attitude lend him numerous suspensions, he refused to learn from them and lashed out angrily at Spanish administrators, leading to his indefinite block. He has since continued his crusade in other-language wikis such as this one. WPancake (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And perhaps warn these rabid pro-independence editors and get them to desist from this ludicrous behavior. They are engaging in a systematic propaganda war on wikipedia. Fortunately its just a couple of them. I have come across some of their recent edits which involves biographies of living persons which they oppose being described as "nazis" without any credible source backing this. Articles with this content is contrary to wikipedia policy and most certainly needs attention of both the persons subject of this vitriol online and that of admins to get this to stop. We cannot have wikipedia become a platform for slandering opposition politicans. As for Tabarnia, the AfD is so ridiculous no comment is needed. Miska5DT (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC) (Blocked per SPI; user editing in violation of a block)[reply]

Speedy Keep: A simple search reveals that there is large amount of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Clearly meets WP:GNG. The nomination makes no sense. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Impru20: neutrality and sourcing problems aren't a reason to delete, they're a reason to fix edits. Nblund^talk 21:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notability is well-established with significant coverage from an abundance of reliable sources. On top of all of the sources cited by the article, there are another 72,000 results on Google News. Nomination is erroneous enough to warrant a speedy keep. — Newslinger talk 23:44, 23 July 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 Merge to Dhadak. bd2412 T 02:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhadak (song)[edit]

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

The song does not satisfy any of the criteria mentioned for WP:NSONG and can easily be merged into film article. Topping the chart solely does not make it notable. Not moving it per WP:BOLD because creator (Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia) is singer's fan and indulges into edit warring per past experience. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few mentions in independent WP:RS, but most of the other coverage is from the websites that cover almost every song. Fails WP:NSONG. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not border WP:NSONG. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONG.-Kishfan (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be deleted. Does not fails WP:NSONG.-Ayush Gupta (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe move? Perhaps move it to Dhadak (soundtrack) and expand it? Each individual song has received attention but that would not justify separate articles, while at the same time it would be quite sticking out as too detailed at the film's article. 86.97.131.24 (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dhadak. Expanding the soundtrack there, including this song, will retain the information and end debate about its notability. Ifnord (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dhadak. Daask (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dhadak.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info and make it a redirect to Dhadak, as it fails WP:NSONG by itself. --1l2l3k (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on coverage in reliable sources, per WP:GNG. There's no article for the soundtrack, so I'm not sold on a merge to Dhadak. Putting the meat of this article into the relatively small Dhadak#Soundtrack section would make that section too bulky. On the other hand, if someone wants to use this content as the basis of creating an article for the soundtrack, I could also get on board with that. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dhadak Most songs don't have articles for themselves unless they hit the top charts in multiple countries for long periods of time. Rather, they are mentioned in the article for the songwriter/performer or instead have a section dedicated to it on their page. Redditaddict69 (talk) 10:05, 1 August 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of Canada with facial hair[edit]

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

Not a reasonable classification for a stand-alone list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Facial hair is not a lasting characteristic. Most males and some females have some facial hair; some of them shave it off some of the time. And even if it was a lasting characteristic... as power~enwiki says, it's not a reasonable classification. Don't make me create "List of bald Prime Ministers of the UK" or "List of very short kings". Bishonen | talk 15:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

You could easily find the sources. freshacconci (✉) 16:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought this must be a joke/hoax till I read it. However someone has put quite a bit of work in. But it's such an trivial comparator, in that it tells us nothing of importance. And, as noted above, it's also transient. Are we sure the present incumbent never went a week at Canoe Lake without a shave? KJP1 (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 15:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 15:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sucks about Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair but fingers crossed for Jagmeet Singh! freshacconci (✉) 15:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An obvious US-bias when it comes to similar lists at AfD: USA - KEEP!, USA - KEEP!, USA - KEEP!, New Zealand - DELETE! and Australia - DELETE!. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete:As per Bishonen . Kpgj hpjm 16:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the AfDs provided by Lugnuts do show that there is indeed a content bias, the reason for the keep consensus in those cases was that there were reliable secondary sources which utilized this classification. I found no similar sources for Canadian prime ministers, and the ones in the article don't seem to discuss it, rather, it seems to be WP:OR. So I think this one fails to satisfy the GNG. Even if it did pass the GNG, I think it would go against WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and I think the American lists pointed out by Lugnuts should also be deleted for the same reason and the reasons given above: it is not a lasting characteristic for classification. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 16:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep given the sources from Largoplazo below. I think there's a legitimate problem with regards to WP:NOTDIRECTORY regardless of notability, but I think that needs to be a larger discussion on these types of lists rather than something settled here. As it is, I think this passes the GNG, and it seems that is sufficient given previous AfDs on similar lists. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to nominate this as a not-possibly-notable intersectional list under WP:LISTN, but I thought due diligence demanded a WP:BEFORE search and I turned up a few pieces covering the beardedness of Canadian PMs, such as Macleans in 2014, The National Post in 2015, The Tyee in 2012. Largoplazo (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as I am the founder of this page I say KEEP. if the Americans can have a page List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair then the Canadians can have a page. I see No difference at all. QubecMan (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per QubecMan. 344917661X (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this is clearly a slightly strange and even entertaining article that has reasons both for and against deletion, QubecMan has made a clear and strong argument in favour of keeping the article.(Greenleader) 18:14, 24 July (UTC)
Delete. Some American social scientists are fixated on the effect of presidential facial hair, Canadians not so much with PMs. It gets an occasional filler article in newspapers, but that's not enough. We don't have the equivalent of Grace Bedell in the Great White North. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a personal opinion. QubecMan (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It's a comment on the difference in reliable sourcing between the two topics. Bishonen | talk 05:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I make a second note if we have pages such as List of Prime Ministers of Canada by academic degrees,List of Prime Ministers of Canada by military service,List of Prime Ministers of Canada by residence, Spouse of the Prime Minister of Canada,Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada, Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada, and List of burial places for Prime Ministers of Canada then we can have a page like this. QubecMan (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Other crap exists. Bishonen | talk 05:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Those should also be deleted. In fact, let me kill two lists of relatives with one stone/Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a list of trivia, not telling us anything important or valuable about the prime ministers. This is not a thing reliable sources analyze all that much in Canadian politics or history — the sources being cited here for whether a prime minister had facial hair or not are just the photographs on their parliamentarian profiles on the House of Commons website, not reliable source analysis about whether having a beard did or didn't have an impact on their political careers. Canada does not automatically need an exact equivalent to every single article the United States happens to have — the encyclopedic value of the US list is questionable too, but at the very least there's actually some evidence of reliable source analysis there that isn't present here. So they each need to be considered on their own merits or lack thereof, not yoked together in a game of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Of the new sources Largoplazo offered above, Maclean's is just a fluffball "which one had the best facial hair?" listicle, while the National Post is just a list of all the possible firsts that any result in the 2015 election would have produced, including age records (which happened), number of consecutive election wins (which didn't), first son of a former PM to become PM (which happened) and first NDP government at the federal level (which didn't) — and the latter contains just one blurb about Tom Mulcair's beard which includes no analysis of why a guy with a beard winning the election would be a significant achievement and not just an answer to a question in the eventual 2010s Nostalgia edition of Trivial Pursuit in the alternate universe where Mulcair had won — and because he didn't become Prime Minister in this universe, that source doesn't aid the notability of this list at all. The only source that's actually adding any substantive analysis of beards in politics is the Tyee link — but even that was written by an undergraduate political science student, not a professional political science academic. So those sources simply aren't enough to make this noteworthy. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks sources that discuss the entries as a group; does not meet WP:LISTN. Beyond that, WP:LISTCRUFT, trivia, and indiscriminate amount of information. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kraose (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also encourage people to nominate List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair for deletion and I will cast my vote as "delete" there. Kraose (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the real distinction between the two. Presidents are elected by direct vote, and their appearance is known to sway voters' choices (prime example: Kennedy Nixon debates), whereas prime ministers are chosen by the party in power, so it isn't as important or formally studied. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't consider List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair as anything more than a trivia. After this discussion we should nominate that article for deletion. Kraose (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The various AFD nominations for List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair note that the subject of facial hair on U.S. Presidents has been the subject of scholarly publication. I would be wary of looking to no more the several keep discussions for that article without consideration of whether the same factors apply to this article. Has there been academic publications discussion the facial hair of Canadian Prime Ministers, for example?

