< 17 May	19 May >

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 in favor of improving the existing draft. ansh 666 04:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lookout (company)[edit]

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

Profound lack of substantive reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Self-describing involved editors have been creating a draft which looks less like advertisement and is arguably anchored with better sourcing. Based on a cursory reading it is better, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifyit is better, and some of it is appropriate by our current WP:NCORP standard. A promotional article, like a company web page, contains what the company would like to say; a proper NPOV encyclopedia article contains what a general reader might want to know. That's the basic distinction that makes coi writing incompatible with WP. There's room for both in the world: they serve different purposes. What's of general interest is the security vulnerabilities the system discoveewd; the details of its funding and the executives can be of course of interest also--but of interest only to those associated with the company, unless the company is famous enough that other peopel would be interested also. It should go back to draft space for further work. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, only coverage over 5 years ago and not sustained. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There just doesn't seem to be enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability available to justify an article and therefore I don't see merit in putting it back into draft space for further work. Fail GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Melissa and I work at Lookout (Heather is on vacation atm). @PeterTheFourth: and @HighKing: I wanted to make sure you saw the draft that was proposed on Talk, which has many more quality citations than those in the current article. For example, there are articles in The New York Times[1], Forbes[2], CNET [3] and TechCrunch[4][5] which are pretty substantial news pieces on Lookout. Thanks for contributing to the AfD discussion. Best regards. 4.14.104.102 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Hi Melissa. The The NYT reference fails the criteria for establishing notability as it is not "intellectually independent". It relies on information provided by the company or one of their investors. It is primarily an interview with John Hering, the CEO and with the CEO of Khosla Ventures, a venture capital firm that invested $5.5m. It is standard churnalism, complete with obligatory serious-looking photos of the founders doing techy things. Fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. THe Forbes] reference most likely fails WP:RS since it comes from the "sites" part of Forbes and is therefore considered as a blog. Even leaving that aside, most Forbes articles are churnalism and it would save a lot of time if we at AfD just accept that Forbes publications fail the criteria for establishing notability. This article is also not intellectually independent since it also relies on an interview with the CEO and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The CNET reference fails for largely the same reasons as the others. Churnalism, not intellectually independent, relies on interview with the CEO, etc. Finally, arguable Techcrunch is a worse publication that Forbes (for the purposes of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability). Both TechCrunch references are based on company announcements or interviews or profile-raising announcements, etc. Neither of those articles are intellectually independent for much the same reasons as the others, failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Forbes is usable as a RS (tho not the item used as a reference here) , I wouldn't advise eliminating it from possible use. The NYT item is concerning: it is partly based on a press release, but not entirely so. We have in the past always accepted the NYT as reliable, except sometimes for hyperlocal material, and for material in the earlier suburban localized editions, though I too have noticed an increase in their use of material like this. DGG ( talk ) 13:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. The NYT used to be impeachable. I guess this format is cheaper to produce (might even *generate revenue*) and we can expect to see a lot more in the future. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 24 May 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 04:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Davies[edit]

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

A lawyer who has represented some notable clients, but appears to fall just on the non-notable side of WP:GNG. An unsuccessful dabbling in fringe politics and a somewhat bizarre legal case involving a family member do not appear to confer notability either, neither does having a notable parent. I suspect that an element of WP:COATRACK is involved here too, concentrating rather on the subject's clients rather than the subject themselves. Shritwod (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of namechecks, but all the sources are actually about something else. We are basically weaving an article about a minor lawyer who specialises in defending neo-Nazis, out of passing mentions in the cases where he generally fails. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensive coverage of subject regardless of his clients. And regardless of his legal career: he is one of the "intellectuals" behind extreme right politics in the UK (and US connections). Emeraude (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; none of the sources constitutes significant coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Notability is not inherited and this subject has done nothing "worthy of notice". Otr500 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to thoroughly examine this because there is a high likelihood of further discussion. I think that the notability guideline for attorneys based on their legal work created by Bearian is most useful in cases like these. Of the criteria he proposes the only one that comes close to matching this subject is "...trying a notable case, which has its own article in Wikipedia" regarding the appeal in David Irving's trial. Even there, the appeal was not actually allowed to proceed and Davies isn't even mentioned in the relevant BBC article. The only other qualification from that which might apply is "...being recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law" but Davies's claim to a "specialized area" is only defending those accused of anti-Semitism. That, however, is a result of his selection of clients, not an the area of law so he fails the most-applicable SNG. The other SNG that might apply is WP:NPOLITICIAN as the chairman of two minor parties but he has never held office and his greatest electoral success is receiving all of 473 votes in a Parlimentary seat election. That's no help to retention. As mentioned by the other editors above, the subject also fails the GNG and WP:ANYBIO standards. While there is coverage in independent, reliable sources of Davies, none of it is significantly about Davies. The most extensive coverage in such sources is a two-sentence passing mention in this New Statesman article. The coverage that is significant is non-independent, being produced by Davies or his parties. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eggishorn, citing my standards. Nothing what this guy has done is more than what any run or the mill lawyer, including myself, has done. Every single barrister in England must be a member of the Inns of Court. The field of anit-Semitism defense is so marginal and obsure as not to be a speciality at all. He got less than 2 % of the vote the only time he actually contested ("stood for") an election. Lawyers are supposed to make appeals. The media coverage about him is not very deep. The subject is marginal, at best. Let's compare this to the professor test: Has this lawyer done anything more than the average lawyer? The answer must be in the negative. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freedom Party (United Kingdom). JASpencer (talk) 14:15, 21 May 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. Per already many, many excellent arguments below, and nobody except the creator arguing for keep (and not arguing well). Bishonen | talk 14:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beta provider[edit]

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

Article based on two sources; treats a fringe theory as fact. One source is an article on a pick-up artist website called "Girls Chase: Get Girls Chasing YOU". The other is a book titled This Black Hole: Anacostia Diaries Continued by Francwa Sims. It's published by a vanity press by quite the eccentric author (see the title page, which identifies the book as: "This Black Hole - The Anacostia Diaries Continues // A Continued Personal Chronicle of the Years Beyond 2000-Plus. Started in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eight Under the Authority of His Excellency, King Barack I (President Barack H. Obama) // May God Save the United States of America and His Excellency, King Donald I (President Donald J. Trump)". The article itself includes such statements as "especially if the woman is under some duress such as being a single mom (perhaps from one night stands with various alphas)". GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how can anything that has 53,500 Ghits be "fringe theory" not worthy of inclusion? For comparison, "homoflexible" has 54,500 Ghits.Miacek (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was the one who linked you to WP:GHITS in this discussion, I know you know that's not a suitable argument for notability. Even if it were, that wouldn't allow editors to create articles based on unreliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the WP:GHITS guideline is much more nuanced than you claim it is; a very high number of Ghits clearly shows a term is widespread. Second, why did you ignore my point on "homoflexibility" and similar articles? The article Bi-curious has "wholly" 3 sources, the only one of which I could access - this [6] has no substance whatsoever as to the question at hand, just mentioning the word "bicurious" once, and the article reads like a dictionary definition, are we gonna delete this one, too? Wouldn't that be bigoted? What about a much wider phenomenon then? Miacek (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I ignored the homoflexibility point because it's based on GHITs, which again is not useful. As for bicuriosity, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If that is an attempt to accuse me of bigotry, it's not appreciated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" A real surprise here! My point was exactly the opposite, namely that both conecpts should enjoy coverage as they are legitimate (even though the article I referred to is not in a good shape).Miacek (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Meant to link WP:OTHERSTUFF (not sure why they don't link to the same place). Compare "namely that both conecpts should enjoy coverage as they are legitimate" to the first example of arguments to avoid ("There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that.") GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With Fire. Sourced to garbage, per GW.--Jorm (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undeniably a minor meme, I was unable to find reliable sources for this term. A related concept, Beta male (slang), looks like a notable topic, but without reliable sourcing for Beta provider, it looks like it doesn't even warrant a redirect. Might be suitable for Wiktionary. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleasantly surprised Beta male (slang) even exists given all the bias and ignorance I've recently seen on Wikipedia. Maybe merge Beta provider with that article?Miacek (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With these sources? Hell no. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merger. Inclusion in Wikipedia requires reliablesources, and it has been a long time since I've seen an article whose references are so far from meeting that standard. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails reality. No reliable sources found and likely none exist because this is fringe bullshit pushed by a fringe community. Jbh ^Talk 00:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination AND per the terrible counterarguments. Not even CLOSE to acceptable. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which counterargument did you find particularly "terrible"? I will retract it to help my cause.Miacek (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your garbage GHITS argument or your garbage OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument? Your garbage passive-aggressive "Wikipedia is biased against" claim? Your playing the bigotry card? You utter unwillingness to actually address the garbage sources? Boy, how to choose?

There is nothing you can "retract" to help "your cause": this isn't a game where if you choose just the right words you can "win". Washing garbage just gets you cleaner garbage.--Calton | Talk 03:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you find it worthwhile to repeat yet the ultimate argument "garbage"? Where did I use OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, when I specifically said I find these articles I mentioned necessary to keep, contrary to want you attribute to me? Miacek (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find the article, and the internet to be devoid of any and all reliable sources. ~~GorillaWarfare you were being generous with the ~35K hits.~~ I think the actual number of hits is around 9-10K 9400 to be exact. Even among these there are references which are not about this term like this book that explains it as a firm providing services blah, blah blah. I am also against a merge. Merge requires the article to have some sourcing at least. If the closing admin is feeling generous (and I mean really generous as in forgiving Thanos kind) maybe he can redirect, but I leave that to his discretion. 2Joules (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misread—I didn't say anything about 35K hits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare I am sorry, when you mentioned that you had pointed him to GHITS, I attributed them to you. I'll strike that now.2Joules (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One non-notable article and occasional use by a small Reddit sub-culture does not make something encyclopedic. ApLundell (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As crap. Somehow straddles the boundary between WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:44, 19 May 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 04:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stitch, Inc.[edit]

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

Best RS seem to have trivial sources as per WP:NCORP, specifically "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists". Other sources both cited in article and found elsewhere are more along the lines of PR and thus fail other parts of the WP:CORP criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Otr500 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional, awards section is unsourced by reliable sources. per above --Quek157 (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. and comments above. Promotional and not well sourced. There seems to be unanimous consensus. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:58, 25 May 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 04:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BandLab Technologies[edit]

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

Seems to fail the significant coverage aspect of WP:NCORP. Notability may not be inherited. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability. A run-of-the-mill business that acquired some recognizable brands along the way. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and none provide any intellectually independent in-depth coverage about the company. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero RS, sources quoted are blogs, reviews sites. Another close to A7/G11 but not there article. NOT BUSINESS DIRECTORY. --Quek157 (talk) 17:40, 25 May 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 04:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Webbii[edit]

