Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 July	10 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darin Johnson[edit]

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

Contested PROD with the removal based on the rationale that the subject is "borderline notable". Subject is a basketballer who wasn't drafted at all (rather than just not as high as WP:NHOOPS would require) and is yet to play professionally. I don't see him meeting GNG at present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:HOOPS, never played in league, wasn't drafted, isn't signed to any team. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBASKETBALL by not having played in a league or ever having been drafted. --Kbabej (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Borderline but with some reasonable sourcing and a lack of anybody motivated to comment on this one, no consensus seems the best option. (non-admin closure) — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Whifler[edit]

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

Non-notable. Single reference is LA times article that refers to work done by subject that is unverified/not cited elsewhere. Lorfuzbot (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ( T / C ) 02:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he does have some reliable source coverage for his music video work such as LA Times and google news search above shows a few others Atlantic306 (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Wallace Lincoln[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO; he was an 11 year old boy with no notable contributions whatsoever. Notability is not inherited. Kbabej (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Todd Lincoln was the only really notable child of Abraham Lincoln. I propose that we merge William Wallace Lincoln, Edward Baker Lincoln, and Tad Lincoln into a single article, Descendants of Abraham Lincoln. bd2412 T 22:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per bd2412. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Willie has in depth coverage in many biographies of Lincoln as well as in scholarship on white house life (and deaths). When people are known and famed only because they are related to another person, it is important not to confuse a dictionary definition of "notability" and WP:N. Similarly, WP:INHERIT doesn't say that notability shouldn't be established using a biography of a relative or another person. Also, an article on Willie and Eddie might be a bit OR, as their lives didn't really overlap and they are often discussed separately, except sometimes when scholarship discussed the effect on their deaths on their parents. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is quite an interesting case as a lot has been written on Willie Lincoln by academics and other authors, but probably only because he was a president's son. However his death is (unsurprisingly) said to have had an impact on Lincoln's presidency. Equally his and Tad's lives in the White House do seem to have attracted much comment by contemporaries of Lincoln. Whether this merits a separate article for Willie, or the material could simply be included in another article is a difficult call, but I would lean towards it. Dunarc (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes influence goes beyond professional accomplishments - awards or records or publications or whatever. Sometimes a life is simply lived, and that life itself has notability because of its influence on others or on the culture of the day. Willie's life and his death had an influence on the President of the United States, on his conduct of the war, on the First Lady of the United States. He's been the subject of stories and articles and children's books. This reminds me a bit of Christopher McCandless, a person who, during his life, did nothing notable in the eyes of the world. But then in January 1993 a writer called Jon Krakauer wrote about McCandless in Outside magazine, and then in 1997 he wrote the book about McCandless, Into the Wild. Then there's the film based on Krakauer's books and also a documentary about Mccandleuss. So yeah...I think McCandless is notable and that Willie Lincoln is notable. Shearonink (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many, many references to Willie Lincoln and his brothers in secondary sources. In life and in death, Willie and Tad - and to a lesser extent, Willie - strongly influenced President Abraham Lincoln and his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln. If notability is reduced merely to professional accomplishments, we'd be deleting Mary Todd Lincoln as well, and that would be ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.174.212 (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think Willie's death (sadly) is the most impact reason to keep the article. The effect his death had on Lincoln is quite note worthy. I think that the death of a child has on a sitting president. That being said it might be better if the article was expanded to include information on how his death impacted the remainder of Lincoln's presidency. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Hill (Greater Victoria)[edit]

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

Non-notable ill-defined neighbourhood. Cannot verify sources. NoGhost (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Ramsey[edit]

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

In short I planned to source this article however there's next to none sources on her, Searched Google News, Google Books as well as HighBeam[1] however there's barely anything!, IMHO TOOSOON, Fails NACTOR #2 and #3 as well as GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Jade Ramsey (her sister) for the exact same reason - IMHO TOOSOON, Fails NACTOR #2 and #3 as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wolfeboro, New Hampshire#Education. So Why 09:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfeboro Camp School[edit]

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

No media coverage and no inherent notability. Fails WP:ORG. It has little to no media coverage, and is not any significant academic institution. It feels promotional, and the article was created by the same author Hyungjoo98, who has written dozens of articles promoting the school. He has received multiple speedy deletion tags on his pages, and has deleted them all. Peapod21 (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability, promo. John from Idegon (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wolfeboro,_New_Hampshire#Education, where I merged a ref and where the camp/school is mentioned by name. Not enough reliable sources for a dedicated article. czar 19:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have not wrote any promotional material regarding the Wolfeboro Camp School. Secondly, this particular institution has notability as a notable example of a academic summer camp, which has been featured in the mainstream news ex. NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/nyregion/taking-summer-school-to-get-ahead-not-catch-up.html) Hyungjoo98 (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, its written. Now that that's aside, I have to point out the source you listed is about NMH's camp, not Wolfeboro. It mentioned it once in a fleeting notice, and never again. If I were to consider a mention of a thing to be press coverage, everything would be on Wikipedia. The article doesn't talk about the camp's merits, notability, or history, but says that a girl just happened to go there before attending a more notable camp. Please, stop promoting institutions you attend or have attended. It makes a waste of everyone's time. alphalfalfa^(talk) 01:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could support a redirect, based on the nature of a camp as a geographic feature, not in anyway on the notability of said camp. And sorry, when every single one of an editor's edits concern a particular institution or things associated with it, and virtually all have been either reverted or deleted, the problem isn't with Wikipedia in general, it is with the particular editor, who needs to figure this out sooner rather than later. John from Idegon (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mark Smith[edit]