It's not as simple as "if the Americans can have a page List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair then the Canadians can have a page." TJRC (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The previous 3 AfD's for "List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair" does give rise to have set set precedence.
Should someone venture into creating a 4'th AfD for the USA one, then please do and let me know (I'll likely vote delete, to overturn precedence).
-- DexterPointy (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The various AFD nominations for List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair is Sicken, Clarityfiend rightly said American social scientists are fixated on the effect of presidential facial hair, Canadians not so much with PMs. I would say Keep for the US presidents otherwise the person who is trying to get rid of it is being a Bully and vindictive to Me.QubecMan (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I remind you User:QubecMan of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because somebody voted delete, doesn't mean they're out to get you. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- QubecMan, I can't follow your logic, but this personal note is ridiculous, as if they're out to get you. Please see WP:NPA. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Same reasons why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand with facial hair and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair (2nd nomination) were deleted. Ajf773 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for trivialness unless someone wants to create an article 'List of Prime Ministers of Canada without Facial hair' to go with it .JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial, cross-categorization LISTCRUFT that fails [[WP:NOTESAL]]. Sam Sailor 09:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely useless trivia. Does it contain Prime Ministers that sometimes had facial hair? Don't most men have some, at some point in their lives? Ifnord (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of practically complete lack of encyclopaedic interest and purpose. If an editor posts up a List of Prime Ministers of Canada with Shaved Pubic Hair I might reconsider. You think I'm joking but I'm just shaking my head very slowly. -The Gnome (talk) 15:10, 31 July 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 Bagnan II#Education. ansh 666 06:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bantul Mahakali High School[edit]

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

Notability! : This "article" was created 6 months ago, and its
- Sources provides only trivia, without any hint on what claims it may have to notability.
- Content (a one-liner) only tell where the school is geo-located.

Concerning the 3 sources in the article:
    R#1. http://www.schoolsworld.in/schools/showschool.php?school_id=19160405001
    R#2. http://www.icbse.com/schools/bantul-mahakali-high-school/19160405001
    R#3. https://freetutorial.in/schools/1282654 ; The "Description" there, is clearly auto-generated from its own listed trivia.
All 3 provides only trivia; Nothing to support notability.

This article is in violation of WP:NRV ; Existence is not notability.

DexterPointy (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, to clarify: I'm not opposed to redirecting, but didn't suggest any redirection; and that simply because I don't have any suggestions.
I'd rather leave the compiling of suggestions to those who already got a firm grip on schools in India.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per policy - but DexterPointy you are too new around here to know about our policies. There was also a recent RfC in which the only concrete piece of consensus was that users should refrain from trawling through category Schools looking for articles to list at AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: You're only partly correct, because:
I'm blissfully unaware about any such recent RfC, and any redirect policy for schools.
But, I did not trawl any category ("Schools" or any other). I simple encountered this article at random (I can't remember where I found a link to it), and ended up realising that an AfD would be appropriate (which I obviously created, namely this AfD). -- DexterPointy (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Hold on, I think I may have misread you. Are you saying there was a RfC about an existing redirect policy, or are you saying there was a RfC about creating a redirect policy? -- DexterPointy (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DexterPointy, neither. Redirecting rather than outright deletion for many kinds of articles is part of an older and stable policy. A recent RfC discussed school notability but while it did not reach any consensus it was stated once more that discussion about schools should not incite searches for school articles that may or may not meet GNG. I accept that you may have happened on this aricle at random. More on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the RfC concerned. For what it's worth, I disagree that it resulted in the conclusion that "discussion about schools should not incite searches for school articles that may or may not meet GNG". The wording was that "Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations" (emphasis mine). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wot Larry sed. Also, it's seriously unbecoming of an administrator, to maintain such an aggressive demeanor towards anybody and everybody who happen to nominate a school-article for deletion. ∯WBG^converse 10:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Indeed, Larry was most helpful. But as for Kudpung, you might want to read the spat I had with Kudpung, just to prepare yourself for what might be thrown at you. -- DexterPointy (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of High Schools in Howrah. Alternatively it could go to Bagnan II#Education as one of the 12 high schools in that area. Wherever list it is retargeted, it should be added as an entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every school has enough history to allow ((Infobox school)) to be at least partially filled out, but the sources are not always available online. A good source of information about schools in India is UDISE, but it does not have a web-based search. You can download the necessary files for an offline search free of charge at http://udise.in/udise.html Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Angus.∯WBG^converse 08:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the arguments above. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bagnan_II#Education and also list the same at List of High Schools in Howrah --DBigXray 11:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bagnan_II#Education. Per this "Non-notable school articles are generally blanked and redirected to the school district's article (USA) or to an appropriate section on the article about its locality (rest of the world) and merging any appropriate content." --1l2l3k (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to any of the aforementioned pages above. One sentence is nothing. Unless the article is expanded significantly, this page has no useful information on it. The title gives the same amount of information as the entire page. Redditaddict69 (talk) 10:07, 1 August 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 & is a copyvio Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lavi Hoss[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. "References" are single line mentions or listings. Appears to fail WP:NM. reddogsix (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 22 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel C. Bennett[edit]

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

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC notability. Other than the primary source in the article, which isn't usable to establish notability, searches are only providing name checks and faint mentions in independent sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Agree that BASIC is tenuous and secondary sources may be lacking. Deaddebate (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contrary to what it stated, the source in the article is in no way primary. It is a secondary source that is a note on an individual created by a scholarly press in publishing the papers of a notable individual according to current scholarly conventions. Such notes are clearly secondardy sources. However since they are created on most individuals mentioned in the paper, they lack the level of discernment alone to show notability. Nothing about Bennett's varied positions and actions rises to the level of notability, nor does the coverage of him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:ACADEMIC for being dean of School of Law at Boston University. Ifnord (talk) 18:04, 30 July 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. WP:TOOSOON ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Sebastian[edit]

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

Largely unsourced autobiography of a film student, highly promotional. Sources barely mention the subject or not at all. Won 2nd Prize for "Best Short Film" and "Best Cinematographer and Editing at the the Inter collegiate short film festival of the Kumararani Meena Muthiah College of Arts & Science, Chennai. That's not a notable award. Creator has confirmed that he is the subject and that the purpose is to promote himself here. Vexations (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here are few articles that may help to prove that this can be added [5] [6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki iinfo update 2018 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem. Two brief mentions, and [8] doesn't mention Christy Sebastian. Vexations (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable, does not meet GNG. None of the references are more than name drops (including the new ones provided by Wiki iinfo update 2018). There isnt enough info to write a properly sourced stub with, much less this article. Curdle (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically, not yet notable.The current references are incidental . DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for subject failing WP:NCREATIVE. Almost all sources cited in the article and above by our anonymous contributor are about something else, mentioning the subject only sparingly and incidentally. Here's wishing WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 15:15, 31 July 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard W. Hardy[edit]