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

This is an invalid dab page consisting of the latter half of a Latin binomial. Neither species is referred to as a "webbii"; nor is anything else. Xezbeth (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's not how either binomial names or disambiguation pages work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: not a valid disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:19, 20 May 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 04:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World in Action (song)[edit]

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

No evidence of significance apart from reaching a lowly position in the UK chart, which by itself cannot establish its notability. In the absence of multiple independent non-trivial coverage of the song, it fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSONG, because at the time (1985) numbers 76 to 100 on the UK Singles Chart were not considered official chart placings, and only a strange retrospective decision by the OCC a few years ago has made a no. 93 position a chart placing. A redirect to the parent album probably isn't useful, considering how commonplace the title is (in the UK "World in Action" will almost certainly be associated with the ITV documentary series of that name). Richard3120 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really like Richard's point about why a redirect does not make sense. Anyways, a lowly mark in the U.K. Singles Chart is not an automatic keep under WP:NSONG, considering how the chart was structured at the time. It would need to pass GNG which it falls well short of.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:20, 19 May 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. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franco's World[edit]

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

Article appears to be a hoax. I can find no evidence of notability. The article is supposedly on YouTube but I cannot find evidence of it. The page creator has created or edited several "related" pages, such as Robert Rabiah, adding extensive links[7] but I haven't found any yet that support the claim that he involved with this production, if it exists. AussieLegend (✉) 20:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the article creator is persistently restoring an errored version of the article to both the article and the redirect and removing the AfD notice. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator actually posted here, but then deleted it,[8] claiming "Further editing has been undertaken to improve this page and this should be considered rather than deleting the page".[9] This is not the case at all. In fact I fixed numerous errors as explained in the ANI case I've had to open at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Films001 - persistent disruptive editing and vandalising but the only editing since this AfD was opened has been persistent restoration of multiple errors, which is the current state of the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly part of a promotional push for Robert Rabiah. More AFD noms are needed. --Calton | Talk 08:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are referring to all of the other articles that Films001 and Cinema777 have edited/created. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. --Calton | Talk 08:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I reckon. ZERO independent hits on google. Only a total of seven hits for "Franco's World" -wikipedia Turturro. The first three references in the article do not seem to mention the word "franco" at all. The fourth reference IMDB lists the official site as the site for Robert Rabiah... Either very very WP:TOOSOON or very very WP:CRYSTAL or just a publicity hoax. Aoziwe (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any mention of this supposed TV program independent of this Wikipedia page. More likely a hoax than anything else, per WP:DUCK. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:46, 20 May 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 keep. No deletion reason. Content dispute should be raised at the forums listed below. NACR#4 WP:SKCRIT 2(d) Procedural Closure (non-admin closure) Quek157 (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Kandi Barbour[edit]

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

Claimed to be "hopeless lack of reliable sourcing, serious potential for thrid-party BLP violations and general inaccuracy" by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) - John B123 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 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 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what's the deletion reason then? I only see content dispute there, content disputes cannot be brought to Afd, should be resolved over talkpage and some reverts which are close to 3RR --Quek157 (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion to prevent Hullaballoo Wolfowitz repeatedly removing the page content without prior discussion for the reasons given above. John B123 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is never never a deletion reason, there are Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to go to and talk page. Closing as WP:SKCRIT 2(d) --Quek157 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 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) Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 ConIFA World Football Cup squads[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator. This is a minor tournament of unofficial 'national' teams, it does not merit a separate squad list (WP:LISTN / WP:LISTCRUFT), particularly when the vast, vast majority of people listed are non-notable. Giant Snowman 17:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 2017 ConIFA European Football Cup squads has existed for over a year without being challenged so I don't see why the 2018 WFC shouldn't stay too, as it has significantly more media coverage (including through Goal.com who are hosting a documentary filmed by Paddy Power and will be streaming games,[10] and Sporting News) and includes a large number of professional footballers of note, particularly from the Eastern European sides, which play in the top 2 divisions of Russia/Slovakia/Romania/Hungary. VampireKilla (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 2017 article, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regarding a betting company streaming games - how does that impact on the notability of this topic (ie the squad list, not the tournament itself)? Giant Snowman 17:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there are a lot of professionals playing from top tiers of Russia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Armenia. A small portion of current and former full internationals include for Zimbabwe (Cliff Moyo), Russia U21 (Anri Khagush), Hungary (György Sándor), Lithuania (Marius Stankevičius), Turkey U19 (Ahmet Sivrii), Pakistan (Yousuf Butt). Jesse Debrah recently signed a professional deal at Millwall.[11] Scouts from professional clubs will be attending the games, including Graham Potter [12] (Greek) and the article includes notable managers for the teams, including Beslan Ajinjal, István Sándor, Róbert Ilyés, Reuben Hazell, An Yong-hak, and Harutyun Vardanyan. Bruce Grobbelaar is also confirmed to be involved with Matabeleland and I will include that when Matabeleland announce their final squad. VampireKilla (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, how is this topic notable? Giant Snowman 18:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained why. Numerous professionals taking part, half the team have managers of note. Considering the increased coverage of the tournament as a whole, it makes sense for the tournament to have increased coverage on Wikipedia, including squads, referees, etc. I'll also be including the referees on the main page once all are confirmed (only one team + Mark Clattenburg have been confirmed so far), top scorers once the tournament starts, clean sheets stats, and more too. Unless you want me to include all squads on the main tournament page (which would be incredibly unsightly) this is the most elegant solution. VampireKilla (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. Please try again. There is no need for squad lists to be anywhere. Giant Snowman 18:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless every squad has players of note (as in, with a Wikipedia article) except Ellan Vannin because Liam Doyle wasn't released by his club in America. Even then they have a pro with Seamus Sharkey. Even if it's a minority, it's still a vastly significant amount. VampireKilla (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not - and you've still not said how this article meets notability requirements? Giant Snowman 19:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to, it's not my fault you have some sort of agenda. VampireKilla (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let's assume good faith here. Judging purely on the sourcing that's currently in use there really isn't much to indicate notability. One is a primary source, the other is a single team making an announcement. Instead of accusing others of having an agenda, focus on improving the sourcing. Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lists don't need the people in the list to be notable, the list itself simply needs to be notable. Some very quick searches bring up news articles regarding who gets picked for these teams, such as [13] and the tournament itself has gotten major international news coverage. While the best link directly on the subject was primary, I think it's a valid spin-off article as a list of squads for a notable tournament. SportingFlyer talk 01:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: any 1) reliable sources and 2) in-depth coverage please? Giant Snowman 10:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Two of these are doubled up as they ran with a Sporting News article, but these are major sports websites, and the event hasn't started yet. I intentionally didn't include the numerous blogs covering the event here. SportingFlyer talk 22:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable tournament, with semi-notable teams, and some notable players. Don't see reason for deletion.Ortizesp (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources above indicate the tournament is receiving a reasonable level of coverage in major outlets. See no reason why we wouldn't have squad listings as we normally do for notable tournaments. Fenix down (talk) 14:20, 24 May 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 04:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Mahato[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer who fails WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. Under-19 games are not sufficient to pass the former. Spike 'em (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NCRIC, having not played in a FC, LA or T20 match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above the nominator, the article about an emerging cricketer can't be acceptable with just providing a content on his junior level experience and at least he somehow needs to play in either List A cricket, T20 matches or the First-class cricket matches to get notability. Abishe (talk) 20:43, 18 May 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 04:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dipesh Shrestha[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer who fails WP:CRIN and WP:GNG Spike 'em (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NCRIC, having not played in a FC, LA or T20 match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above the nominator, the article about an emerging cricketer can't be acceptable with just providing a content on his junior level experience and at least he somehow needs to play in either List A cricket, T20 matches or the First-class cricket matches to get notability. Abishe (talk) 20:43, 18 May 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 02:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal spray[edit]

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

Multiple issues; no sources, embedded commercial links Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve the subject is valid and has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy - I did do a fairly quick search and found no non-commercial sources. If you can point me at some of the sources you've found, I'll try to rescue the article; otherwise, I'm still for deletion. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of a lot of 19th century results for the poetic phrase "vocal spray", and just who is the Goddess of the vocal spray? (which maybe should be disambiguated from the present subject) searching "vocal sprays" seems to work on Google Books turned up some sources discussing sprays and their use. Googlr News spurces also has some discussion of their use. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to note vocal sprays in a broader article on throat spray. Some types of throad spray have articles but not the broader topic. Brands get marketed.. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. "Vocal spray" is over-the-counter throat spray that gullible singers buy in a music shop at twice the price. :-) The poetic use of "spray" means a stem with leaves or flowers on it, and not useful for this article. But User:FloridaArmy's idea of an article on throat spray is a good one: the term is already used in several articles, such as Cetylpyridinium chloride, Methylsulfonylmethane,Chloraseptic, Benzocaine, etc. Happy to help with that. But there's nothing worth saving here. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improve or delete. In the article throat, a general term, rather like "head", there is little physiology or medical information other than links to the parts of the throat. If there were an article called throat spray, presumably it would have to reference the parts involved principally in singing or speaking. The article singing contains nothing clinical, except in external links. My view is that any useful bits of vocal spray (perhaps renamed throat spray) should be part of (or at least link to) something like Larynx#Clinical significance. Perhaps the best thing is to rename this article to throat spray, remove any unsourced or commercial content, and see what's left, and whether it could be developed from there. I have my doubts, though. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, mostly seems to exist to promote the manufacturers mentioned in the stub (which I am going to go remove now per WP:LINKSPAM). If it needs to exist at all, it should be a subsection of ~~the~~ a throat spray article. ((u|zchrykng)) ^{T|C} 13:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC); edited ((u|zchrykng)) ^{T|C} 13:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A1 - unsourced article that says "Vocal spray is what some singers use to aid in producing sounds with vocal cords." So vocal spray is the same as honey, vibration, muscle contractions, singing lessons, mouth exercises, vocal warmups, etc.? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:01, 26 May 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. Consensus is that subject clearly passes WP:NACTOR (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Kren[edit]