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

The subject does not meet the notability standard per WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC or WP:ARTIST. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article further. I believe that my contribution within the disability arts world was notable and significant. I have included references that show my involvement. This movement helped lead to the creation and form of disability rights legislation in the U.K. So would be of interest to anyone researching this era and subject.

Best wishes

Simon Mark Smith Simon1a (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do feel a personal connection to this article as the activism of people like Simon Smith helped make things better for disabled people in my country - but that is why I will not be voting either way on this article. While I believe that the movement itself is notable enough for an article (and such an article could certainly refer to Simon Smith), I do have to say to Simon1a that he should not be creating or editing an article on himself as autobiographies and conflict of interest editing are both against Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the edits themselves are not of an appropriate tone for an encyclopaedia article, and the citations are absolutely unacceptable - they are just copied sections of text from the reviews (that is copyright violation/plagiarism) or links to unsuitable (ie, self-published or user-created) sources such as YouTube. Rather than the autobiography of a single person involved in the movement, I would far rather see a decent article dealing with the bigger picture of the Disability rights movement in the United Kingdom. Currently, all we have is a tiny section on Disability rights movement and a pretty negligible/sketchy article at Disability in the United Kingdom). Mabalu (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - worthy cause, but I don't see evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will Ashley De Leon[edit]

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

Yet another working actor who does not meet WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. No support from WP:RS. IMDB page just shows another working actor paying their dues, and you know it don't come easy. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not contain any references whatsoever. Has yet to meet WP:GNG --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vir Unis[edit]

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

Non-notable composer. It appears he's done some composition for notable films but I can find no evidence that he was a major part of it and more importantly, no actual coverage of this individual under either name. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet GNG or any automatic criteria. (no credible indication that he was a major part of any notable film work. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Refs added since nomination, Nominator appears to have changed their mind as well. This article seems to need to be worked on, not deleted. (non-admin closure) — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Christian[edit]

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

Non notable lawyer. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a great amount work done on the article in terms of refs added, but is she notable. Somebody need to come in and take a look scope_creep (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Jades (Canadian band)[edit]

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

Although this band includes one member who was later famous, the band itself made only one performance and no recordings. Almost all of the history section will need to be deleted because it is a copyright violation of http://www.angelfire.com/rock2/traces/pages/keeperoftheflame.html, which has had this content since at least 2001. Most of the content is not about the band anyway. Although there is mention of the band in reliable sources about Neil Young, they all give the same three of four facts mentioned here, which could be added to Young's article if desired. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What little content we can properly source about this band can be dispatched with one or two sentences in Neil Young, without needing a whole separate standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While perhaps slightly worthy of a footnote in biographical articles of the members, a "band" who had a single performance and no recordings hardly qualifies as a "band", and certainly sustains no notability based on the sources provided. The two references provided are to the same site, albeit different pages, and one page doesn't even mention them. The other the does...that's it; just mentions them. Total failure of WP:NBAND, with a slight exception with point #6. However, there's nothing to go on here as there is no material for the band, no recordings, no writeups, no reviews, nothing. The copyright violation is of course problematic, but would be wiped out by the deletion anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: _Please_ do not relist this. Two weeks of presence on AfD is plenty. Another relisting will not produce anything useful. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DevTernity[edit]

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

Deprodded without improvement. Searches turned up virtually nothing about this conference. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Based on the article this tech conference is unlikely to be notable, and there are no references supporting notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No WP:RS provided and I could not find any good-quality ones. GretLomborg (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My own searches for reliable secondary sources turns up nothing. Fails WP:GNG. While the conference exists, they have a long, long way to go before they are notable to our standards. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above searches come up with nothing. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Patrick[edit]

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

I spent a good amount of time adding new references in the chance that this would pass GNG, but there are very few sources. The subject does not meet any criteria for notability as a biography, not PROF or BASIC. Here's a breakdown of the sources in the article.

1 is from an open-access, integrative medicine journal, and the info is extracted from a promo-style bio at the bottom of the text.

2 is reliable, but cited her once and does not go into any depth on her biography

3 is her PhD dissertation, and does not establish notability.

4 is the best source here, but does not go into much detail on her. The article discusses the paper she published about vit. D from the integrative medicine journal.

5-7 are articles in a magazine that each cite her for one quote. The magazine is real and seems reliable, but it doesn't do very well for notability.