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

Per source searches, this subject has received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; does not meet WP:BASIC. Available secondary and tertiary sources consist of name checks and passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received significant coverage [9] [10] [11] - Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's a little unclear whether those sources are fully appropriate, the last is probably not suitable due to either primary or non-independent. The first two it's a little unclear how independent the authors are, but in lieu of evidence to the contrary, AGF indicates WK. If someone can indicate otherwise I'll switch (I couldn't find anything else independent, but luck to anyone else looking) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a general authority of the LDS Church. Any reasonable reading of rules for religious leader notability would propel him to notability. He also is mentioned in Vol 4 of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 30 July 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia[edit]

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

Per source searches, this work has received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, thus failing WP:BOOKCRIT. It exists, but no significant coverage about it appears to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP While maybe in itself not notable--may contain information about people who are notable and may be useful to someone researching Latter Day Saints and useful starting point for future historians. Auldhouse (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would happily change my !vote if in depth coverage about this work can be found -- coverage not published by the church, of course -- but my search hasn't turned up anything but citations and library catalogs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Personally I have no time for the LDS. However, I would expect that we would treat such a dictionary as RS and possibly use inclusion as indicating notability. I thus think it will be useful to have the article. Since LDS is regarded as a cult by most Christians, their interaction with other denominations is limited, which probably explains the lack of 3rd party sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- Why note combine this page into Andrew Jenson's page, along with Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? The author's page could be expanded, and these books' pages alone are nearly stubs. Deaddebate (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~, as suggested by Deaddebate above, even if used as a WP:RS in other articles, and is "interesting", with no available references of its own a standalone is not warranted. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As the nominator, I am fine with merging as per the above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say the work probably falls under WP:OLDBOOK. It probably wouldn't hurt to have better crosslinking between the articles for the book and its author, and a clarifying crosslink to the article about CHC, but the page for the other book should definitely not be merged with this one... the authors may have interacted or even collaborated, but they were different people. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless I am missing something, this appears to satisfy WP:OBK due to reprints (including microforms), which are an indicator of the level of circulation, the fact that it must have circulated widely because the local branches got a copy, the level of coverage and historical importance. Reprinted by eg SUP Memorial Foundation, 1955; Western Epics, 1971; Greg Kofford, 2005. Microforms by eg the one listed here. A search for "Saint Biographical Encyclopedia"+jenson+1901+microform does bring up some coverage in GBooks. This calls the book a standard work. (The publishers, UGA, say on their website they are not affiliated with the LDS church, even if that was an issue for a book not actually published by the church). James500 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. because of its apparent widespread use in the subject area. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oops, forgot about Ye olde booke (coola now thinking of all the old books in their ~~hoard~~ collection that can be put on WP:)), a thankyou to the above editors, have changed from a "merge". Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 30 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IndiQube[edit]

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

Founded in 2014, employs 25 people - cannot see how this company can pass WP:NCORP. Promotional article. Previously speedily deleted. Edwardx (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of employees is significantly higher at 84. Checked here: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indiqube/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.29.49 (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional in tone and spammy as well. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Rgyalu (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage beyond the recent $15M funding deal. I tried to cull some of the more promotional sources, but what's left fails WP:GNG, and also is likely WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. All that office space and yet no space in Wikipedia - that's a shame but subject fails WP:NCORP. Who knows? Let's wish them WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 31 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

San Fernando LRT station[edit]

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

Non-existent station, there is no LRT in San Fernando nor is the Manila-Clark Railway an LRT. Also, there is already an article for the PNR San Fernando station, which is this station. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 11:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking WP:VERIFY and for WP:CRYSTAL. One line with zero sources and no useful information. Blue Riband► 12:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, tentatively, if this is a duplicate article. I don't understand this AFD. The deletion nomination seems to be suggesting this is a duplicate article. Then it should be non-controversial to redirect, merging any useful content, and there need be no AFD discussion. Or what am I not understanding? --Doncram (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response I nominated it for deletion not just because its duplicating the San Fernando station article, its also because there is no San Fernando LRT station. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 02:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. There's news [[12]] that this is a proposed station, but there's so little info that this can be recreated once there's something more concrete. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:25, 30 July 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. ansh 666 06:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Charles Blankenship[edit]