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

Uncited stub with no indication of notability. Searches did not turn up the necessary in-depth coverage from independent, secondary reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and nothing in the article suggests they even come close to meeting WP:ENT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 13:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 13:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable Austrian television actress. Looking at IMDB, she has numerous acting credits including regular roles on several Austrian television series. Aguswiss (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She actually doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. NACTOR requires that the subject have: 'significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.' While she has been in a few series and films, these do not demonstrate how the subject had a significant role in them. In fact, some of the films/television series on her article do not have her included as acting in them. One of the films is notable: Blood Glacier, but this falls short of the 'multiple' requirement. Also, IMDB is not a reliable source. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Double standards. There are thousands of worse stubs about actors. Either we obey our rules or we don't. We don't obviously. Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Be bold and put similar articles through AfD if you feel like it should. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep leading actress in film and television productions. Lots of very substantial coverage turns up just by hitting the "news" link above. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not a single leading credit. No substantial coverage in "news"... not sure what you are looking at. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"not a single leading credit", so? WP:NACTOR does not talk of "leading" but of "significant", that does not have to be a "lead". Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR with flying colors. Has been one of the four leads on Vier Frauen und ein Todesfall for nine seasons and counting. The show has 650k to 700k viewers (sources: [20], [21]), which is about half the number of Austrians still watching traditional broadcast television, and is internationally syndicated in Germany, Switzerland, France, Slovenia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Italy, Ukraine, and Russia. The franchise is squarely aimed at housewives and the middle-aged but is locally significant enough to get reviewed in stuck-up broadsheets (examples: [22], [23], [24]). Is about to become the new lead on SOKO Donau, the ORF's flagship crime show (sources: [25], [26]). Has been in notable theatre productions including but not limited to a gig on the Perchtoldsdorfer Sommerspiele (sources: [27], [28]). Damvile (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The significance is obvious. -Victoria III (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The roles do not rise to the level to pass notability guidelines for actors and the sources do not rise to the level of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NACTOR is very clear at this point. An actor is significant is s/he has had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." gidonb (talk) 03:05, 24 May 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. No policy-based arguments to keep. ansh 666 04:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in The Railway Series[edit]

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

Contains only plot summary from fictional works (WP:NOTPLOT). No third-party coverage, no apparent notability of this (sub-)topic (WP:LISTN). Sandstein 16:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Delete: Per nom. When we blur the line between reality and fiction we get minor characters with a Wikipedia page that depicts real world elements in fictional settings and predominantly sourced with primary sources. The title states it all: "Minor Characters...". A "character" that only appeared in one book, James The Red Engine, "and was never seen again". Two unnamed red engines as well as a host of other minor characters indicate that "IF" these cannot be covered in a parent article they are simply a collection of indiscriminate information. Otr500 (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEANS. The Railway Series is notable, and this seems like a good place to collect cruft so it doesn't spread further. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evident need for a minor and major characters article, even the minor characters page admits it's basically fancruft. Major characters in The Railway Series should simply be moved to Characters in The Railway Series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not you see the obvious significance? Really? Leave the article. -Victoria III (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I see that anyone possibly wanting to look up a "minor" fictional character of a book series can be redirected to a section of the main article. I also see that a "keep !vote above refers to this subject as "cruft" and and a place to keep it from spreading. That is three editors (including myself) out of five so far that consider this fancruft. I also see that the inherent quest to expand this encyclopedia has to have some boundaries or we end up with unsourced minor characters such as The Small Controller. I also see an article with primary sourcing. If something is not considered of encyclopedic value (such as fancruft) it should not be on Wikipedia in a stand-alone article as it is considered an indiscriminate collection of information. Otr500 (talk) 11:20, 21 May 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. Little to no policy-based reasoning in favor of keeping, from a lot of SPAs, with no reliable sources presented. ansh 666 04:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dmytro Baker[edit]

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

Non-notable freelance journalist and blogger. Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR, no significant coverage found in reliable independent sources. CataracticPlanets (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete I repeat: the famous Ukrainian journalist. He is not an independent, but a full-time specialist in UNIAN and a freelance specialist in other news agencies in Ukraine and Russia. An independent source is a biographical article in the most popular information resource of Ukraine "обозреватель" (this is in any case an authoritative source and so he is independent, since Dmytro is an expert on the war in the region, and not a regular journalist.) 1. There are articles in the second most popular Wikipedia Russian encyclopedia 2. Sanctions against this journalist by Russia and a ban on entry into the country on political motives. Just a very famous volunteer. The article is a translation from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. There she was checked by competent patrol officers. All sources must be sought in the languages of the society in which this person lives, and not in English. Obviously, I'm against removal. Arguments are very serious. --BiNA (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BiNA is the creator of the article, which is a translation of the article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. A subject may be Wikinotable in some language editions and not in others. The content of Wikipedia across its language editions is not identical. If we had one, single, identical Wikipedia across all languages that would mean that the planet has one, single, identical culture. :-) And remember that Wikinotability is not the same as what we commonly understand by the term! A subject may be very well known but lack of supporting sources might prevent an article about is appearing here. You could support your "keep" opinion by providing some translations of the text in the non-English sources that exist, as you claim, and some background for these sources. Checking for sources myself (in English), I find very little. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia with different language sections? In one encyclopedia they tell me that the meaning is either there or not, and the language is not important; here you tell me that this can be important for Ukraine, but it does not matter here. This is somehow stupid. And the most famous online resource in Ukraine - an authoritative source? In Wikipedia, this is such an introduction of the biography on that resource. If the article does not match any of the rules here, you can safely remove it. To make people understand that an article is important to another community, a template was put on the translation. In Ukrainian Wikipedia, there are criteria for the significance of this journalist, from the presence of biographies on authoritative websites to the presence of fan clubs. Well, then, if the rules are colossally different, remove them. I just wanted to pass on the information, because I'm not even the creator of this information, but an interpreter. Sincerely, BiNA (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who does not understand English very well, your use of the word "stupid" is, at best, very careless. Try and be a little more civil, please.

Once again, I have to explain: Wikipedia comes in many languages. No, there are no "different language sections" in Wikipedia; there are editions of Wikipedia in different languages. And they are all different to each other. "Different" means "NOT IDENTICAL"! One Wikipedia could have an article about a singer who's famous/notable in a certain country, while another would not. Now ask yourself, why does this happen? Hint: It's because one subject might be Wikinotable in, for example, Ukrainian and not notable in, for example, Catalan.

And do you know why this happens? Because, cultures vary across the world and I truly hope you don't want me to prove that too. So, in so many words, I repeat my suggestion, word for word: You could support your "keep" opinion by providing some translations of the text in the non-English sources that exist, as you claim, and some background for these sources. Checking for sources myself (in English), I find very little. This does not mean I'm recommending a "delete" action; I haven't made a suggestion yet. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome I understand what you mean. But... I will repeat once again that I am not the creator of this article, I'm just an interpreter of available material in another part of the Wikipedia language. I was not looking for information to write an article. I just translated. Just. Like other articles that I wrote here - Vadim Abramov (Ukrainian television presenter) and Katya Prizhilyak. None of them you will not find the information in English. For Ukrainian Wikipedia, there is enough such an authoritative source as the "Обозреватель" (all the information from the article is here). Very interesting information in different types of projects; on the site of the resource about everything 1, the most authoritative Russian encyclopedia 2 (There is another project where there is a lot of information, but it is blocked by filters and is competitive for Wikipedia, so I can not give a link.). Sitting to deal with the sites, I will not, because they are many (on request in Google "Дмитро Бакер" produces 1,800,000 results on request "Дмитрий Бакер" 1,150,000). Once again I repeat: I do not care what happens to this article, I did not do anything supernatural, except for a banal translation of the material. By the way, I did not know about this, but this person also turns out to be a cover singer, many websites have access to this confirmation (this is not information, as a fact). If the article does not comply with the project rules, just delete it. With love, BiNA (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are told that you need sources that can be checked in English. But I understand you, the "obozrevatel" obviously does not need to confirm the meaning. Jack Bulitlo (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cleared the quick delete template, because the value was obvious. I have no idea who it is, but the information here and here is very authoritative. Especially in the first. If there is information in these sources, then it is not worth doubting, especially for the countries of the former USSR. Jack Bulitlo (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)— Jack Bulitlo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Greetings. The two "very authoritative" sources you cited are Wiki mirrors and therefore, as such, unacceptable. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Really? to delete? Such sources are not authoritative for you? and 359 views for 2 days for a dude from Ukraine (before the revolution of 2014 I had no idea where this country is located). do not joke so, take it off the discussion. (5.105.117.243 (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. He's a 19 year old Ukrainian journalist. The article has no citations. As non-Ukranian speakers we cannot judge the authority or veracity of the websites where his name is mentioned. For all I know the original article from which this one was translated was written by his aunt. Chisme (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a horror... Are you serious? Aunt? Why not mom, sister, wife, girlfriend? Yes, you can delete only the article if you are so far away that even the "Обозреватель" is not authoritative for you (this is an information resource with your own TV channel, news agency, representation in different countries and much more). For general development. BiNA (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, of course. I, too, have no idea about whom the article is, but the sources are authoritative enough. Biography on the leading information resource of the country has an indisputable authority. And the article now has more than 970 views, which for a nineteen-year-old journalist from the East European country is a huge indicator. Do not touch the article, definitely. FYT Mikola (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)— FYT Mikola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. It's not even funny. What can be discussed with such sources? Significance on all sides climbs. I'm from Belarus, but who knows this perfectly. Dmitro the journalist who covered the war in Ukraine, was a member of the Eurovision delegation this year, was one of the commentators on the STB television channel. The biography on the already mentioned site is the peak of significance for a journalist of the post-Soviet space. Maybe you are concerned about age? Look out the window, there's the 21st century. -5.105.212.19 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)— 5.105.212.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The reasoning of the suggestions made by FYT Mikola and 5.105.212.19 is horrible. One argues that the article in Wikipedia is getting a lot of hits, but that is neither here nor there: Wikipedia does not care at all about "number of hits" on its own articles, and, in any case, when an article comes up for AfD it's bound to have many visitors. Plus, we can have an extremely "popular" article, in terms of hits, which is not notable at all. All we'd need is pictures of cats and babies. :-)