I would like to point out a comment by DGG on the previous AfD that was settled as "no consensus": [2] No meaningful content to establish notability has since been added. Delta13C (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel the Boston Globe article plus the fact that she's a regular guest (can't get the link formatting to work) on The Joe Rogan Experience (16 million monthly downloads per its article) meets WP:NACADEMIC point 7. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick has been a guest on the Joe Rogan show six times by my count. They are friends as stated in her appearances, so I'd be careful interpreting her appearances as independent of the source. The article in Boston Globe helps her notability, but this is one article covering a paper about vitamin D playing a role in serotonin production. IMO, this does not rise to the level of point 7 in WP:NACADEMIC. The bar should be much higher. Delta13C (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Google News Archive s fritzing out lately and I'm having a hard time linking to her search results. But she's mentioned in several sources I found through it. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. (I wish Google would stop breaking some of their most useful features). - Scarpy (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw all of those on previous my search, and I even did a deeper search in academic indices. I incorporated only the reliable sources, of which there are few and they do a poor job of establishing notability. The ones rejected in your list were either press releases or blogs. Delta13C (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should also add [12], [13]. Can you share the results of your search? - Scarpy (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Think Big article does not discuss her in depth, as it just links to a video. The article is completely about microbiota, and in the linked video Patrick interviews two scholars, but she is not an expert in microbiota. The second link is already cited in the article, which I added when I did my search. The results of the academic search were zero. I thought there may be academic commentaries about her research, but there were not. Thus, she still fails NACADEMIC and BASIC. Delta13C (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first AfD was in 2015, for which I basically argued that her junior career status and vitD work were TOOSOON. In checking again, she seems to have dropped out of academia and works full time on her "Found My Fitness" business and promoting herself and her business on YouTube, Twitter, etc. No recent research papers have been published, according to both her own website and GS. Conclusive fail of PROF. I agree that the Rogan show is not independent. Also, the article itself has some problematic aspects in that it repeats some of her medical claims but sources these to glossy publications, not medical journals. Given her gigantic YouTube presence, she seems to be trying to position herself as a pop-star medical host/commentator, e.g. like Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz. But, given that she has not (yet) been noted in the same way, it is still TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with User:GretLomborg, she has had substantial impact. - Scarpy (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpy, can you be more specific on what impact she made and by how much? Delta13C (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claims made against her status so far seem biased and speculative (e.g. she's aiming to be a "pop-star medical host/commentator" and "appears to have dropped out of academia.") What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. She's been discussed multiple sources and has notable impact as a nutrition educator outside of her other academic efforts. I really don't see why this is a discussion other than that the bias of other editors sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. - Scarpy (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She runs an enormous YouTube channel having ~90,000 subscribers containing a wide collection of videos where she gives lots of advice (much of it medically related, though she has no credentials nor MD) on everything from depression to Alzheimer's to Lyme disease, psychedelic therapies, cancer, cholesterol, longevity, etc., etc. etc. She solicits crowdfunding money for FoundMyFitness, promotes herself and her advice machine across all the major social media venues...Hmm...you're right. I don't know how anyone could conclude that she's trying to be a pop-star medical commentator. The trouble with Hitchens's razor is that it doesn't apply to propositions whose truth value is obvious upon observation. Agricola44 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I think by "enormous Youtube channel" you mean that she has a lot of uploaded content rather than an "enormous" number of subscribers as 90,000 strikes me as being too low for her to be considered a notable YouTube star. jps (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely. Sorry if that was not expressed clearly. The point I tried to make is that her MO of peddling advice on a wide variety of medical issues directly to the general public (here via YouTube) is eminently consistent with one who wants to be, what I referred to above, a "pop-star medical commentator". I agree again that 90K is not very high. YouTube commentators like Josh Axe have much higher subscriber bases, but no WP art. For Rhonda Patrick, it's TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

She has not been discussed in depth by any source, but only has trivial mentions in a few sources. IMO, there is not even enough known about her to know what is not to like. Delta13C (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not finding a lot about her (and most of the sources seem to be Outside magazine). Not a lot of published work. But there is a small amount here. She seems to be notable, to a very few people. Thus a weak delete, she maybe more notable them I am picking up, but I am just not picking it up.Slatersteven (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One well cited book and paper. Not enough for WP:Prof. Other sources are trivial mentions. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- WP:PROF not satisfied and unlikely to be in the future. WP:CELEBRITY not there yet either. jps (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:PROF, WP:CELEBRITY, and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per reasons stated above. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete This person is marginally notable. I respect what she is trying to do in forging a career outside of academia where her PhD is useful, but the article as it was created was promotional from the get-go, and is only getting worse in that regard. We cannot be a vehicle for promotion. I'll also add that in addition to the promotionalism here, she appears to be promoting more and more FRINGEy stuff, and that is only going to make it harder for us to keep this article NPOV, as there will be less and less reliable sourcing even addressing what she is doing. Time to delete this. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hate to jump on the pack, but yeah, not notable, no automatic criteria here. Time to axe this one. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Spurgeon Jr.[edit]