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

Careful analysis by editors is required to make an informed decision here. At first glance, it appears this subject has easily enough coverage. However, per NOTNEWS, this crime fails our notability guidelines. All the references originate from local news agencies routinely reporting on the murder and its immediate after effects. EVENTCRIT touches on why violent crimes are “good” for the news, but that does not translate to notability in the encyclopedia. The use of the encyclopedia to promote the Liveleak video is also a bit tasteless. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not promoting anything, just pointing out the video is out there for people to watch. You're missing a key point that the murder was filmed, it's been featured in lots of documentaries relating to crime. Doesn't the fact this murder was filmed count for anything? That alone makes it notable. Inexpiable (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that it was filmed makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. YouTube is full of things that have been filmed, the vast majority of which are not notable. What makes something notable is receiving substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, independent of whether or not it has been filmed. If that coverage draws attention to it having been filmed, it is still the coverage, and not the fact that it was filmed, that makes it notable. Agricolae (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What if that something has received substantial coverage by being watched over and over again though, seen as it was filmed? It's more than just a reported crime in the news, this is a crime with actual video evidence that has been repeatedly watched and shown in many documentaries receiving in excess of millions of views. Inexpiable (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia content is not driven by the number of YouTube views. Coverage does not mean being watched. It means it has to have received substantial reportage by reliable sources (those with a reputation for accuracy and some level of editorial review - non-local newspapers, national news organization websites, etc), beyond routine day-to-day news reporting (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:MILL). Agricolae (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 05:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 05:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 05:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- We do have "The murder of …" as a common genre of WP article for notorious cases. I am not qualified to judge whether this one qualifies. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the article, wouldn't have done so if I believed it wasn't notable. It has 21 independent sources from different news articles and multiple sections. The murder is well known in that because it was filmed, the footage and case has been featured in many documentaries including, American Journal, meaning people are constantly hearing about this. This isn't just another murder in the U.S. that was swept under the carpet, the fact it was filmed means it's still talked and learned about to this day, the exposure in the media from these documentaries is what makes this notable. Inexpiable (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is somewhat misleading. Those sources, as I already explained, are from routine news reports in the local media. These “documentaries” are actually television series broken down into segments. The video may have only been featured for a few moments, and, even so, notability is not inherited to them. The fact it was caught on a home security camera does not mean it is automatically notable, nor does the fact it is available for people to watch. You may think that personally, but these thoughts do not comply with policy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well the fact it was filmed at least makes it more notable than if it hadn't been. Whether you think it's notable for this site is your opinion and open to discussion, but you have to admit the fact it was filmed at least makes it slightly more notable than if it hadn't been? Heck if it hadn't been I would never have heard the story or even made the article. Very few murders are caught on camera, especially in 1990s U.S. that makes it somewhat unique at least. Inexpiable (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My hamsters birthday party was filmed. It is the only 2nd birthday party that rodent is ever going to have, so that makes it unique. That makes my hamster's birthday party notable, right? No, the fact that it was filmed does not make an event more notable than if it hadn't been. A filmed event must have received substantial non-routine coverage in reliable sources, just as with a non-filmed event. We don't get to make up our own criteria. Agricolae (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 21 references, 17 are local reporting that would fall under WP:NOTNEWS (and WP:MILL). The LiveLeak site is not a reliable source (see WP:RS). The Federal Prisoner location site represents a primary source, and its extraction would seem to violate WP:NOR. That leaves the Rocky Mountain News story, which is more along the lines of 'slow news day', and not an indicator that this was noteworthy, just curious. You say the media exposure makes it notable because it is still being shown, but you haven't really provided any evidence that it has received anything beyond routine news coverage, other than to name a show that has been out of production for two decades. (You can't just say 'it was on gossip-rag show X at some point, take my word for it' and expect that to be good enough.) Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few national news items, books, or non-local TV would go a longnway for establishing notability. At the current sourcing level notavility is not established. There might be more in newspaper archives.Icewhiz (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing notability, I am seeing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL. Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS, maybe, but it is certainly not WP:MILL. Don't know how many times I have to point out that this murder was caught on camera, a rare occurrence in the U.S., especially for the 1990s era. Inexpiable (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People get murdered all the time and individual editors don't get to decide for themselves what makes one murder more noteworthy that all the others. 'It is notable because my own personal criterion makes it notable' just doesn't cut it: another editor could just as well say it is not notable for the same subjective reason. It is notable if, and only if, it has received substantial non-routine coverage in reliable sources. In the case of events, (WP:EVENT) "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance" (and that last is described at WP:LASTING - "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance . . . ". And again, you may think that is the case here, but we need a reliable source saying it served as such a precedent, not your own subjective conclusion.) Finally, addressing the appearance on American Journal, note that sensationalist/tabloid-type journalism usually does not confer notability (WP:SENSATIONAL). Agricolae (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because WP:NOTNEWS. You get some sociological analysis in there, appearances in textbooks, etc. and I might take it out of the mere news category. --Bejnar (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCRIME per review of available sources; no lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Doesn't meet WP:NCRIME. Sources only offer WP:ROUTINE local coverage, and don't suggest that the event has any WP:LASTING effects. — Newslinger talk 15:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient continuing coverage. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I was on the fence with this, but the fact that there was no coverage of Cole's release from prison in 2004 (that's the date according to the article) suggests this hasn't had the lasting continued coverage we'd expect for a "keep". TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage by the Cincinnati Enquirer was continuous and supports inclusion in wikipedia. Per WP:N/CA As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. . There is nothing wrong with the Cincinnati Enquirer as a source. The fact that this maybe didn't make the national news is irrelevant. --1l2l3k (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that this is WP:ROUTINE coverage is relevant. A home-town paper will always report a murder, any arrest for the murder, trial and sentencing. That is what we are getting here. There is nothing wrong with the Cincinnati Enquirer as a source, and were it reporting on a crime in Los Angeles, that would make that crime notable, but the Cincinnati Enquirer covering just another Cincinnati murder in the same way it covers every other Cincinnati murder does not make this one any more notable: it is WP:MILL. (Or are you going to suggest that every murder is inherently notableby nature of the coverage every one of them engenders?) Agricolae (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not suggesting that every murder is inherently notable. And most of the murders are not covered by media at all. This murder was covered though, and largely so. Also, WP:MILL is an essay, not a policy. On the other hand, WP:ROUTINE doesn't mention murders (routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism, so that doesn't include murders at all). My two cents. Will all due respect. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE can't be expected to enumerate every possible variety of routine event, it gives examples - note 'such things as' indicates it is not intended to be a comprehensive list. As to not all murders being reported, it depends on how many murders they get a year, but in places that don't get several hundred a year, every one really is reported. Agricolae (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me then ask you this question: If this murder had been a routine one, would it had been reported for 3 years in at least 21 articles of the Cincinnati Enquirer (those are the sources that I see reported in the article right now)? I see the first one being August 3, 1995 and the last one being from March 12, 1998. Routine murders are not talked about for 30 months, am I wrong? --1l2l3k (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder, investigation, arrest, charging, pre-trial wrangling, jury selection, trial, verdict, sentencing - yeah, a bit on the long side, but 3 years doesn't seem out of order. I don't remember seeing there anything retrospective that would suggest more than just day-to-day crime and court reporting. Agricolae (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article is notable enough to remain a page. No reason to delete and nowhere to redirect to. Information is too valuable to be deleted if the article would fit into a common research topic (which it is, especially in law school) Redditaddict69 (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No jurisprudence was introduced, I don't see how even a law student requires this specific murder for their research paper.Ifnord (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we have to worry about those poor law students who won't be able to become lawyers if this murder does not have its own article on Wikipedia. Agricolae (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are reasons to delete, as stated above, WP:NCRIME and WP:NOTNEWS. There is no indication of lasting coverage. Ifnord (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - continuing coverage is of a local nature. I would/will change my vote to "keep" if it can be shown to have continuing coverage outside the Cincinnati area (I couldn't find any). I wouldn't be surprised given the recent stand-your-ground controversies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:54, 1 August 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. Not all the arguments for keep are great, but the discussion of sources in particular is convincing enough for me — and some participants — that there's a consensus to keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Swedish heat wave[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE catalogue of local weather reports and temperature readings. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS. The whole article could be summarized by "Sweden experienced a hot summer in 2014." No long-term notability. — JFG ^talk 08:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Random. The entirety of the northern half set record monthly means in July 2014 by significant margins as seen here ^[1] That is definitely a noteworthy weather event. Having said that, it could definitely be expanded into a 2014 Nordic heat wave article since the entirety of mainland Scandinavia was severely warm and Norway beat their records with an even greater margin. Having said that, I can just hide the weatherboxes into collapsable. As for being "news items" that is just disrespectful, as is the push to delete a legitimate, sourced article of a real record-crushing weather event, and I don't know why you would waste your time doing that? Just because weather events don't happen in English-speaking countries doesn't mean they're not notable on English Wikipedia.

References

^ "Temperature & Wind July 2014" (PDF) (in Swedish). SMHI. 3 August 2014. Retrieved 13 July 2018.

Lommaren (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lommaren is the creator and practically sole contributor to the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect is meant to Swedish or Scandinavian people. This wiki has a ((Heat wave)) navbox with dozens of heat wave articles, and in order to provide the most correct encyclopedic information for our readers, we should keep only the most significant ones. If you have sources that document the 2014 Nordic heat wave phenomenon, you are welcome to bring them to the table. Regarding "not notable on English Wikipedia", is there an article for this heat wave in the Swedish Wikipedia? That would perhaps be a place to find better sources than local weather reports. — JFG ^talk 11:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article has great sourcing. Detailed and useful. BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The "many" or "great" sources cited are mostly weather reports. We need sources verifying that the heat was indeed Wikinotable. We don't seem to have them. -The Gnome (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing suggestion to Keep on the basis of sources we, at last, seem to have thanks to the work by E.M.Gregory herebelow. -The Gnome (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lol this is terrible sourcing. Selections from weather databases does not equal notability. We do not need a Wikipedia article on every time some weather records are broken. Lasting notability from local events not established. Reywas92^Talk 21:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep them all We don't need to write Wikipedia at all, but still some of us prefer doing it. The difference between Wikipedia and a news servie isn't the topics, but how the articles are written. J 1982 (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I like editing Wikipedia" is not a valid argument to keep an article. See WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING, WP:VALUABLE, WP:HARMLESS, etc. — JFG ^talk 12:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By Jimbo, some inclusionists don't even bother with arguments any more. -The Gnome (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It's very good official sourcing, but in a foreign language to most Wikipedia editors don't mean it's "terrible sourcing", especially in the era of online automatized translation. The entire northern half of Sweden crushed all previous heat records for a full month, which makes it as notable as it can get. In relative terms, as can be seen in the source I provided avg temps for July 2014 in Northern Sweden were similarly above averages as in the Midwest during the 1936 North American heat wave. Almost 26 °C (79 °F) avg highs in Kvikkjokk near the Arctic circle is an outrageous anomaly and extremely notable. Lommaren (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lommaren: If you want a chance to keep this, please bring in journalistic or academic sources discussing the WP:LASTING effect of this particular summer. Currently, 100% of your 26 citations are statistics from the Swedish Metereological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), meaning the narrative around this phenomenon is entirely your own original research and synthesis. Again, do we have an article in Swedish that may cite appropriate sources? — JFG ^talk 12:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, I cannot locate any article in the Swedish-language Wikipedia about the alleged phenomenon. Apparently, the "2014 heat wave in Sweden" was notable all over the English-speaking world but not in Sweden!..