The other invokes the coming of the 21st century as an argument. But Wikipedia does not judge age. We do accept articles about young people. (How young? How about two days old?) What you folks need to do is get off the high horse of indignation and dig up some serious sources about the subject. Otherwise, it's a cinch it's going down in flames. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My God, how much can you discuss the credibility of the available sources? I understand that you do not know the Ukrainian language, but you can use Google translator? Here is the "Обозреватель". A little later I'll write an article about this news agency. What is "Cyclopedia" (Russian: Циклопедия) is known to anyone who knows how to use the Russian-language Internet segment. They even use it in school or as a source in course student work. And the arguments of the people are very weighty. Some articles about Ukrainians here do not gain 900 (and already more than 1,100) views and for the year. This is a good proof of the relevance of the material. But I already said, if you want, you can safely delete, let people read in Ukrainian or Russian languages, and if they do not understand their problems, let them translate. Sincerely, BiNA (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not "read" Ukrainian but are you sure you read English? You seem to ignore completely what other people are saying. You just sail on happily and repeat what you already said. Once more, then, in very simple language: The number of hits on a web page does not, repeat DOES NOT, signify much (read: nothing whatsoever) as far as notability is concerned. Is that clear? Is that understood? And I do not care if this article stays up or gets deleted. But policy is policy. -The Gnome (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above discussion establishing that this subjwct does not meet notability standards for English Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They asked to participate. I, as a patrolman of the Ukrainian Wikipedia, who checked the article there, can not vote for the deletion. But I can not vote for the hard abandonment of the article here. The significance is obvious, but for the Ukrainian space. Sources are authoritative, in fact, but perhaps not for the English Wikipedia. I refrain, but rather tend to against removal, in connection with the arguments given. ---Great Cockroach 007 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a BLP and a lack of any sources should immediately qualify for a speedy deletion. An undersourced BLP would certainly qualify for consideration at AFD. Aside from that we have a transfer from another Wikipedia version, that has drawn an influx of new editors (to this Version), that must not understand the importance of sourcing a BLP when !voting to keep. It does not matter if we personally know of, or know the subject, we can not have an unsourced BLP on this Wikipedia. I may just be naive but I assumed that any version of Wikipedia would have to comply with the five pillars. Otr500 (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources, significance too. -Victoria III (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)— Імператриця Вікторія (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We have some planes? -The Gnome (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above discussion. Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements for en. ((u|zchrykng)) ^{T|C} 12:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a total lack of reliable, 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much mention is made above about "Обозреватель" / "Obozrevatel" proving his notability, but this organisation does not have its own article on en.wikipedia, so I would not use it to prove notability here. He seems to be notable in Ukraine, so good luck to him there, but no proof of notability in English speaking regions. Spike 'em (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Contrary to this argument, no source needs to be in English and there is no need for notability in "English-speaking regions". The only thing that is supposed to be Egnlish-language about Wikipedia is the text of the articles. Language is not supposed to drive context. In an ideal world the French, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Tongan and Swahili Wikipedias would all have the same content and content guidelines. They do not because of differening numbers of editors, different consensus by editors and related issues. However language of sources, or language someone writes in should not influence inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previously commented, now decided on the voice. I wrote the article for the Obozrevatel, because you will not wait for promises. The authority of this resource is obvious. Why now vote "against removal"? I just missed, and now I found: this journalist became the second most popular blogger in Ukraine according to the version of the same "Obozrevatel". This is already a level of significance, and of course biography. --Great Cockroach 007 (talk) 13:22, 23 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miraj Patel[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIN & WP:GNG. Under-19 internationals are not considered notable by WP:CRIC. Spike 'em (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NCRIC, having not played in a FC, LA or T20 match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above the nominator, the article about an emerging cricketer can't be acceptable with just providing a content on his junior level experience and at least he somehow needs to play in either List A cricket, T20 matches or the First-class cricket matches to get notability. Abishe (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without discussion. -Victoria III (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new user whose only edits so far are to vote, with similar policy-free statements, on 7 AfDs in completely different subject areas. I'd suggest the closer ignores it. Spike 'em (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This new user is here, too, to vote. I saw a few nominations, so I registered to leave my opinion. This is not restricted by the rules. And my contribution will be what I want, within the rules, of course. -Victoria III (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not advanced any reasons for any of your decisions. As per WP:AFD "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." This is diverting this discussion, so if you want to discuss further do so at one of our own talk pages. Spike 'em (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete playing in youth competition does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 23 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeepta Aurka[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer who does not pass WP:CRIN or WP:GNG. Under-19 internationals are not sufficient. I have removed a false claim of notability from article (World Cup appearance). Spike 'em (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NCRIC, having not played in a FC, LA or T20 match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above the nominator, the article about an emerging cricketer can't be acceptable with just providing a content on his junior level experience and at least he somehow needs to play in either List A cricket, T20 matches or the First-class cricket matches to get notability. Abishe (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable cricket player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 23 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shlok Patel[edit]

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

non-notable cricketer who fails WP:CRIN / WP:GNG. Under-19 games are not sufficient to pass CRIN. Spike 'em (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NCRIC, having not played in a FC, LA or T20 match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above the nominator, the article about an emerging cricketer can't be acceptable with just providing a content on his junior level experience and at least he somehow needs to play in either List A cricket, T20 matches or the First-class cricket matches to get notability. Abishe (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable cricketeer who has only played at the youth level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 23 May 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 04:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Saint Petersburg supermarket bombing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2017 Perekrestok supermarket bombing

Articles for deletion/2017 Saint Petersburg supermarket bombing

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

This is solely a news story. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER —Formal Dude^(talk) 03:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I strongly disagree with getting rid of it. It might not comply with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER but let's write the article so that it does not sound like one.

What about adding more background to this so-called story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrayonS (talk • contribs) 08:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete Reuters may have jumped at the words "terrorist" and "Putin", but the sources given say this was a four day story without lasting anything. I could be swayed were other material proffered (given that I'm not in a position to search Russian sources). Mangoe (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bombing fits timeline of terror attacks in Russia and this particular incident was the second major terrorist attack in the city of st.Petersburg in 2017. There was international coverage of the attack and even to this day it gets mentioned occasionally.JBergsma1 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:NOT#NEWS is to be followed everywhere, then this should be deleted, but if it is to be ignored for news events in Anglophone countries, as seems to happen regularly at AfD, then it should be kept, as we should not apply different standards according to where in the world something happened. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's needs to be follow up or otherwise it is just news, and WP:NOTNEWS. Where's the investigation, response, policy changes, and lasting implications resulted from this event? Acnetj (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not news, nor is it indiscriminate collection for alleged terror attacks or "terrorpedia". Breaking news, especially the violent kind, receive the same story in the international news cycle; this is nothing unusual and passing mentions after the fact don't change that. In fact, our notability guidelines for events couldn't make it clearer: 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.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The bomber didn't seem to be connected to any terrorist groups or anything that would make this notable, but a sentence or two about the event on Terrorism in Russia is justified if only because RS (and Putin) have called the bombing a terrorist attack. Nanophosis (talk) 15:44, 22 May 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. No opinion on recreation as a redirect. ansh 666 04:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Chicken[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:DEPTH. The only sources currently cited are primary. A search for reliable sources failed to turn up significant coverage. For example, there is only a passing mention in this UAE news publication, from 2011. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International availability of McDonald's products#United Arab Emirates. No notability, but McDonald's is reliable on the fact that it is a McDonald's product. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally non-notable "sandwich". Attempting to list menu items with stand-alone pages is just providing a collection of indiscriminate information. Otr500 (talk) 04:57, 21 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid (role-playing game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No credible claim of notability, and very poorly sourced. The only reference is a website that collects all RPGs and there's no evidence that this has gathered any attention anywhere else. Reyk _YO! 13:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability offered, and none particularly findable at first, or second, glance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially a USENET... thing that got out of hand. It gets mentioned in a lot of less-than-reliable sources, but nothing we'd view as reliable gives it the time of day. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ((u|zchrykng)) ^{T|C} 13:29, 21 May 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. Per G5. (non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosis (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria, nor does it have any sources. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per g5. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:34, 18 May 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 keep. WP:SNOW - WP:PROF is met, which the (extremely new) nominator appears to have been unaware of. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Cheng[edit]

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

The article does not meet notability standards. In addition, the article has only two sources and only one relevant link has been spotted in What Links Here. As such, I move to delete this article. EditControl (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Passes WP:Prof with 18 papers with over 100 citations on GS. A ridiculous nomination that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. A WP:Trout for the nominator who has edited for one day with a curious list of contributions: eyes needed here. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Snow keep. Passes WP:PROF#C3 (Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science) as well as a very clear pass of #C1. This may not meet the specific requirements of WP:SK but per WP:SNOW there's no point in dragging it out for the full discussion period. (Also, I removed a comment from the nominator swearing at other participants here without addressing the substance of the nomination; EditControl, don't do that.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep I added the APS Fellowship, which is by itself already enough to pass WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 19 May 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 deleted by Ivanvector (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). postdlf (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Moto3 season[edit]

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

Article has been created too soon and lacks any content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moto3 until the article can be expanded. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:16, 18 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Singh Thakuri[edit]

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

non-notable cricketer who does not pass WP:NCRIC nor WP:GNG Spike 'em (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NCRIC, having not played in a FC, LA or T20 match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above the nominator, the article about an emerging cricketer can't be acceptable with just providing a content on his junior level experience and at least he somehow needs to play in either List A cricket, T20 matches or the First-class cricket matches to get notability. The author needs clear vivid picture about the WikiProject Cricket, who has created a sum of such U19 cricketers even before their senior debuts. Abishe (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 23 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LB Chhetri[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer. No indication that they pass WP:NCRIC nor WP:GNG Spike 'em (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NCRIC, having not played in a FC, LA or T20 match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above the nominator, the article about an emerging cricketer can't be acceptable with just providing a content on his junior level experience and at least he somehow needs to play in either List A cricket, T20 matches or the First-class cricket matches to get notability. Abishe (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is former cricket captain from Nepal of the national cricket team so how could you delete ? And abhise and lugnuts you've copied and pasted in all afd section.MTKASH^{TALK Contribs} 21:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He may well be, but he has not captained them in any games of a notable enough standard. Spike 'em (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our absurdly low level of notability for cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 23 May 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. Author agrees it should go. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Til limited[edit]

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

@Ammarpad:, came across this in NPP, author of page removed your CSD advert tag, exerts notability in talk page. I don't think PROD / CSD will do any good as sources are there. However, examining the sources, no sense of meeting WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:NCORP. SALT if possible as is repeatedly recreated and repeatedly G11 Quek157 (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:20, 18 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6 Dogs[edit]