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

I don't believe that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG. He gets mentions in sources such as this and this, but there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. From architectural history perspective, confident that Mr. Spurgeon's 33 houses in southern California does not amount to notability. Edit history suggests an axe being ground, maybe a family history axe, maybe a local history axe, maybe a real estate market axe. --Lockley (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Baker Lincoln[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. A three-year-old who gained no notability in his own right. Notability is not conferred from famous relatives. Kbabej (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge William Wallace Lincoln, Edward Baker Lincoln, and Tad Lincoln into a single article, Descendants of Abraham Lincoln. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Wallace Lincoln (same). bd2412 T 22:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Eddie has some coverage in many biographies of Lincoln as well as in scholarship on white house life (and deaths). I am away from my desk and can't say for sure if the coverage is often in depth, but we know more about this person than perhaps any other frontier child from that era who died so young. For this reason I didn't !vote "weak keep" although the evidence isn't as clear as for Willie. As I noted in the Willie's AFD, when people are known and famed only because they are related to another person, it is important not to confuse a dictionary definition of "notability in ones own right" and WP:N. Similarly, WP:INHERIT doesn't say that notability shouldn't be established using a biography of a relative or another person. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As with the Willie Lincoln article this is a difficult call, but is even less clear cut. The big difference for me is that Willie died while Lincoln was in the White House and his death (and to an extent his life) can more clearly be argued to have had an important impact on the Lincoln presidency than Eddie's. As it stands I think the article is useful, but I am not sure if the subject meets notability in his own right. If deletion is decided upon the material should be moved elsewhere, possibly to a family of Abraham Lincoln article. Dunarc (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While Edward Baker Lincoln does not apparently fulfill the additional WP:ANYBIO parameters, he does fulfill WP:BASIC & WP:GNG. His life & his death are an important part of our understanding of Abraham Lincoln and of Mary Todd Lincoln. Shearonink (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sufficient sourcing for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shearonink. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete or redirect to father. Well-sourced but completely NN, apart from notability inherited from father. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Artists being wrongly listed can be addressed by editing. Consensus is that this is an allowed navigational aid. So Why 09:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of progressive house artists[edit]

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

Indiscriminate unsourced "fan-made" list. Content not suitable for the encyclopedia as original research. - TheMagnificentist 19:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails OR, LIST. Indiscriminate, but probably okay as a category if some criteria could be established regarding the genre. South Nashua (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator actually created Category:Progressive house musicians, so I'm confused by this nomination. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories are different from articles and don't need sources. E.g. a person who is not deceased is presumed to have the category "Living people". The category addition of "progressive house musicians" is done by referring to the information available on the articles. - TheMagnificentist 02:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that doesn't make sense. It's the same information either way. And it isn't the presence or lack of supporting sources in an article that makes a statement verifiable or OR, it's simply whether those supporting sources exist. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Progressive house musicians: as noted, fails WP:LIST and WP:OR, and similar lists in the past now redirect to their respective category. Note that List of house music artists should also be redirected to a relevant category, probably Category:House musicians. Richard3120 (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LIST is an index of guidelines. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP as an index of articles complementary to Category:Progressive house musicians. The only reason we'd ever delete a list as OR is if its underlying concept is unverifiable such that membership could not be verified by RS for any entries. That clearly is not claimed here as the nominator supports (and created) the corresponding category, yet somehow thinks the same information is OR just because it's presented in a list? That's not a coherent deletion rationale, and if the information is verifiable, then sources exist and the format in which it is presented has no impact on that. If this list has erroneous entries, fix it. Generally speaking, if the category properly applies it should be included in the list as well and vice versa (and if anything, lists can be more tolerant of borderline inclusion because they can annotate where and why sources disagree on a classification). Side note: Whether this should be renamed to List of progressive house musicians to match the category (or the other way around) should be addressed once this is closed. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Postdlf: My problem with this list is that probably 90% of it is indeed unverifiable by RS for the artists' entries. Just looking at the entries under "A", Avicii has "progressive house" listed under his genres despite no references suggesting that (and indeed I think most people would be surprised to see him called a progressive house DJ), and ATB and DJ Antoine are also included despite no references to progressive house whatsoever in their respective articles. I understand your reasoning, but at the moment the article is an unreferenced and seemingly indiscriminate list of DJs of all genres, and it needs cutting down dramatically and proper criteria applied to justify its keeping. Richard3120 (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Avicii article lists progressive house in the infobox. Both Beatport and Discogs list numerous progressive house tracks by Avicii. These are the probable reasons why that artist is included. DJ Antoine is in the proghouse cat and may of been added to the list because of that. I see this artist does have some tracks that are in the proghouse category at beatport. Its both a referencing issue and a criteria determination that needs addressing before deletion. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is useful list similar to dub, downtempo and house artists. I haven't seen a reason for deletion. I can see it needs better references and in the long term possibly conversion into a table with fields, but not removal or redirect. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shiftchange: could you explain please how it is useful if it includes so many artists who shouldn't be on this list? Richard3120 (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Music genres (and therefore who, and who does not produces music in a specific genre) are fuzzy, unlike defined geographical borders, for example. If the article requires improvement in this respect we should have a discussion about criteria for inclusion. We should also move towards some consensus on reliability of sources because there is some contention about using beatport.com. I'm comfortable with having a list that not everyone agrees with but of course we should find sources to support statements. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Shiftchange: No problem – apologies if I came across as aggressive, I was just asking for some clarification on how you viewed the list. You're absolutely right about genres – when editing music articles it's an area I rarely get involved in, but it seems to account for the majority of edit wars on music articles... I find it baffling that people argue over "correct genres" but do nothing to improve the article itself. Anyway, yes, I think we should only include artists in the list who have been called "progressive house" by reliable sources, even though that often means including quite different artists (I can't hear any musical similarity whatsoever between Sasha and Swedish House Mafia, for example, but I can find references that list both as playing progressive house, so they are both included in the list). Discogs and Beatport aren't usually considered RS, so perhaps there needs to be a discussion on that. Richard3120 (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because we don't delete articles for fixable problems. You surmised that 90% is inaccurate, even assuming that's true that still leaves 10% of the current entries. That's work that may not get done for a long time, but that still doesn't weigh towards deletion, and deletion certainly doesn't help development one bit. If it's a notable genre, and if there are notable musicians that verifiably qualify as belonging to/working in that genre, then these should be listed. All else is editing, not deletion, according to policy. postdlf (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Postdlf: that's fine, I just wanted to see where we stand. So you wouldn't object if I (or anyone else) talke an axe to the list and trim it down considerably to those artists we can reliably reference? Richard3120 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's usually best not to drastically change an article while an AFD is pending. But so long as your removals are based on what we cannot source, not merely what we have not yet sourced, WP:PRESERVE is satisfied. It may also be considered reasonable to remove entries from this list (and the category) if the article does not even mention this genre. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, thank you – I won't change anything for now because otherwise it will affect the opinions of other editors who may want to comment on this AfD but will see a completely different article from the one that was put up for deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Progressive house musicians. Also meets WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational aid. For example:

The list article has received 1,996 page views in the last 30 days, whereas
The category page has received only 141 page views in the last 30 days.

– Concerns about verification, etc. can be addressed by copy editing the article and adding sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. There is no consensus to delete this. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Gard treatment controversy[edit]

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

This (article at the time of this nomination) is really Wikipedia at its worst. NOTNEWS and TOOSOON are relevant here. This is completely 24-hours news cycle driven and most of the article is WP:COATRACK/OFFTOPIC/CRYSTALBALL hype about the investigational treatment that is ~proposed~ to be given to this poor kid. Not to mention the BLP/privacy issues for the kid and his family. Not to mention the gossip about Trump's latest tweeting. Delete and salt. We can create an article on this in a year or two when there is something encyclopedic to say, if there is anything. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with jytdog's reasoning.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
note - I have trimmed to this, which makes it even more clear that this hijacked Wikipedia page is blow-by-blow recording of news. Not what we do here - not an encyclopedia article. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. This has received widespread international coverage and both Pope Francis and Donald Trump are involved. Apparently, now congressional legislation has been introduced to make Charlie Gard a U.S resident so he can receive this experimental treatment in the U.S.[14] The controversy has been widely discussed regarding bioethical issues such as right to die with dignity as well as parental rights. Clean up and fix the article instead of deleting. --DynaGirl (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That it is "hot news" is irrelevant. You also say nothing about the BLP issues here, which are very relevant. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure I see BLP violations in the previous or stripped down version of the article but I brought the issue to WP:BLPN to get more eyes on it.--DynaGirl (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's time WP:NOTNEWS was taken seriously, particularly for grief-porn gossip like this. Alexbrn (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grief porn. hm. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS Elvisbrandenburgkremmen (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as it seems to be becoming an important, notable, medical ethics case per WP:GNG. As I read it now, it seems to have been trimmed to make it more encyclopedic, and an article will be needed at some point. But it will need careful attention as it is is essence a BLP, and to avoid more, non-neutral day-to-day updates.Jrfw51 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome...Seems an acceptable recommendation if link is maintained in this article. However, I do not agree is OFFTOPIC and CRYSTALBALL to include scientific references from EMBO Journal and PNAS (deleted several times today, WHY??) that are relevant for the case from a medical point of view. Scientific censorship is acceptable in Wikipedia? DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2017‎ (UTC) — DoctorBiochemistry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep WP:NOTNEWS says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" This is getting 4000 hits a day. People are expecting us to cover it somewhere. There are lots of decent news sources dealing with this controversy so I would call it a significant current event. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There's a possibility this might become notable, but the existing controversy definitely is not. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With around 4000 hits per day it should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to merging to the disease article and keeping the WEIGHT there minimal. That, or delete. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it was a mistake to create this article so soon. But now that it was created we can cover it at Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. If it gets too long in about 6 months or a year then it will end up being unmerged. It may get longer because of the Trump-effect. Articles like this can be difficult to write. The line between news and MEDRS can get blurred for new editors. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could close the AFD discussion and move it to a draft page and briefly mention it in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Then redirect the page to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome to the appropriate section. QuackGuru (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's an idea but with something that raises passions like this, as well as with the vocal presence of people who confuse Wikipedia with some kind of semi-gussied-up current-events blog, we need a consensus decision to have something stable. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Depending on the close, you may be able to add it to a draft page with a brief mention in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. With this much recent news new editors need a place to edit. You don't want all the mess added to the Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it doesn't seem like a good option to merge with Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome because it seems most of the reliable source coverage regarding this controversy is not specific to the disease, but rather regarding right to die with dignity vs parental rights etc. It involves bioethical issues regarding who decides (or should decide) if treatment is continued or discontinued. The coverage heavily involves the political issues such as Donald Trump's involvement and the proposed congressional legislation to make Charlie Gard a U.S resident so he can receive this experimental treatment in the U.S. The sourcing also heavily involves religious issues such as Pope Francis' involvement and religious objections to ending life support. None of this would fit well in the Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome article. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, issues such as Pope Francis' and President Trump's involvement and the controversy would be lost if the article were merged to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, but, one can argue that that loss would be a GOOD thing, because all that stuff is disapproved by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, with the caveat that editors are welcome to undelete once the child has died and there are considered secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The case could very easily find a place in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome it would also add the ethics of life/death that unfortunately have come with this case and condition, to those reading the article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, and make sure a search for "Charlie Gard" redirects there. (Just my humble opinion/suggestion). HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this doesn't seem out of place in List of medical ethics cases or its corresponding template. The substance, the degree of international notice, and the weight of legal precedent being set seem comparable to the Schiavo case and similar. Chris Smowton (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original Charlie Gard article is an excellent short summary, quite neutral in tone, and is NOT too soon. The parents have publicized their campaign, they have raised 1.3 million Pounds for the US treatment, and organized a 350,000 signature petition just handed in to 10 Downing Street (home of UK Prime Minister May); so they are not going to object to (in fact they would support) a Wikipedia article; whether published before or after death does not matter in this case. The article should be retained in its current format, updated as current events change - eg there will need to be an update to cover the 10 July court case decision discussing new evidence indicating that nucleoside therapy may indeed work (10% chance). User:anthonyb-uk 09:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's received extensive news coverage over a significant period of time and internationally, but it also involves important issues of English law, such as it's likely to be of continuing relevance. Could do with more explanation of legal issues. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- as Jyt indicated we are NOTNEWS,.. however(reiterating what I indicated above), the case could very easily find a place in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, it would also add the ethics of life/death that unfortunately have come with this case and condition, to those reading the article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying not to repeat myself, as others are doing, but I think this is notable for the legal ethical issues raised regarding parental-clinician-court decisions rather than what it adds to the entry about the the syndrome. Jrfw51 (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not "Wikipedia at its worst." The issue is not going away but getting bigger and is on its way to becoming a landmark case. – Athaenara ✉ 14:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is WP at its worst. And "becoming a landmark case" is a 100% CRYSTALBALL claim. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - similar to the Ashya King case and the other cases in Template:Medical_ethics_cases. I don't see what makes this case any different. Smurrayinchester 15:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This is Terri Schiavo's state-sanctioned murder all over again, only this time it's in the UK. We need to keep this article up, per Athanenara and Colapeninsula ! К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 15:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an absolutely facile nomination. The topic meets WP:GNG by a country mile, has been discussed in the UK parliament and in the UK Supreme Court, and has involved both Pope and POTUS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an internationally notable legal and medical-ethics issue, the enduring nature of which has been established, so NOTNEWS doesn't apply. The White House and Vatican are involved; there may be an attempt to make the boy an American permanent resident. Charlie Gard treatment controversy and Charlie Gard have had over 42,500 hits since 30 June. A merge with the disease isn't appropriate, because it's about parental rights and the individual versus the state, not about the disease. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this case and its ramifications are far too important to be treated as a footnote/paragraph in a page about an obscure disease – Athaenara ✉ 16:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Others have put it much better than I, but it is clear to me that this is a case of international significance and importance. It is far from driven by a 24-hour news cycle: this issue has been at the height of controversy for many months and it will continue to be discussed for many more months to come. Specto73 (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received wide coverage from all over the world Spiderone 17:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to re-iterate - the fact that we are getting !votes giving similarities to "Terri Schiavo's state-sanctioned murder" as a putatively policy-based reason to !keep this article - in other words, that are very clear that this page in WP should be part of an advocacy effort to "save Charlie" - shows that it will be impossible to maintain any kind of neutrality here, especially in light of this being breaking news with no sources that have any distance from the unfolding events. To the extent that there are serious medicolegal and ethical issues here, scholarly sources summarizing them are not available here and now, in the heat of this moment. WP is not and cannot be used as a vehicle for advocacy for any side of this dispute, and people's efforts to do so, exactly violate BLP. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Since you quoted me , I'll respond:

I didn't vote keep to advocate, that's not Wikipedia's place. I voted keep so that we can report the reliably - sourced facts in this case, and because it's important and has world-wide ramifications. I would not and will not use Wikipedia to advocate anything , that would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view . Reporting the reliably - sourced facts (via reliably sourced information ) would not. К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 19:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:KoshVorlon you have now simply misrepresented what you actually wrote which was, in its entirety *KEEP This is Terri Schiavo's state-sanctioned murder all over again, only this time it's in the UK. We need to keep this article up, per Athanenara and Colapeninsula !. It is almost impossible for a !vote to be less policy-based and more advocacy-based than that, complete with all-caps, bolding, exclamation points, and nonencyclopedic reference to a related case. This kind of fundamental violating of the principles and policies that allow Wikipedia to function at all (first ignoring WP policy in !voting, and then misrepresenting that !vote), are again why we should delete this article - topics like this are not encyclopedic fodder while they are unfolding. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog So, it looks like you didn't read my statement very well, I made a declarative statement then said keep per the reasons given by Athaneara and Colapenisula, both of which, especially, Colapenisula's , is very much policy based. Yes, I have a POV on this article and on Terri Schiavo's article which is why I've been observing a voluntary TBAN on both articles. К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 20:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply but I will not continue this. We have both said our piece. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I googled Charlie Gard, and was very very happy to see that Wikipedia had an article on it. Much better quality info and a better overview than the "news" sites. DlronW (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject (Charlie) has now become notable. If treatment is successful he will become a James Phipps, who as a child was used as medical guinea pig and helped to advance medical science. Aspro (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I decry the way our society has turned this case into a huge issue, but nevertheless that is what has happened. This is a big event, with repeated headlines across multiple newspapers over an extended period of time. We should cover it. Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OFFTOPIC

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This discussion page is proof why wikipedia doesn't make it to top 10 most visited sites and can make 0$ from advertising. Anti-Trumpers, Clinton lovers, neo-liberal violence promoters all want decent pages to be deleted. Total control of speech is their concept of free speech (first amendment and other countries' laws be damned). Look at them promoting the virtue of privacy of a little boy while pretending to need no privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.141.20 (talk • contribs)

LOL. Wikipedia is in the top 10, number 6 if I recall correctly, and if it would allow advertisements then it would make shitloads of money. The closest things we got to ads are banners begging for donations, and people donate a large amount each time one of those banners is displayed. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number 5 actually. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dislike this article, the news coverage and the way the issue has been handled in almost every way, except by GOS and the courts themselves.

That said, I cannot see any way in which this article doesn't meet WP standards for inclusion. Delete it for reasons of basic human decency (which isn't a thing on WP), but there is no WP policy reason to delete it, and that's what we have to base this decision on. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important case involving parental rights. Been front page in several newspapers and has attracted comments from U.K. parliament, the Vatican and the Whitehouse. Hence not low key. However perhaps changes to current article be suspended until after on going court case has been decided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.223.243 (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Shiny Planet[edit]

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

This series is not notable. There are no BSP-specific references in the article. The series had a short lifespan and doesn't have enough coverage or success in Christian media. LABcrabs (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 19:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There may be information out there about Big Shiny Planet, but as it stands, none of the four references are anything to do with the company, and the list of artists are presumably the artists whose music was used in the teaching materials – they were not signed to or affiliated with BSP in any way at all, so it's misleading to list them here. Richard3120 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. For example, taking just BarlowGirl, only one song was featured on Big Shiny Planet (BSP): "Grey". In contrast, the band's Secret Keeper Girl (SKG) devotional sampled about a dozen of songs and at least three were connected to the teachings. I have to question the entire raison d'être of the BSP article. It was very short to begin with and I wouldn't be surprised if BSP itself was behind it and other BSP mentions on Wikipedia. --LABcrabs (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karmjot Uppal[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. One published book without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One link to Amazon doesn't an independent source make. This is borderline a speedy delete. --Hirsutism (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Teenager, who compiled book of quotes and published it by himself on Amazon. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivals of European Public Broadcasting[edit]

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

This was declined for WP:G1, perhaps not unreasonably, but is one of a number of nonsensical articles created by the same editor. It is unclear what the subject is, unsourced, and tells us that "Rivals of European Public Broadcasters were Beating The 5 Majority Broadcasters in European Union were BBC,ARD,NPO,ITV,SRG SSR these Broadcasters Were all 5 other than European Broadcasters otherwise Main Rivals Contains Pillages more than €10,000,000 Revenues Allowing for Producing Programs". Perhaps it is supposed to be an essay? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is hard to understand, and I'm not sure it describes an actual topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails WP:NOTDIR as it is a simple listing of competitors (of European Public Broadcasting) in addition to not making any sense as already mentioned. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A move to the hoax museum should be asked for on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Abner[edit]