-The Gnome (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Wikipedia editors are explicitly and strictly prohibited from posting up their own, personal work, no matter how well written and sourced the work might be. If we want to have an article about subject X, for example about a period of extremely high temperatures in Sweden, then we cannot take a bunch of sources on high temperatures and hot weather, all reliable and solid, and then construct an article about "heat waves." We have to have the sources explicitly referring to a "heat wave!" And done in a manner that satisfies verifiability. Anything else is our own interpretation of data so, as such, it has no place in Wikipedia. And I believe I do not have to go into the ideological can of worms allowing such a practice would open. We have had enough hot discussions on Climate change-related issues, as it is. Pun intended. We do not need more. -The Gnome (talk)
Keep or merge - Keep or merge into List of heat waves. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677, you are making exactly the same suggestion in every heat wave AfD, copying & pasting really, without invoking any kind of guideline and irrespective of whatever has been already said. This kind of contribution is not acceptable in Wikipedia. According to WP:AFDFORMAT, a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. -The Gnome (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seems to be well sourced. As per the above, I think this would be something that would interest english speaking readers as well as swedish. Though the sources are of a local nature, what is interpreted as significant can be open to wider shades of grey. In principle I don't see a problem with it. Whitewater111 (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter is certainly interesting, but that is not a criterion to maintain an article at Wikipedia. If I am passionate about statistics of hydroelectricity production, that does not allow me to create Summer 2010 hydropower peak in Switzerland out of a collection of production figures and lake levels, no matter how well-sourced to various dam operators and government agencies. This is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS largely created by a single editor, and WP is also not a blog. The fact that there is apparently no "2014 heat wave" article on the Swedish Wikipedia casts extra doubt on the WP:LASTING effect of that particular hot summer. Per WP:NEVENT, it does not belong here. — JFG ^talk 12:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: The "interpretation" of data is beyond our mandate, as Wikipedia editors. Any interpretation of data, culled from local or international sources, is to be done by others, i.e. by third-party, secondary, independent sources, whose account we are then free to reproduce here. Well, such sourcing simply does not exist. -The Gnome (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing out of the ordinary for a heat wave. Even the notability section doesn't satisfy GNG with just a handful of records being broken (which again, happens with many normal heat waves). You generally need a severe heat wave that causes widespread blackouts, death (beyond a handful of people already vulnerable to heat exposure), etc. to meet the notability bar for a severe heat wave. The style and translation issue is problematic too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - “Sourcing is great”...no, no it is not. The weather was reported on by the usual agencies at the time of its existence. That is not “great”, that is routine. By the same logic, we must offer a daily weather report because, hey, the some news agency reported it too.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and keep) : If the data of the SMHI (which is the official source for this kind of information in Sweden) is not deemed sufficent, here's a summary of the weather during July of 2014 published on the website of Swedish national television (SVT): [13]. /FredrikT (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, FredrikT, my Swedish are dead rusty, so I might be very mistaken here, but the title of the article you just cited, translates in English to "Norwegian record heat," and, well, this AfD is about an alleged Swedish heat wave. Sweden is mentioned only in this : "Den 4 tog värmen över i Sydsverige, och från dygnet därpå har det varit varmare eller mycket varmare än normalt i så gott som hela landet dag efter dag efter dag," which roughly speaks about southern Sweden having weather "much warmer than normal." I would not dare to call that the description of a "heat wave." Are you really basing your suggestion on such a text? Or am I missing something? -The Gnome (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this SMHI link is not much help either: "Flera stationer med långa mätserier överträffade med god marginal sina gamla månadsrekord. Rekorden för absolut högsta temperatur blev dock relativt få utan det som utmärkte årets julimånad [2014] i norr var den långa och jämna värmen." -The Gnome (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Norwegian" is a mistranslation. The headline speeks about a "norrländsk" record heat, which refers to Norrland, that is the northern part of Sweden, and the rest of the article is about the rest of the country as well. The first sentence you quote translates "On the 4th the heat took over in southern Sweden, and from the day after that it has been warmer or much warmer in practically all of the country day after day after day." The second quote (from SMHI) translates "Several stations [that is places where meteorological data are gathered] with long measuring serieses had their old records for the month surpassed with large margains. The all time highest temperature records where, however, relatively few; what characterized the month of July this year was the long and stable level of heat". It can also be noted that the article from SVT several times uses the word "värmebölja" which is Swedish for "heat wave". /FredrikT (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correct translations. So, again, "Sweden had a hot summer", which is by itself not worthy of an article. See WP:NEVENT. Switzerland is having a hot summer right now, yay!

— JFG ^talk 11:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FredrikT, we can quite comfortably discard the evidence of one popular mass medium as evidence and stick with the SMHI assessment, which I hope you can agree it's not very exciting. "Long and stable levels of heat" during summer months are typical, expected, and non-notable. We still have nothing and I still cannot understand the basis for the suggestion you made. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your resasoning. I had hoped that my translations above would have made it clear that the average temperature during the entire month of July 2014 was in large parts of the country significantly higher than had ever been recorded before (and Sweden has meteorological records going back to the 18th century). If that is not the definition of a heat wave - what is? /FredrikT (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, FredrikT, the first time you translated the Swedish into this: "Several stations with long measuring serieses had their old records for the month surpassed with large margains" [sic]. I could not reasonably assume this to mean what you're now saying it means, i.e. that "the average temperature during the entire month of July 2014 was in large parts of the country significantly higher than had ever been recorded before". The reason is that averages are different than outliers: A temperature of one or two days of a month marking a record is something very different from the average temperature of the month marking a record. A report stating that "old records for the month were surpassed" could mean either that the arithmetic average was a record high or that the temperatures for days x, y, and z were daily records for that month.

Also, the mention of "old records" has an unclear meaning. You're saying the reference means that the temperature marked an all-time high going back to the 18th century, but, again, the original text is not as clear as that. I have no problem accepting the meaning you give, although I'd prefer one from an independent source. -The Gnome (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there was international coverage. Wall Street Journal, 6 august 2014, "One man has died in Sweden's largest forest fire in more than 40 years, police said Tuesday, as a heat wave across several regions of northern Europe hampered firefighting efforts...", "On Monday, the temperature in Falun, a Swedish town about 80 kilometers north of the blaze, hit 35.1 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit), the country's highest reading this decade, the Swedish meteorological institute said."; WSJ , 7 august 2014 Swedish firefighters gaining upper hand, "as Sweden's largest fire in more than 40 years spread amid a heat wave...", 2nd story also on Aug 7 Firefighters Make Gains in Curbing Swedish Forest Fire; European Aircraft With Greater Water Capacity Deployed (these stories ran in the U.S. as well as the European edition of the Journal.) See also: 2014 Västmanland Wildfire, the fire this series of articles in the Wall Street Journal describes as fueled by this unusual heat wave. ( I mean, 95F, in Sweden?!?) So, maybe link to material on the fire, and keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All this international coverage was about the forest fire. I still don't see a separate article about the heat wave even on Swedish Wikipedia. We could include a few temperature records in the article about the fire. By themselves, they are not significant. — JFG ^talk 19:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage does not have to be in the form of a free-standing article to be significant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, see: Heat Wave–Associated Vibriosis, Sweden and Finland, 2014 , and Top ten European heatwaves since 1950 and their occurrence in the coming decades, Warning level raised as heat wave intensifies, and Why 2014 was Sweden's hottest year in history. The closer I look, the more notable and impactful this 2014 heatwave appears to be. I agree that too much of the sourcing now in the article is primary, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and, more to the point, our duty when we comment here is to determine whether the topic is noteworthy, and whether sources to establish significance and impact exist. I think the sources I have brought establish that this was a notable heat wave, and that sources to support this topic do exist. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In re impact, see Center for Disease Control: "An extreme heat wave in northern Scandinavia during summer 2014 led to unprecedented high sea surface temperatures, which appear to have been responsible for the emergence of Vibrio bacteria at these latitudes." E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to the Wall Street Journal texts you are citing, E.M.Gregory, but I also have no reason to doubt their content as you describe it. -The Gnome (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be renamed 2014 Nordic heat wave.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the IOP analysis which compares this to other historical heat waves in Europe. Finally something to rely on besides weather reports and advisories to stay cool. Article should be entirely rewritten based on this study, and renamed "2014 Scandinavian heat wave" indeed. — JFG ^talk 21:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Indeed, it is a pleasure to work with a Nom who not only demands solid sourcing, but who acknowledges such sources when someone them to the AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope that someone, perhaps article creator, now takes the time to rename and improve this article. Regarding that, note that several of the sources I brought above describe this heat wave as creating the hot, dry conditions that enabled the 2014 Västmanland Wildfire to become deadly and large, a significant impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the series of international coverage, especially on the Wall Street Journal. XavierItzm (talk) 08:39, 24 July 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. czar 17:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Junction 14 Mayfield[edit]