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

At present, failing on WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Maybe notable in future as per Wikipedia notability guidelines. Hitro talk 11:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 23 May 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. Sandstein 10:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Life (video game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Video game with no evidence of notability. Sources are generally neither independent nor reliable and appear to be self promotion, press releases and niche reviews. I moved this to Draft space to give it time to be developer but the author immediately moved it back in to main-space. It is certainly very far from being ready for mainspace and fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was deleted as non-notable less than a year ago. I'm unconvinced that there has been a sea change in coverage. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article as it stands does not have the sourcing to indicate notability. I checked MobyGames to see if there was more sourcing out there, but they list no reviews for this game. None. That's not definitive, but definitely doesn't give hope that we could find a lot more coverage with some research.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:59, 24 May 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. Consensus is that this topic fails NFOOTY, but the arguments that he now passes GNG have not been refuted, as those arguing that GNG has been met have provided specific examples, while those stating GNG is not met have not given any argument, much less compelling ones, why those sources should not be contemplated when measuring GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Tavano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Referenced articles are routine. Simione001 (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Recreation of deleted article. No change in status regarding meeting NFOOTY, still fails. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per result of the discussion last October. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tavano actually satisfies WP:GNG due to ongoing significant non-routine coverage about him and is a classic example of the type of footballer who should have an article on this site even though he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, especially due to his multiple appearances in a major international tournament. I know this will be another "NFOOTY not satisfied AfD" where users don't get to WP:GNG or claim the coverage on him is simply routine, but I disagree with this wholeheartedly, as the type of coverage on him goes beyond why we assume WP:GNG for other players. [29] [30] [31] [32] SportingFlyer talk 20:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm with SportingFlyer while they do°n't pass WP:NFOOTY there is enough there to pass WP:GNG. This player has played at the Club World Cup three times and has articles about him that aren't just routine. We must remember to look past previous deletion discussions and vote on what is in current articles. I think Quazarrr has done an alright job on this players article. NZFC^(talk) 23:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per SportingFlyer fails WP:NFOOTY but scrapes though WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SportingFlyer, meets WP:GNG due to non WP:ROUTINE coverage, and participation in the FIFA Club World Cup, arguably the most prestigious international club football/soccer tournament in the World. Quidster4040 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per discussion last October. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG due to extensive non-routine coverage from FIFA, ESPN and Vavel among others as shown on his talk page, as well as competing in the FIFA Club World Cup on numerous occasions - as stated, the most prestigious club tournament in his country of birth. Quazarrr (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still technically fails WP:NFOOTY, but the provided sources are enough to get him over the WP:GNG hump. Smartyllama (talk) 20:15, 24 May 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. G5 by Bbb23 after the page-creator was blocked. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saints & Sinners Bingo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems to suffer the same problems as the last version; none but one of the sources seems to be reliable; the only reliable source there is from GameSpot, which I don't think is enough to establish notability. This would meet G4, but the author requested speedy deletion, so going through another deletion to see what the WP VG community thinks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:23, 18 May 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. The "keep" opinions, already in the minority, are pretty weakly argued. Dtilque goes on about the title. Carlossuarez46 asserts without backing in policy that "toponymy is a notable topic". Richard0612 tells us that this is a "valid subject for an encyclopedia", which is just a rephrasing of "keep". Legacypac tells us to "see the See also articles at the bottom cf the page", which isn't any kind of policy-based argument. None of these opinions address the policy-based arguments made for deletion: that the topic fails WP:LISTN. Whether that is true or not I have no idea, but I have to give determining weight to the arguments that are based in established policy and practice over those who are not. Sandstein 17:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-Canadian places that have a Canadian place named after them[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:Indiscriminate. Awkward title, and has been awkward. Unclear why it is notable - there are thousands of places around the world named after other places. Why are these ones from Canada more notable than others? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 19:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see the See also articles at the bottom cf the page. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-US places that have a US place named after them was created by the same creator as this article, and will be nominated for deletion as well. List of places named after people has been tagged with notability for standalone lists since 2012. I don't see your point ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's an invalid assumption in this proposal for deletion. That is, that it's a list of Canadian places. Read the title: List of non-Canadian places.... This list is of places outside Canada. The Canadian places are there to show that there is at least one Canadian town named for that non-Canadian place. Most of the non-Canadian places are somewhere that someone migrated to Canada from, although there's also a fair number of places named for battles Canadians were involved. It gives a certain perspective on Canadian history.

This error is common enough that perhaps the list should be changed to one of Canadian places. That would mean multiple places named for the same non-Canadian town would be added. The list would not change that much, perhaps increase in length by 50 to 75% once all of them are added. The lede would have to be rewritten and it would fix the awkward title. The name could be something like List of Canadian places named for non-Canadian places. Dtilque (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-Canadian cities with a Canadian namesake. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite popular sentiment, there's really no policy-based arguments so far (same as the previous AfD, which really shouldn't have been closed as such).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how places got their names (toponymy) is a notable topic and the article is in line with it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contents fail WP:LISTN as a whole, and thus individual entries are best discussed on their own article, not as a whole. Flibirigit (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (valid subject for an encyclopedia) but rename to List of Canadian places named for non-Canadian places. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 09:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Struggling to figure out how place names that exist in two countries (one being Canada) is a notable list. Ajf773 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic of list not covered in other independent, reliable sources per WP:LISTN, and I don't see how the topic would otherwise be notable. It's not even clear that all the Canadian places are actually named after the others - the references are just entries at GeoBase, which doesn't make any claims about the etymology of their listings. I found a pair (Balaclava and Balaklava) where the Canadian one isn't named after the Ukrainian one (they're both named for the Battle of Balaclava). Teratix (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sympathetic towards User:Dtilque and his reasoning after reading his comments, but I think criteria for inclusion needs to be tightened (the Canadian places must be strictly be named after the foreign ones). Definitely add that Alan Rayburn source. Did I mention the article needs to be renamed? Teratix (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Comment (because I haven't figured out how to strikethrough yet :)) On further reflection, I'm going to stick with my previous !vote. The main issue with the article, as the relisting comment mentioned, is the notability of the concept (or lack thereof). So far, one possible source has been mentioned that devotes 'a section' of unknown length to discussing Canadian place names. I think we need to find more sources before declaring this meets WP:GNG as multiple sources are usually expected, according to the guideline.Tera TIX 13:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references to the Canadian Geographic Names Database are just there to establish that the place does actually exist. They also have a reference in the 'Notes' column which establishes that one place was named for the other. Perhaps this is not the best organization of the entries; if you think so, make a suggestion for a better one. As for places named for battles, those battles were all named after towns they were fought near. That includes Balaklava, where the battle was named for the town, and the Canadian places (there's a couple with the name) were named for the battle. Perhaps they should be given their own list. There's a score or so places named after battles from various wars; some are not on this list because the battle was named for a river or other non-town. My rule when compiling the list was that any place named for something closely associated with a foreign city was to be included. There's no place to put such rules in the Wikipedia system, though. As for the topic covered in independent sources, how about Alan Rayburn's Naming Canada: Stories about Canadian Place Names. It has a section on place names coming from other countries. (BTW, I need to add that as a reference for Balaclava and several other entries.) Dtilque (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I am struggling to see the importance and notability of this list as well as the other somewhat related lists. This list is primarily sourced from Geographical Names Data Base, others are far worse, but what is the actual encyclopedic use of this list? Otr500 (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Extra comments: I also have reservations and concerns that were raised by User:Teratix with the example. One can be named after the other or vice versa "or" can be named after something else and without some vetting how are people to know? If there is confusion or false presentations we are just advancing junk. Otr500 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You're mistaken on this list being primarily sourced from the Geographic Database. While there are a number of cites to that source, every one of them also has a cite in the Notes column to another source that supports it being named for a non-Canadian place. Every single one! Now maybe that's overkill, but I figured people might want to know where the place was and those places do not have their own Wikipedia page. The Geographic Database has a map showing where the place is.

As far as how people should know, if they're editors of Wikipedia, they should be consulting references before adding anything to a page. Any page, not just this one. Unfortunately, there are far too many editors who do not do this, and I occasionally have to remove someone's mistaken additions. Dtilque (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully a third relist will help bring the discussion to focus on whether the concept of Canadian places being named after non-Canadian places is notable and not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am still on the fence. I am not mistaken in that the article is predominantly "primarily sourced" but does have other sourcing. I see List of places named after places in the United States with one reference, List of place names of Native American origin in Virginia with no references, List of place names of Czech origin in the United States with no references, Lists of U.S. county name etymologies actually non-referenced or improperly referenced with an "External link", List of place names of French origin in the United States with two references, the very long List of place names of Spanish origin in the United States with only four references, List of Irish place names in other countries with zero references, List of Swedish place names in the United States with one reference, List of place names of Welsh origin in the United States with no references, and the "list" of under or non-referenced "list-class" articles goes on.

I see List-class articles can be of use and Wikipedia uses them, but failing to see the importance may be on my end. I do know that this article is among the better referenced. The title --- pretty much sucks. However, this can be changed. Otr500 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe Geo Database looks like it's the dominant source because there's a lot of individual references to it. However, most of the references in the list are concentrated in about 10 sources. Look at the first 5 references (especially #2 the one for Ontario) and note all the links to them. If these (and some others) were converted to individual refs, the page would have about 500 references. I thought that would be too extreme, so I didn't link to individual pages of those sources.

Notability: it's been established that the etymology of a place name is a notable piece of information (and I've been adding such to many wikipages for towns as I've researched this list) so a compilation of such data when they fall into a category should also be notable. Dtilque (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be true that the etymologies of place names are notable, but I'm not sure this specific type of list is. From what I can see, the sources in the article do a pretty good job of a) proving the places exist and b) proving the Canadian ones are named after the non-Canadian ones (mostly), but they don't establish the notability of the concept. Tera TIX 11:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that the concept is notable, making this list basically a collection of OR/SYNTH. --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly OR and clearly cannot be completed. ,~~Canada Road and Ottawa Road in Singapore is missing.~~ Such lists just cannot stand as they are woefully inadequate, just as we don't have a list of Android Phones but we have list of features of Android Phones and so on. --Quek157 (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither of those two roads would qualify for this list. They're named after Canada & Ottawa; Canada and Ottawa were not named after them. As it stands, the list probably has 80-90% of the actual total. But where is the requirement that Wiki-lists be complete? I've seen a fair number of incomplete lists on Wikipedia. Are we going to delete all incomplete lists on Wikipedia?

As for the accusations of OR/SYNTH, I think you need to learn what those are and are not. Start here: WP:NOR, then read Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not. Then come back and point out where specifically this list violates that policy. Dtilque (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think what the users are trying to get at is not exactly WP:SYNTH, but rather a slight variation. You've said "the etymology of a place is a notable piece of information", which is true, and covered in reliable sources you have helpfully pointed out. However, just because one source says 'X, Canada was named after X, Australia' and another says 'Y, Canada was named after Y, USA', doesn't therefore mean a list of Canadian places named after non-Canadian places is notable, as no source has meaningfully covered the topic of the list. Sort of 'notability synth'?

Another imperfect but helpful analogy: 697 Galilea is an asteroid named after Galileo Galilei. The Galilean moons are also named after him. You can find reliable sources that back the statements up. But we don't have an article 'List of solar system bodies named after Galileo Galilei', because no sources cover the topic of the list.

According to WP:LISTN: "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Tera TIX 07:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

strike out misunderstanding, the name is really esoteric and hard to understand. still sticking with my views though Quek157 (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC) adding. the places are notable and not or but the entire list is sheer or. Sources are for the place but the list have no sources for itself, so that orQuek157 (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that the real problem with the list is the name is awkward. That was the reason this AfD was started; they just said 'not notable' because 'awkward title' is not a reason for deleting pages. I've already pointed out that this topic has been covered by authors (see the book by Alan Rayburn I mentioned above, for example; I could come up with others). So let's change the title, which I've already suggested. Either List of Canadian places named for non-Canadian places or perhaps even more succinct List of Canadian towns named for towns elsewhere. If the inclusion of places named for battles that are named for towns is a problem, those could be extracted out to a list of Canadian towns named for battles. Dtilque (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An awkward name is trivial; a notability problem is serious. The original reason the AfD was listed was actually notability concerns: "Unclear why it is notable - there are thousands of places around the world named after other places.". If you can find more sources, why don't you show us them instead of stepping around the issue and talking about the name? Tera TIX 23:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to me to be just a list of Canadian-related disambiguation pages.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The originator said the name was awkward twice, which gives me the idea that that was the real reason he proposed the AfD. But the rename would not be trivial; it would actually expand the number of places that are valid additions.