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

Nothing other than a run of the mill service station with a few listed facilities, fails WP:GNG WP:MILL and WP:NOTGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of motorway service areas in Ireland. Recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birdhill services was deleted under AfD and also Lusk services, Paulstown services and Rathcoole services deleted by PROD. The articles listed in this AfD had PROD added but were removed. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is really noting notable about any of these at all, including the list. ww2censor (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant coverage from reliable sources for the subject of any of the nominated articles. — Newslinger talk 15:40, 29 July 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. Michig (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Flagship[edit]

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

Small-time event that doesn't deserve its own article. It's undersourced and as it has no real room for further expansion anyway, so it could easily just be merged with either the main Washington Redskins article (under the 1980's section) or in the 1985 Washington Redskins season article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep So I originally thought there was a reasonable amount of coverage from good reliable sources, but alas most are exact duplications of the Washington source (most notably MyAJC and Sydney Herald). Forging the Star is also a good read, but I suspect the official historian of the Marshals is not a fully independent individual. However, The Wrap's article on the topic seems another good source. A look over their site and article has them appearing reasonably reliable, but it's not impossible it misses the mark. Strictly speaking WP:NCRIME/WP:CRIME doesn't apply to the sting but catching 2 out of top 10 gives a good case for importance. The articles/incident expand beyond WP:ROUTINE and while almost nothing meets the literal definition of WP:LASTING if you actually read through its somewhat dramatic language, I think it meets the functioning usage of the term. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage spanning 1985-2016 - TIME 85UPI (NYT reprint) 85wapo 2015 ESPN short film Strike Team, directed by Willie Ebersol. Some books - [14][15][16][17][18].Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But does this help expand the article, as that's the real issue here. If it's only going to be a paragraph or so in length, then it doesn't deserve to be split out as a separate article, no matter how independently notable it is. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Several of the sources presented are much longer than the article. ESPN made a short movie about this incident - a 25 minute documentary movie - so clearly there is what to write about if someone has the drive to do this. Prior to the recent bout of coverage, this was also given as an example of a successful marketing campaign (in a non-law enforcement context).Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage by sources. Lasting significance. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 29 July 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. Michig (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Horse (sculpture)[edit]

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

Non-notable work of art. Natg 19 (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 07:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliably sourced here. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article should not be deleted. It was created in response to Wikipedia:WikiProject Public Art (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Public_Art) which aims to: " encourage the creation of accurate, informative, and up-to-date articles about public art." The Morgan Horse Sculpture is in the public domain, is prominently displayed in front of the well known Triton Museum, and is significant in the history of the museum. Additionally the artist is well known in the sculpture world, and I am in the process of creating an article about him.Wisteriagarden (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two sources from Google Books and one from Google News. Sourcing is decent for what it is.96.127.242.226 (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note there is other coverage that we don't have access to: "In March of 1985, students at Blackford High School damaged the Morgan Horse while trying to complete a senior prank. “In the process of trying to remove the statue from the museum grounds on Warburton Avenue across the street from City Hall, the youths accidentally cracked the horse’s tail and fractured a couple of legs and hoofs,” reads a San Jose Mercury News article on the attempted theft."96.127.242.226 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 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. As suggested by a majority of editors in apparent consensus, questions about deleting this article can be re-visited once the newsy nature of this event passes, and it becomes clearer whether the event still holds water for notability. There is no prejudice against a "not-so-early" renomination, once the contemporary nature of the event gets over. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Trader Joe's Hostage Incident[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. I fail to see the notability of this event or any long-lasting effects it could have, especially in the United States, where crimes like this are common. Spengouli (talk) 04:35, 22 July 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 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 05:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California -related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 05:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States -related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 05:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hostage situations are NOT common! A police chase, several hours of standoff and people being held hostage is FOR SURE a notable event. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdamian1 may you please strike your duplicate !vote above? Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer talk 06:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Otherwise, you could argue that anything could have its own article here by citing two or three sources. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Story is developing, give it time. More sources are needed but keep it for now. Inexpiable (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. Today is the 22nd. This occurred on the 21st. At present we have wide international coverage for this event - which involved two crime scenes - an initial domestic event, followed by a rampage that led to a 30-person hostage situation with injuries and a fatality. Coverage is well and beyond SIGCOV, with the only question being LASTING/SUSTAINED - which can not be ascertained at this point in time.Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:RAPID. While the question of whether coverage will be sustained cannot be ascertained at this point, this attempted murder (perp's grandmother still in critical condition at hospital with 7 gunshot wounds,) escalated into a hostage crisis with 40 people held at gunpoint in a grocery store, one of the hostages was killed and gunman is in custody, coverage at this point is a headline story in the news nationally and internationally. so, WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC) withdraw for now. Will revisit if coverage continues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RAPID (or at least the only half editors seem to be reading) cannot be thrown out there for every news event; “let us just wait” does not cut it. The coverage is routine; we cannot neglect NOTNEWS simply because some editors mistake this place as WikiNews and cannot wait for LASTING significance. The guidelines for events clearly says: A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Those arguing that the initial burst of coverage is enough need to read WP:N: the lead states an article must both meet WP:GNG and not be excluded by WP:NOT (in this case WP:NOTNEWS).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Story is still developing and article needs expansion, but sources already exist as national media cover this crime, presumably because of it's unusual nature, i.e., it appears to have started as a family murder, followed by a police car chase, and, then by armed perp bursting in to a busy supermarket where he shot and killed a grocery clerk - this is not a Run-of-the-WP:MILL crime. And, as always, we gauge notability by DEPTH, GEOSCOPE of coverage. Which this WP:NCRIME already has. The argument made by me and other editors above that while SUSTAINNED cannot be assessed at this point, this meets NCRIME on other counts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murders and hostage situations are not routine in general. And yes - many are not notable. The case for calling RAPID is those cases in which we have both a very recent event and very wide coverage - both of which apply here - we have wide US national coverage as well as international and non-English coverage. Had coverage been local in nature (or passing mentions on a national level) - then RAPID would not have applied.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID. This was on local, national, and possibly international news. While I do agree that the article currently has been made incorrectly, the topic of the article deserves to be on Wikipedia. --154.138.188.245 (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 154.138.188.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, no indication this is going to meet WP:LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, this is making international headlines. 40 people held hostage in a renowned grocery store. Not everyday that happens! Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While LASTING cannot be assessed at this point, htis is getting WP:SIGCOV in the form of reported stories in major national mdeia on the other side of the continent Washington Post: He had escaped the Trader Joe’s shooting. Then stayed to help others survive.; New York Times ("A version of this article appears in print on July 22, 2018, on Page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: Shopper Killed in Standoff in Los Angeles.",) Trader Joe’s Standoff in Los Angeles Ends With 1 Dead and Hostages Freed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. This one's difficult, but I think the balance falls towards delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Of course, we won't know for sure until everyone forgets about it as the news cycle churns on its merry way, but it's likely that'll have happened by the time this AfD ends anyways. I disagree with the notion that WP:ROUTINE means that an unusual event confers any sort of notability; it's all about the sourcing (i.e. routine coverage), and it doesn't seem to be any different from any other just-happened-shocking-event so far. ansh 666 08:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that it is unclear whether the store manage was killed by a bullet fired by police or by perp. Discussion has already begun about the difficulty police face when an active shooter - a guy who was being chased because he had already shot someone - runs toward a building filled with people. While I do see why this article was started at the point when a gun man was holding ~40 people inside a grocery store, it is often best to wait a day or two before starting such articles. And it certainly would have been better to wait a few days for the dust to settle before starting this discussion. As it stands, editors might want to revisit this after the results of the ballistics investigation show whether the store manager was shot by a police bullet (which might lead to a significant conversation); and whether aspects of perp's childhood or background spark significant commentary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've renamed the article per WP:NCCPT. Hope this resolves any potential confusion. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk
@Callmemirela: please try not to rename articles that are at AfD, even if it's the most obvious WP:WNC change. Moving articles means the header templates at the discussion page point to the wrong place. In this case, especially, there's really nothing to be lost by waiting to fix the capitalization issue; it's not causing any confusion at all. ansh 666 21:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I wasn't aware. Do I revert my renaming? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine. ansh 666 00:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS applies; no apparent lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update LAPD now saying that the Trader Joe's store manager was killed by a bullet fired by a police officer. Story just breaking now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Washington Post now up with a story by its own reporter Woman killed during Trader Joe’s standoff was shot by police, not the gunman, chief says raises issue about gun battle in parking lot of crowded grocery store.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would change my !vote. It's a tragic development but seems unlikely to have a lasting impact, such as policy changes. The suspect was armed and was shooting at the police; they had little choice. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with K.e.coffman - just because there was a follow-up article doesn't mean it's going to have a lasting impact. SportingFlyer talk 03:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're still getting wide national/international level coverage on the 26th - 5 days after the event. This is exactly what WP:RAPID is for. Will it have be LASTING impact? At this point - that's in crystal ball turf - if coverage stops in a couple of days, and doesn't pick up later - then an AfD 6 months from now would choose to delete. However - if we get more bursts of coverage - it would be a keep. Right now - it is impossible to assess this other than saying it can not be assessed (beyond editorial opinion, not based on coverage, of whether this will receive coverage in the future - and considering we have known unknowns and unknown unknowns (:-)) - we can't really do this, beyond such opinions counting for the very little (sometimes cases get continuing coverage for rather bizarre reasons - e.g. victim family human interest generating it).Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Revisiting this AfD because the Los Angeles Times - and others are demanding "the department owes the public — after adequate time for full investigation — an accounting of what mistakes were made and what lessons learned, if any." because "It’s important as well to remember that the outpouring of grief for Corado is echoed with depressing frequency across the city by other families who lose loved ones to police bullets. Some victims are as innocent as she, others less so. But in all cases, the LAPD should work to be as candid as in the Trader Joe’s incident — and as focused on minimizing future losses of life." The second news cycle includes an ex cathecra editorial in the Los Angeles Times: A welcome bit of transparency from LAPD after the tragic Trader Joe's shooting this new round of coverage focuses on the fact that LAPD Michel Moore took the job only a month ago. A reported article in the Washington Post: Woman killed during Trader Joe’s standoff was shot by police, not the gunman, chief says. Here's this morning's CNN commentary: Trader Joe's suspect should be held accountable for accidental police shooting of bystander . It is far too WP:RAPID to delete this story.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:RAPID and as per above. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. Plus, shooting of an innocent bystander by a trained professional in law enforcement. Most def a keeper. XavierItzm (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs tightening up of the grammar, need addition information as it becomes available, and additional references. The article is off to a good start so far. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:01, 28 July 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 merge to Beetlejuice (video game). While the merge target is currently a redirect from an incomplete disambiguation, I hope the participating and interested editors can do the needful in structuring out the merge. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beetlejuice (1990 video game)[edit]

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

PROD'd with the rationale: Unlike the other two Beetlejuice games, this one received very little coverage. I was unable to find anything besides the stuff listed on MobyGames, which leaves a lot to be desired. PROD was removed by the article creator with the reasoning being this was the result of an article split, and I even managed to find cover art for this subject. I still believe the video game fails WP:GNG unless more sources can be found. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge – All three Beetlejuice games are stubs and have a handful of RS reviews each out there, should 100% be merged into a single Beetlejuice (video game) article for the three platforms. In fact I'd go ahead and go it myself right now if it wasn't for the fact there is an open AfD I'd rather not shortcircuit. Unsure why Steel1943 decided split such a skinny stub into even more skeletal ones. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Salvidrim! as an alternative to deletion. For what it's worth, the reason why I performed the split was after seeing how this revision of the original combined article was confused in itself. The article was a combination of the 1991 NES game and the 1990 MS-DOS game with the 1992 Game Boy game being a separate article during the entirety or majority of the article referenced in the diff's existence. That, and more than likely, all of these articles should be combined into a yet-to-exist Beetlejuice (franchise) article, but that may be a conversation for another day. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I also support a merge. I would withdraw it, but the the rules for withdrawing aren't the easiest to understand. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:58, 23 July 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. Article has been deleted by Fastily per WP:G7 on behalf of the article creator Lalalucy123. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 17:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ground O.N.E[edit]

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

The only significant coverage I could find for this organization was the links from The Renewal Project, which are already used as sources. Even then, the sources aren't significant, and even seem to be rather promotional in tone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ground ONE has its own webpage (https://www.ground-one.org/). While I understand that that cannot be used in its article, it shows that there are links about this organization outside the Renewal Progress which were not cited. Also, please note, that both articles referenced were meant to explain the significance of the organization as opposed to promoting it. "5 Ways Students Can Become Civic Leaders" gives insight into the history of Ground ONE and encourages other youth to do similar projects, it does not directly promote Ground ONE for any monetary or publicity gain. The second article is simply a quote from one of the organization's founders in a listing of other impactful organizations. Its main focus is listing successful groups as opposed to directly promoting them. I fully understand your concerns and I will add a notice asking for the article to be revamped as soon as possible and I would appreciate it if the article is not deleted just yet. Also, I've just reviewed the list of Wikipedia policies and I can't find which polices that my article has violated. The Renewal Project is run by Atlantic Media,one of the largest media companies in the US (it also controls The Atlantic Monthly, a popular American magazine). How are my sources not significant? Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 13:44, 30 June 2018 (EST)

You may need to read WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP. Essentially, while The Renewal Project links are a good start, it's still only one source. Ideally, we'd need several. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Renewal Project is an independent, online secondary media source, I believe that the the article's topic is inherently notable according to WP:CORP. Regarding your first rules, it is true that there isn't a whole lot of literature on Ground ONE, but that doesn't directly break the rules you showed me. None of the article's notability is derived from other wikipedia articles or the article's content itself. The article isn't ideal(I have already classified it as a stub), but I don't believe that it is objectively illegal according to Wikipedia rules. Also, the publisher Rowman and Littlefield (which has no non-business connection to me or Ground ONE) will be publishing a book on civic engagement shortly, which includes Ground ONE. I would be happy to contact them for additional reference material in the coming weeks or months. Can I please be granted a stay of deletion until then? I have also added the notice to my article asking for improvement from other Wikipedians. Also, just curious, when will this discussion continue? Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 17:16, 6 July 2018 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question. Will my comments in defense of my article still be visible to those in the discussion after it was relisted? Also, I'm sorry for deleting the deletion notice from my article; I was unaware of the Wikipedia policy regarding deletion discussions. Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 20:16, 8 July 2018 (EST)