As far as demonstrating notability by other treatments of the topic, I can't find many specifically Canadian examples, although there was some in Rayburn's book on Ontario place names. I checked it out from the library(ILL), so I can't reference it right now, but I do remember him saying there were 300-some places in Ontario borrowed directly from the British Isles. All of those are on this list. The US is the other major country where this phenomenon occurs and there's a good deal of discussion in George Stewart's Names on the Land (which is about US place names), especially, but not exclusively, starting at the bottom of page 237 and going for several pages. Another example is specific to one state: Our Storehouse of Missouri Place Names by Robert Lee Ramsay has an extensive section on such names, both those borrowed from other states and from other countries, sorted by geographic region like this list. That reference is in Googlebooks, so you can look it up yourself. Those are the examples that immediately come to mind, although with some work I could find others. Besides those works, I frequently see people list the numerous towns in Maine and sometimes other states that are borrowed from abroad, mostly capital cities and other major cities, but also names of countries. At any rate the topic is certainly of interest to many people, which I would hope makes it notable. Dtilque (talk) 05:25, 22 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wise Cracks Concrete Technologies Inc.[edit]

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

An article on a franchising company, created by an acknowledged paid editor who created it as a draft but then moved it to main space without WP:AFC review. The references are mainly routine coverage on franchising sites. The company has also won "Waterproofing and Foundation Repair" awards in their area but these are not inherently notable. My searches are finding no reliable source coverage to indicate more than a firm going about its business; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the article creator also created redirects for names associated with the company, I have added these to the "find sources" above. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Failing "WP:CORPDEPTH" - the company is definitely more notable in the Atlantic Canada region than it is Canada-wide (it has been covered in regional/local news there a number of times, but tracking these sources down can be a challenge). That said, your concern given the sources included on the current version of the page seems reasonable. I'll see what I can do to remedy this by tracking down more (independent) sources that ideally also prove notability. Astro Reeves (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, zero indications of notability, entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP. A search for sources doesn't turn up anything that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 25 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ingemar Cressey[edit]

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

Not seeing this meeting GNG. Of the four sources, two are the subject's own and thus not independent. The other two don't work, giving 403 and 404 error reports. A Google search, apart from this, gives me his site, his Twitter, his LinkedIn, his YouTube and not a lot else. KJP1 (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable sportsman - promotional article merely designed to showcase him Gbawden (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails all notability criteria. I removed "official websites" as references and moved inline linked outside sources to references but I did not check reliability. Otr500 (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ingemar Cressey is a non-notable surfer. FrederickWinchester (talk) 11:54, 24 May 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. Sandstein 10:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Small Controller[edit]

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

Uncited article with no indication of real world notability. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minor characters in The Railway Series#Small Controller power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable character, per WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced (or sourced) minor character in a book series so cannot pass any aspect of notability. Even if a source is provided it will only be primary. It would not be prudent to advance redirecting to another article that is also listed at AFD. If that article survives then someone can recreate this article. Otr500 (talk) 13:25, 21 May 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 KMGi Group. Anything of interest can be merged from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 17:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiExperts[edit]

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

Notability. Gamaliel (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ironically, you would expect them to have a better article, in so many senses.

More serious Comment - Almost all of their refs, both given and elsewhere, are either OR or short mentions found in general articles on paid editing. The only area where several significant sources are found is the bit that only gets a couple of lines - the suggested introduction of advertising. Digital Trends (Note - while in general the source might work, titling WikiExperts as "analysts" is iffy. More importantly, Jimmy gave a scathing rebuttal to the article at the bottom (worth a read, regardless of the AfD!)) Publico - hole in Wikipedia gives a less...dramatic few paragraphs on them; Wikipedia, a Major Threat to the Reputation of Businesses and Brands (Some by interviewer, then a primary interview, title doesn't sound especially NPOV, although I suppose it's true). I can't see the second ref, so if someone could look and summarise that would be appreciated :) Nosebagbear (talk)

Probable Merge Given that none of the sources either given there or evident elsewhere (surprising dearth of books with mentions of them) are fully reliable I am nervous to give a keep. I would probably be inclined towards merge at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#WikiExperts Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability. Anything of interest can be Merged with KMGi Group. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:05, 22 May 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. Sandstein 07:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CAVEman (image)[edit]

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

Only one WP:RS confirming existence, definitely not notable, never went anywhere. ^{[Username Needed]} 09:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 03:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 24 May 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. Enigma^msg 23:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Laver[edit]

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

Non-notable composer lacking independent, in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 03:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- sourcing is very weak. search doesn't come up with anything better.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete lacks sufficient sourcing to pass the general notability guidelines Wolfson5 (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable musical artist with not many sources. FrederickWinchester (talk) 11:59, 24 May 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 South Asian Football Federation. Content can be merged from page history or moved to draft. ansh 666 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SAFF Club Championship[edit]

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

This is a proposed a tournament. There are no reliable sources that can confirm the starting date. Only a 2016 source that says it'll happen in 2018, but no further sources. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON Coderzombie (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge ~~per nom~~ - my WP:BEFORE check couldn't find anything in the last year on this particular competition, which doesn't bode well for it occuring this year. Soft deletion sounds reasonable, given a change in circumstances would make the refs and info worthwhile again. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be a reasonable judgement - its status of indecision probably give enough to let it be a paragraph. SAFF as suggested by Fenix down would make most sense. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - Continuing delays mean it is not really notable on its own, but looks like it is starting this year. Sufficient sources in the article as is to warrant the brief content being merged with South Asian Football Federation for now and then a standalone article if the tournament takes place. Fenix down (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source that says it will start this year is from 2016. I am a regular follower of Indian Football and I have never heard about it till now. So even my WP:TOOSOON argument was generous at best. I'd suggest delete or even draftify to a userpage, but wouldn't mind a redirect. Coderzombie (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I originally thought draftify, but it's been worked on by a reasonable number of different users so not sure draftifying is best bit. I was willing to consider merge as a paragraph on this tournament that has (seemingly) fizzled out would be worthwhile in its own right, even if it isn't actually going to occur. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article not similar to this proposed articel European Super League (association football) , merge into the SAFF page rather than just delete, there's sufficent references. Coderzombie, just because you have never heard of it, doesn't mean to say it's not a valid article. It may just show your not a regular follower as you thought you were? Interested to see suggestions for this article European Super League (association football) Druryfire (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to go by what I have or haven't heard. The fact is that all the sources mentioned say that this is something being proposed with no clarity on when exactly it'll start or if it'll start, that's why it's too soon. Coderzombie (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify without prejudice - appears to be WP:TOOSOON, and if the event doesn't take, it won't be notable. SportingFlyer talk 20:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:06, 19 May 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. Consensus is that there are too many WP:OR and WP:MEDRS sourcing problems with this content to allow us to keep it. Sandstein 07:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitive eating[edit]

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

Utter dreck that has been in Wikipedia since it was created in 2006. It has never been loved but has been filled and then depleted of horseshit fad diet shilling and various academics promoting themselves. I had speedied this and the tag was stripped so now we have to go through this exercise. There are ~~some reviews~~ some reviews but if you look at the them they can be summarized as saying "small shitty studies have been done that we can't learn anything from". It is not worth keeping this. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC) (redact fix pubmed link; had filter activated but not in search URL, now it is. sorry Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as entire books are written about it. The reviews do not say what the nomination claims -- that's a false quotation. Instead, they say things like "Research on intuitive eating has increased in recent years. Extant research demonstrates substantial and consistent associations between intuitive eating and both lower BMI and better psychological health." Note also that the nominator removed most of the content from the page before nominating it for deletion, including lots of sources. Andrew D. (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I removed was a huge bolus of bad content added by a student who is part of a class that has generally added bad content to WP articles, and the members of which have been nominating each other's "improved" pages for DYK and then even approving each others' nominations. Blech all around. Your summary of the history, the literature and this page are all incorrect. If you look at the body of the review from which you quote, instead of the abstract (see WP:NOABSTRACT) you will see that it says There is a dearth of research including a broad mix of respondents/participants such that results can be generalised to the larger population. And the next time you strip a speedy nomination you should explain why.Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have declined the speedy deletion tag -- this was and is not "blatently promotion" and "in need of a total rewrite" as WP:CSD#G11 specifies. In fact I ahve removed the ((advert)) tag, as this does not even appear sufficiently promotional to warrant a cleanup tag, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes that DYK thing is a big problem. If you post some diffs (here or on my talk page), I will be glad to help follow up on that. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the article at DYK and was thinking of reviewing it. I expected to flag it as needing significant work but, as there was so much material, needed more time to go through it. As for the literature review, my quote is quite accurate as a summary of the conclusions. The point about calling for more research is so common in reviews that it's a cliché. There's always more to find out and, in this case, they want more studies of other groups besides Caucasian women, who were the focus of most studies considered. That's not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agreed it's not a reason to delete, and apologies I wasn't more precise. I meant I was concerned that students were approving one another's DYKs especially on any topic in the vicinity of medicine; that has nothing to do with AfD, it's just a big problem of its own. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted bit is a lazy grab at the abstract and you know this. If you are working competently you pay attention to the evaluation of the evidence. The part i quoted is the most important part in terms of generalizing that conclusion. You are correct that this one sentence is not a reason to delete. I am not going to respond to you further, andrew d.. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 3) Hey, so, this is way outside my expertise and I tagged in some projects and categories precisely because I had some concerns when I encountered the entry at DYK and wanted more experienced eyes on. I guess what I'm wondering is, just as a person out in the world, this is an expression I have heard not infrequently and if the studies really aren't good, wouldn't it be worthwhile for encyclopedia readers to find an entry saying that? I'm not ivoting because like I say, this is not my area of expertise so I won't pretend I have a handle on medical notability, but it just seems to me it could be useful to readers for this to be cut back to whatever can or can't be said confidently based on what studies there are (and looks like PubMed lists almost 100 that at least touch on the topic?), and page protect if necessary to keep out future promo, unsubstantiated claims, etc. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only five of those pubmed hits are reviews. I linked to them in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I think the link might be broken? When I click it, I get 99 hits (or I did yesterday; today 100). Just FYI Jytdog. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes i saved the wrong URL. in pubmed you can just "filter" by reviews, without having that in the search URL. I have fixed it so the filter is baked in. Sorry.Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that it is not worth it. Nobody competent has spent any time on this for twelve years and what we have had is embarrassingly bad academic shilling and promotionalism. If you vote !keep you better be ready to put your own time into making this a competent article and to keeping the crap out that keeps getting dumped into this. There is a ton of media and academic hype and it will be a LOT of work to maintain. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has lots of articles about diets such as the grapefruit diet, the morning banana diet, the werewolf diet and many more. Intuitive eating is comparatively sensible; eating when you feel hungry and not otherwise. We should obviously have pages about this as well as the crank and fad diets. If the pages are imperfect then they should be improved, not deleted as that's our policy. Andrew D. (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood about the significance of the task. In addition to Andrew's remarks about other diet pages and applicable policy, which I tend to agree with, I'm also actually not so sure that deleting would be less work than trimming and protecting the page; if deleted, it will very surely be recreated, and, I think it's quite difficult to make a case to salt a topic on which a valid entry could be written just because it has not been. I'll note, also, that while the entry had been neglected for such a long time, within 24 hours of my tagging in a number of additional projects and categories, three new editors were on the page. The seven-day window of AfD may give us some further indication on whether improvements would continue. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this gone. This is one of those cases where there is a chance that the community will keep this, and I will feel obligated to fix it because people will prance in here and vote keep and then prance away leaving this steaming pile of shit behind. My feeling blackmailed that way is my own deal though; i own that :) Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I just gotta say, I relate to that last sentence so hard :) Innisfree987 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't agree with @Andrew Davidson:'s assertion that "eating when you feel hungry and not otherwise" ... "is comparatively sensible." As the article on Hunger (motivational state) makes pretty clear, hunger is a multifactorial beast, with psychological and social components in addition to 'mere' physiological ones. "Eating when you feel hungry and not otherwise" could actually be a really bad piece of medical advice for some people. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 09:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Medical article filled with OR essay-style fluff? Kill it with fire. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Parts are written like an WP:ADVERT, the blog posts of a non-notable "nutritional counsellor" are used extensively, a search on Google Scholar suggests that this is a hobby-horse of a very small group of researchers (particularly a Tracy Tylka), obviously very little interest in making this a balanced article, and the potential for dissemination of poor medical advice. Deletey McDeleteface. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 09:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Hijiri88. A rambling piece of OR. No justifiable reason for keeping this in the encyclopedia, and spare me please, of the need to list all the policies/guidelines why it shouldn't be WP:TNT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by user:Andrew Davidson, the current version of the article is misleading with regard to the scientific support or lack thereof for intuitive eating. The current version has 10 citations and various errors and advertisements whereas the deleted version has over 60 citations (most of which are from peer reviewed journals). The idea that only review articles are acceptable for a psychology topic is untenable as you would then need to delete all wikipedia psychology topics that are less than at least five years old (as there is enough work done to aggregate a review). Arguing that the 30 or so studies on this topic are terrible is essentially saying that you know more about this topic than the editors and reviewers who are scientific experts in this area. Also, this page needs to be recategorized as psychology and not medicine so that the evaluation can be more appropriate given the standards in that field. Also, there should be discussion of whether or not the prior content and 50 additional sources should be deleted (this was a unilateral decision by an editor who knew the student status of the editor). If the deletion is warranted then there should be no worries as the collective wikipedia group of editors will agree with the edit. In summary -- It is important for everyone to be able to evaluate the revised version before voting for deletion and the category should not be medicine.Prof Haeffel (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prof Haeffel thank for your note. I will disclose for you, since you didn't, that you are the professor for the class I mentioned above, and the person who added the huge bolus of bad content is your student. I am sorry that you don't understand our sourcing requirements for content about health, WP:MEDRS. There are only five reviews in pubmed; and I am not sure how many of those reviews would hold up under the criteria (i am really not sure, I would need to look at them further). Content about whether diet advice is effective for maintaining or optimizing health, or for weight loss, and whether it is safe, unambiguously falls under MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that deletion listings are not univocal--we tag in as many different topics as might draw editors with something useful to say on the subject. It's essentially just a notification system; right now this AfD listed to "medicine" and "food and drink" (and categorized as "organisation, corporation or product"). Anyone can add more as they see fit: WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting (that said--just to head off any possible difficulties--I'll note that in 100-odd AfDs, I don't believe I've ever seen a listing category removed, and doing so without explicit consensus probably would not go over well.) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Prof Haeffel was reacting to the deletion sorting. Well what I said about sourcing is still true; the studies cited by the student were primary sources (per WP:MEDDEF) and not OK, as are the refs in the article now. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I was only responding to that one aspect--don't want to speak for Prof Haeffel but I believe they were also trying to raise a number of other issues, and delsort was just the only one for which I had something useful (I hope) to add! Will let you and others carry on addressing the rest. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, of course I am biased toward my students. Probably as much as you seem to be biased against them (as we've had discussions prior to this). Given the biases, shall we agree to both remove ourselves further from this and let the community decide? I appreciate your rigid enforcement of the MEDRS rules. The problem is that you seem to be holding this article to a standard that is not consistent with similar articles (even in medicine). For example, Exercise is likely one of the most important factors for both physical and mental health, and yet there are citations from Slate magazine and an encyclopedia. If you look at Operant conditioning one of the most important theories in all of psychology, and the basis for most behavior therapies, you see that there are only 5 or so review articles out of 78 citations (and citations include "eurogamer" and random books). Similarly, if you look up meditation (which like dieting has clear implications for health) it appears there are only a handful of review articles (out of 200 citations! of which most are books). And finally, if you actually look at the main DIETING page you can see that it does not conform to your standards at all (50 citations including a USA Today citation and about 4 review articles). So, it is only fair to nominate the main Dieting page for deletion as well and maybe a whole host of other ones. I found these examples in about 5 minutes. The revised article is at least as good as existing articles in these areas (it has a similar amount of review articles and, unlike other articles, NO non-peer reviewed journal articles.) It is also concerning that you have put yourself in the position of evaluating the review articles ("i am really not sure, I would need to look at them further"). It would seem that if the reviews are published in peer reviewed journals then that job has been done by other experts in that area. Anyhow, I ask that you please consider putting the revision back and allow the community to decide as we both may be biased in this situation.Prof Haeffel (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The community is deciding whether to keep this or not, in this discussion. Your response has nothing to do with how we operate here nor with this deletion discussion. Please do not continue to abuse your editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To compare the page under discussion to other pages, arguing for similar or different application of policies is a legitimate form of expression at an AfD, and in no way an abuse of editing privileges. Such arguments are sometimes persuasive, but perhaps more often discounted, as is discussed at Other Stuff Exists. It is also legitimate to argue that current policy or practice should change, or an exception be made under WP:IAR such arguments are rarely successful, but sometimes gain traction. The comment above seems rather close to the line of what is acceptable to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am going to revert the page to the status at which point it was nominated for deletion. A large amount of content was added including over 50 citations (which somewhat addresses the "over citing of Evans" issue noted below). It was this content (a "bolus of bad content") that apparently motivated the current discussion for deleting the page. Thus, it is unclear why the content was removed prior to nomination for deletion. I assume it will be okay with the individual who nominated the page for deletion to restore that content because it will only help his or her cause given how terrible that content was...and given that it was the reason for deletion in the first place. It would also be useful for discussion and voting to articulate why a secondary article on a theory of dieting is up for deletion while the primary dieting page is not up for deletion. Both appear to suffer from the same problem with citations -- as "being a review in the literature is a minimum requirement" for the cited material. Finally, restoring the new content directly applies to determining if the page meets criteria for TNT. Do the extra citations and content clearly show that nothing is salvageable for this page.Prof Haeffel (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free (and worse, unsolicited) advice so, you'll be getting what you paid for!, but Prof Haeffel, since you have taken an interest in this entry, you might consider pursuing what we sometimes call the WP:HEYMANN approach, namely to go ahead and make the changes that would respond to the concerns of the delete ivoters, e.g. about the kinds of sources used. A page improved in the course of AfD often is the easiest way to resolve the debate, and seems especially promising in a case where most participants appear to agree the topic could be notable and the question is more whether there is content worth keeping: WP:AfD is not cleanup but the fact is, anyone who can make it clear in the entry itself that a page adheres to policy will likely have a significant impact on the debate (moreso, I think, than only restoring a version with a large number of citations if they don't meet MEDRS standards; at this point, this AfD has a large number of highly experienced participants who will be attune to things like Wikipedia:Citation_overkill#Notability_bomb). Anyway, WP:VOLUNTEER always applies so there's no obligation; just an option based on my experience of responding to AfD nominations I disagreed with. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that this is in fact a notable topic, and I do not find the nominator's expressed reasons for deletion to be other than a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Whether this is sound medical advice is irrelevant, as we don't give medical advice in any case. Whether this is in fact the sort of topic that falls under WP:MEDRS I am not sure of. But even assuming that it is, that does not affect the notability of the topic. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that the current version is mode closely in compliance with MEDRS than the version with 66 cited sources including 5 review articles. Prof Haeffel, you should be aware that that version was not deleted, but only reverted. It remains in the edit history, and could be restored by any editor, although that should not be done against consensus (See WP:BRD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:DESiegel vote as you will but your edit here was bad. The page is horribly promotional for the academics who cooked up the concept and whose work is cited multiple times -- and if you don't believe that academics abuse WP for promotion I have several COIN and SPI threads you can review. You can start with this one, which feels mighty relevant. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I will agree that Evans is overcited in the current version. I have no need to be told that academic promotion exists on Wikipedia, I have seem much of it myself. I never hinted that such a thing does not occur. Nonetheless, I don't think he article as a whole is promotional in the sense that a cleanup tag is warranted. If this is kept the matter can be debated on the article talk page, or any changes that any editor thinks would improve things can be made, and if need be, discussed. If there is a consensus to delete, then the matter of a tag becomes moot. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:TNT. There may be a notable topic here somewhere but this article's ain't it. A "rambling piece of OR" sums it up pretty well. No prejudice to recreation if can be done in a standard, encyclopedic manner. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, K.e.coffman, would you say the same of this version? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC) @K.e.coffman: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that is a mini-review stuck into WP, assembling a narrative from primary sources. That is not what we do in WP (we try to teach experts not do this in WP:EXPERT). This is all the worse for doing that with clinical studies. We summarize secondary sources. That is deep in the guts of WP -- here, sources are authoritative, not editors. It is also especially important for health which is why MEDRS has broad and deep consensus in the community. And within the field of health, psych and social psych have been especially prone to very badly done clinical studies that aren't replicable, as described in Replication crisis. That diff is not providing the public with content that summarizes accepted knowledge as defined in the field; it is somebody's mini-review/essay. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just can’t help myself in commenting on your note Jytdog. I’m assuming that you are providing that link to the Replication Crisis with a bit of a wink (or that you must get the irony). You use the Replication Crisis page to support your argument for the importance of secondary sources. But, did you look at the references for that page? Now that is an article that needs to be nominated for deletion because of an essay commentary without secondary sources that is summarized by the editors! If you provided this an example of another article that needs to be deleted, then I’d be on board. It has citations from the New Yorker, Chronicles of higher education, editorials from perspectives in psych science, and less than handful of secondary sources (maybe only 1 even). Again, just another example of articles that have problems, and yet, are not singled out for actual deletion. And even with the problems noted for the current article, the question remains if they meet the criteria for deletion of a page or rather the need to revise a page?Prof Haeffel (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you are making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Wikipedia is full of bad content, and pointing at how shitty other articles are, in the context of discussion of a shitty article, is a newbie, tendentious argument. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why it is strange to question a citation someone is using to support their argument. You are making a point about how secondary references are critical to ensure the validity/veracity of an article; then you cite an article that, according to your own standards, cannot be trusted. Seems important. Anyhow, all of this back and forth and finger pointing/name calling you like to do (newbie, you should know better, etc.) still does not address the main point of whether or not the article meets standards for deletion. The substantive issues seem to have gotten lost in bickering; I believe the article can "speak for itself" and that the community of users will make a good decision. Thanks for the discussion.Prof Haeffel (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says: As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments related to existing notability policies and guidelines in deletion discussions, and also to consider otherwise valid matters of precedent and consistency, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged. and Jytdog is using it in precisely the way in which it says it should not be used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am using it the way it is commonly used. Do not point at bad content to justify other bad content. Why you are actively promoting a line of argument that would ultimately lead to all of WP being crappy, is very much beyond me - that is what this argument leads to. And I did exactly explain -- I wrote "Wikipedia is full of bad content, and pointing at how shitty other articles are, in the context of discussion of a shitty article, is a newbie, tendentious argument". Do not misrepresent me again. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That common use of WP:OSE is a mistake, a misuse, and should be countered every time it is made, by anyone. I do not see that doing so is in any way a line of argument that would ultimately lead to all of WP being crappy. It seemed to me (and still does) that your commented incorrectly interpreted the comment by Prof Haeffel to which it was a reply. Prof Haeffel's argument was, if i understand it correctly, that other articles which are not seen generally as "shitty" use sources not in accordance with MEDRS, even though they deal to some extent with medical topics, and that you were pointing to one such article to justify part of your own argument, and that therefore such sourcing has effective consensus. One might disagree with that position, but I don't think it can fairly be described as a newbie, tendentious argument. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a pet peeve of yours. Pointing at shitty content to justify the existing of shitty content is indeed a newbie, tendentious argument. Content that is badly sourced is one of the banes of this place and thwarts our mission. The only authority here is sources. Badly sourced content is bad, on a fundamental level. It is also often harmful or misleading -- promotional or UNDUE or out of sync with what accepted knowledge actually is. More broadly, what you are doing, DES, is encouraging a teacher who barely understands what we do here, and who has led and intends to keep leading groups of students into WP, and is here arguing badly and tendentiously, in their behavior. That is good for precisely no one. I will not be responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and send to Draft until sourcing can be improved. Primary sources need to be trimmed. Whole thing needs to be toned down and made more encyclopedic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out that if this page is to be moved to draft, it cannot be deleted, as attribution must be maintained via the history. I could support a view of Draftify. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could be into this if there were someone versed in the relevant policy (or interested in learning the policy and willing to seek out, e.g., advice from the Medicine project before moving this back to mainspace) who wanted it userfied to their workspace. However, we've now had some 80 edits to this page without anyone making meaningful improvement to the entry itself beyond the one big cut (...which badly needs still more cutting--info on recruiting patients?!! good god), so I'm increasingly persuaded Jytdog is right to doubt such a person will materialize. I've never ivoted TNT before and I continue to have concerns the page will simply be recreated with the same problems, but at least in that case NPR reviewers would be able to see this deletion discussion...