Yes, your comments are still visible. Newslinger (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:ORG due to lack of coverage from a reliable secondary source. According to their site, The Renewal Project is an blog created by Allstate and Atlantic57 (a public relations firm), not a publication with a proper editorial process. Newslinger (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, while The Renewal Project is a collaboration between Allstate and Atlantic Media Strategies(a.k.a Atlantic57), Atlantic57 is not a public relations firm. It is, according to one of its own sites, the consulting and creative division of The Atlantic, which is most definitely a publication with proper editorial process. Therefore, isn't The Renewal Project effectively an affiliate ofThe Atlantic? Link to aforementioned site: https://www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/archive/2016/06/introducing-the-renewal-project-a-social-newsroom-at-americas-intersection-of-innovation-community-and-social-good/486371/ (please note the explicit text in the article where it says that the Renewal Project is the result of a definite partnership with The Atlantic(not just Atlantic57), which is once again a very well known publication and a reliable secondary source) Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 19:59,12 July 2018 (EST)

For reference, here's Atlantic57's case study for The Renewal Project. I don't think that two articles from The Renewal Project would satisfy WP:ORGCRIT ("multiple reliable sources"), but perhaps others can offer a second opinion. Newslinger (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my previous comment(backed up by the cited article), Atlantic 57 is also a direct reflection of The Atlantic publication. They even share some parts of their staff and nearly all of their publication process. The article you posted explains the the Renewal Project helps create articles and explains new initiatives (from an independent 3rd party point of view) and gives them exposure. It doesn't say that Atlantic57 is a public relations firm.Respectfully, I don't see how that goes against Wikipedia policy for source material. Regarding the need for multiple sources, I totally see your point, but it is worth noting that both the articles I referenced have different authors and different content, not to mention different reference material. Can't that count as perhaps not two wholly different sources, but two different source reference points? Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 01:16,13 July 2018 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing Atlantic 57's case study on The Renewal Project, I'm not changing my delete vote. The case study states that The Renewal Project is "an integrated marketing campaign [...] reinforcing Allstate’s commitment to social good." This source is inherently unreliable, even if Atlantic 57 is branded as a consulting firm instead of a public relations firm. Newslinger (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. However, please remember that Atlantic 57 isn't even a firm in the first place. It, according to its own website, (https://www.atlantic57.com/our-story/) is the creative and consulting division of The Atlantic Magazine. Also, I fully comprehend your argument regarding Atlantic 57's Case Study on the Renewal Project. However, the integrated marketing campaign is a very small part of the actual article that you showed this discussion and isn't even mentioned past the first paragraph. Please note that the very case study that you cited also explicitly states that The Renewal Project directly reflects and creates "regular native and underwritten editorial content on The Atlantic." My point here is that Atlantic 57 is essentially The Atlantic Magazine. A bona fide part of a publication stil represents the publication. I won't deny that Atlantic 57 also does marketing, but that is only a very small fraction of everything it does. The specific articles that I used as reference on my Wikipedia article have absolutely no marketing done for Ground ONE. Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 20:16,14 July 2018 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Newslinger: doesn't pass WP:GNG, and also fails WP:NCORP (if applicable). SportingFlyer talk 06:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've read both of the documents you've listed and they are identical to what I've already been shown. Can you please explain your position?Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 21:54, 22 July 2018 (EST)

Hello, I've grown tired of debating my article. May I have permission to take it down and close the debate until I have more notable sources? I understand that my sources aren't exactly the most notable and I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to explain that to me. Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 25 July 2018 (EST)

@Lalalucy123: The discussion will close around July 29. If you want to take the article down sooner, you can add the ((Db-g7)) speedy deletion template to the top of the article and an administrator will delete it. Be sure to save any work you want to retain before you mark the article for speedy deletion. — Newslinger talk 12:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. Thank you for your help. Lalalucy123 ^tccsdnew 17:47, 26 July 2018 (EST)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT iii (and WP:ATA on the side). (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Singh[edit]

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

Person does not appear to be notable at all, with almost no content describing why he might have any relevance. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 05:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 05:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion -related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 05:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Non-notable and too less content . Kpgj hpjm 05:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain what makes you think non notable ? Too less content is a reason to expand and not to delete. --DBigXray 19:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MILPERSON. Both nom and the editor above have failed to explain the policy and any strong reason to delete. The Subject is perfectly notable and is widely popular in Sikh History and literature. To summarize his Bio, this Sikh general is considered a villian as his treachery led to the defeat of Sikh army. The Search term should be "Tej Singh Anglo Sikh War" And the person is also mentioned as "Teja Singh" in some historical literature. The subject is a military commander with Notable history And the stub can easily be expanded. Being a top level General (the commander-in-chief) of the Sikh Army the subject passes WP:MILPERSON. Now as far as WP:GNG is concerned, please check the sources here [19] [20] [21] ^[1]^[2]. --DBigXray 19:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ hindustantimes.com the Sikh army lost the Battle of Subron because Gen Tej Singh, the commander-in-chief, crossed the pontoon bridge linking the two flanks of the Sutlej and ordered its destruction
^ Singh, Amarpal (2010). The First Anglo-Sikh War. Amberley Publishing Limited. ISBN 9781445620381. Retrieved 22 July 2018.

--DBigXray 19:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per DBigXray, Switching to keep as I have gone through the refs which show a lot of notability . Kpgj hpjm 01:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Sources mentioned by DBigXray are reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:14, 23 July 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Milton[edit]

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

No reliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 17:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources including Chicago Tribune have been added. With 5 titles in his sport, he should also qualify under WP:SPORTSPERSON. Hzh (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meet GNG and as reliable sources "Chicago Tribune". Emily Khine (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing is still atrocious, but serves to demonstrate that notability guidelines are met, particularly WP:SPORTSPERSON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:47, 22 July 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. Michig (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abouabdillah's theorem[edit]

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

It seems to be a self-promotion. This case is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retkes identities. Tudor987 (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been unable to find anyone using "Abouabdillah's theorem" (or "théorème d'Abouabdillah" for that matter). I also can't find any sort of notability for the results, even under a different name. One of the results was also from a paper with a second author, and I wonder how he'd feel about calling it by just the other's name. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I questioned the naming of these results on the article's talk page over three years ago [22], and no response to the question was provided. That's more than long enough . . . — Myasuda (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too have been wondering about the notability of this article for years. Besides being promotionally named, it's about the name more than about the subject it names (otherwise we would have two separate articles, not one), violating WP:NOTDICT. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. Why has this remained an article for so long? --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:10, 22 July 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 Arby's, given no opposition to the subsequent redirect suggestions. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inspire Brands[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability, reference don't exist or fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I see you've added four references. The marketingdive reference, in my opinion, meets the criteria for notability (even though it starts off based on a company announcement) as it contains intellectually independent analysis and just about also meets CORPDEPTH. The refrigeratedfrozenfood.com reference fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement and relies on quotations from company sources. The Business Insider reference fails WP:ORGIND as it is based (and relies exclusively) on an interview with the CEO. Finally the myajc.com reference fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement. I've searched for other references but I haven't any luck. We have one that meets the criteria but we need two to !vote to Keep. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company owns some of the biggest brands in the United States and clearly should have a Wikipedia page, even if it’s tio new to have much. TheUSConservative (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit: or Redirect per Cullen328) - even if the company owns other companies/brands, that doesn't make it encyclopedically notable (see WP:INHERITORG). A quick search on google news for sources only comes up with press releases, blogs, or brief mentions in articles about its founder Paul Brown (who may actually merit an article) or the Buffalo Wild Wings acquisition that created the company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP as stated by nominator. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 02:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arby's, which is the notable dominant company in this merger. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator, I'm also happy with a redirect to Arby's. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 24 July 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.