And then not so much a response to you DES, but just to put my thoughts on other comments on the record: I am utterly unpersuaded by the idea that we should keep some unreliable health info because we haven't yet gotten rid of all the unreliable health info we ought to delete. I think this is a clear case where no info is better than shaky info, for the reasons Famousdog points to. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask the wikipedia community for one final clarification about deletion guidelines regarding the current article (as well as future articles). From what I can tell, this article was nominated for deletion by Jytdog because of too many primary citations and a lack of secondary sources (i.e., does not meet MEDRS standards). As he explained: ""We summarize secondary sources. That is deep in the guts of WP -- here, sources are authoritative, not editors. It is also especially important for health which is why MEDRS has broad and deep consensus in the community.” This point is not disputed. Now, there must be another implicit or explicit guideline that a newbie such as myself is not aware of. Jytdog, it appears, that you have worked on the meditation article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation), but have not nominated it for deletion. This article also does not meet MEDRS standards. It is based almost entirely on well over a hundred primary sources. So, we have a case of 2 articles, both of which do not MEDRS standards. Both of which have mainly primary sources. One article was nominated for deletion whereas the other article was given help/revisions. I do not bring this up as a case of OtherStuffExists but rather to identify the standard or guideline that determines a decision of revise versus delete. Can anyone please point me to the official wikipedia guideline that would determine, when you have two articles that do not meet MEDRS guidelines, when there should be revision versus deletion. Clearly this decision must not be dependent entirely on MEDRS standards or both would be deleted. Further, according to official guidelines “Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required….even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome…..at any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.”Thank you in advance for helping to identify the guidelines that determine this decision; I will take the answer off air.Prof Haeffel (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you restored the student's edit. That is actually helpful with regard to my nomination - your action, as well as the edit you restored, show how difficult it is to keep this page anything approaching decent, with respect to WP's policies and guidelines.

With regard to your again bringing up another article. WP is a volunteer project. There is only so much a person can do in a day. You are again personalizing this instead of dealing with the policy issues here. I have no more to say to you in this discussion. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify my argument. I’m sorry for doing a poor job explaining it originally. I did not intend to imply that all other poor articles need to be nominated for deletion before it is appropriate to nominate this article for deletion. As many have noted this is untenable and there are time constraints (which seems to come with the implicit assumption that if there were more time, then all those other articles would also be deleted). It is for this exact reason that I tried to find a specific example that removes the confound of time. In the example, time was not needed to search out another bad article. The meditation article was viewed and it was deemed revisable despite having many, if not all, of the same issues as the current one. A regular edit was made, which likely takes a similar amount of time as typing a nominate for deletion. So, "available time" is not a factor explaining the difference. I was hoping to gain insight into what led to the two different decisions as this could possibly be used to set a new precedent for when, given two articles that do not meet MEDRS standards, to revise or delete. If known, it could be extremely useful and perhaps help generate new guidelines that could help improve the entire encyclopedia. That said, perhaps its not systematic and it just random and it comes down to some “shitty” articles are acceptable and others aren’t. Was hoping to illuminate either way. Finally, this is an opportunity to help a new editor. It is unclear why her personal status as a student (or mine) was brought up, as this is not a content issue; but now that it is known, might be useful to review this again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers).Prof Haeffel (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, sometimes new editors find the WP:Teahouse useful when other areas of the project feel confounding. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete--Nukeable stuff.And, what all sed above:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not promotional? What is this, "Through intuitive eating, health selfishness, and body positivity, one can reach one's unique and full health potential without surrendering to society's idea of beauty or hurting themselves physically and emotionally." and "develop self-trust around eating challenging or "forbidden" foods, practice being more mindful at meal times in a safe and supportive environment", and "Hawks claims the underlying philosophies of intuitive eating are thousands of years old and exist in most eastern and some western religions. Intuitive eating is designed to be a "common sense, hunger-based approach to eating," where participants are encouraged to eat when and only when their body tells them it is hungry." and now I'm just quoting the entire article because all of it is junk. Straight out of a self-help book or marketing for a new diet.

And the first sentence of MEDRS is "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are widely used as a source for health information." for a reason; bad articles on health related topics aren't acceptable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you all for your feedback on my edits and for your interest in the intuitive eating article at large. In keeping up with this discussion, it has become clear to me that each of you is deeply committed to informing the public using reliable and rigorous scientific evidence, especially when it comes to health, which I truly appreciate.
As a new editor hoping to learn from the criticism my edits received prior to their reversion, I have a few questions. Regarding the WP:MEDRS, I understand and respect the guideline that it is not the prerogative of Wikipedia editors but rather scientific experts to assemble a narrative regarding the research on a given topic in their fields. As such, I understand why it is problematic that I have used peer reviewed journal articles rather than literature reviews in my coverage of intuitive eating, now that the topic has been classified within the domain of the medicine project. However, I remain somewhat confused about why my mistake subjected my edits to reversion and the entire article to deletion, when many of the article's studies and findings are also explained in this literature review, for example. Were the citation to be changed, would the article then become more acceptable? The literature review also calls attention to the fact that research on this topic has been primarily cross-sectional, so this citation would support the former "Limitations" section I added as well. Would simply changing citations from research studies to literature reviews demonstrate that the article should not be deleted?
Beyond the "letter of the law" regarding MEDRS, I have a few questions about the law's intent. I understand how literature reviews can be used to eliminate the influence of editors' bias, as scientific experts are the ones putting the findings into proper perspective. However, in editing a particular Wikipedia article, don't editors still make implicit decisions about what is worth highlighting, even if they entirely rely on these reviews? Inevitably, we still prioritize some sources at the expense of others. While I fully acknowledge the task of citing every single literature review on a given topic, particularly if broad or prevalent, would be insurmountable, I am left wondering how it is possible for any article not to include some degree of editor bias, even with the best of intentions. This seems like one reason why it is so great that Wikipedia allows for the contributions of so many editors! But if an article is deleted, are we allowing for this progress, or are we bordering on WP:CENSOR?
Lastly, I welcome any suggestions for how to make my writing less "essay-style" and more encyclopedic. The countless essays I have written have always included theses statements, personal commentary and original thought to supplement citations, and somewhat elevated language appropriate for an academic setting. Though the current article is not reflective of my own edits, I made a concerted effort to avoid opinionated statements or language, unnecessary verbosity, and overly complicated diction, so it would be very helpful to hear how I can do better next time.
Please note that I am not asking these questions for a grade or deadline. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to learn from you. Cgorman4 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks so much for your reply Cgorman4! To try to give you succinct answers to your various questions:

1. Yes if you trimmed back your version of the entry to only what could be cited to literature reviews (while fully and fairly representing the conclusions of those lit reviews, i.e. not cherrypicking--more below), and made those refs clear, that is the best bet (from what I too have learned in this extended discussion!) for having an impact on the viability of the entry. The leading concern here has been the absence of someone interested in taking on that significant amount of work.

2. Certainly we deal with editor selection bias all the time. We have a lot of policies aimed at managing these issues, like WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT that instruct editors to follow the material as it was presented in the reliable source; if they don't do so (e.g. if they cherrypick the conclusions they like), they're liable to be challenged by others. Questions on how or whether this works effectively are probably best suited to the talk page of the related guideline, rather AfD. What I'd say here is mainly that censorship is generally not going to be compelling argument for inclusion of shaky science (whether at level of a stand-alone entry or content within an entry), for reasons that are baked into the history of how WP sourcing policies developed. I’ll leave a longer description of this on your talk page.

3. I’ll also be glad to give you some style feedback there too (in interests of keeping the AfD discussion focused on its task.)

I hope to get to these last two tonight but it might take me a day or two. Thanks in advance for your patience, and again for your reply here. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CGorman thanks for your notes; what you ask is not appropriate to answer here at AfD; I will respond on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Cgorman4 (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 24 May 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.