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

Probable hoax article. See Talk:Henry Abner#No external record of any of these novels for unsuccessful efforts to substantiate the article's content. Deor (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Henry Abner (without leaving behind a redirect), as this has survived for long enough to be included as a subpage to our "repository" of hoax articles. From the talk page discussion it's clear that the subject is not mentioned in any of the sources that were checked. I've pesonally tried verifying two of the references, without success. – Uanfala 18:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I'm new to Wikipedia, and not quite sure how this works, but I've been spending some time this weekend looking at this and thought it would be useful to list what I've found. If this is the wrong place or way to do that, please let me know.

A) There is no record of any pre-2016 book by a Henry Abner on worldcat, the British Library catalogue, Amazon, or Abebooks. This includes all of the supposed novels listed.

B) The 'Crime, Mystery, & Gangster Fiction Magazine Index' of pulp fiction authors contains no mention this author existing.

C) None of the 'references' that can be verified of the article contain any reference to an author called a Henry Abner. (Full details on article's talk page)

D) None of the references that have been checked make any reference to the short stories they are cited as discussing.

E) Two sources, in particular, are repeatedly cited: 'Sampson, Robert (1988). Yesterday's Faces' and 'Gerould, K.F. (August 3, 1935). "Murder for Pastime". Saturday Review of Literature: 33.' Both have been checked and neither contain any reference to a Henry Abner, or the supposed works presented in the article.

F) No google search of the titles of the short stories by me or a couple of other editors has yet turned up any positive id of their existence.

G) Some claims about the existence of the stories are flatly counter-factual. Most notably, the 1925 editions of Flynn's do not contain the short story attributed to them, and no issue of Flynn's contains any reference to a Henry Abner.

H) The article was predominantly the creation of a single author (PulpFan35), who originally included an image of a different author before later changing the article image to the present one.

I) The present article image appears to be a doctored image from this source.

It's my feeling that the article contains no notable factual information and should be deleted.Landscape repton (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: J) Two more of the references have been checked and found wanting. The full archive of Publishers Weekly is text-searchable and contains no reference to a Henry Abner in any edition. New York Libraries ceased publication nearly two years before the supposed edition cited by the article. Details on the talk page of the article.

At this stage, every reference cited to attest to Henry Abner as an author has been found to be misrepresented, and contains no reference to such a figure. These constitute 19 of the 25 footnotes. Landscape repton (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 20:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. His alleged first novel, Death Wears Yellow Garters, is a title Raymond Chandler made up in his essay "The Simple Art of Murder"[15][16] (though Rae D. Magdon was inspired to use the title much later). None of the other writing claims hold water either. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Original poster of the aforementioned Imgur album here. Apologies if my formatting is incorrect, as I'm brand new to Wikipedia. I can assure you that Henry Abner Sturdivant was indeed a real person. Our family records back up the claims about his personal life, law enforcement career, and death. The images I posted in the Imgur album were scans of newspaper clippings personally collected by the family. Several of these newspaper articles are verifiable by checking the archives of the respective papers. I personally found a number of references to the Sturdivant family (and their service as chiefs of police of both Washington and Atlanta, Georgia) within the historic archives of the Atlanta Journal Constitution (here's one example abstract, the full articles are unfortunately behind a paywall: abstract). The Washington newspaper archives are significantly harder to track down, as they seem to only exist in mirofiche form within the Washington/Wilkes County library (and the last few times I tried to access them the viewing machine was not operable). I can also verify that portrait of HA Sturdivant posted here is from the family archives. It was indeed created from the newspaper photo, but was done so at the time of Sturdivant's death, for use at his funeral. Apparently, it was the only professionally taken photograph of him that was accessible or possibly that was ever taken. As far as the writing career goes, it was all news to us (Sturdivant's ancestors), as I mentioned in the Imgur post. We were happy to learn about something exciting and new about our ancestor, but from the looks of things here it might seem that the information given to us has not been the most factual. Bramicles (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if he was a real person. The problem is he's not a real, notable person, certainly not as an WP:AUTHOR nor as the police chief of Washington, Georgia (pop. c. 4k today). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image's use on this page is still odd. It was uploaded by a user named TheJanosCorporation as their 'Own Work' on Nov 1 2016. That's almost two months before it first appeared on Imgur by a user named Bramicles on Dec 29 2016. Landscape repton (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion is the first participation on Wiki by User:Bramicles. Carrite (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems clear that a lot of information in this article is incorrect. Eagleash (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. I find the presentation of investigation on the talk page to be compelling. Carrite (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having looked through the various investigations here and at the talk page, it is a reasonably safe bet that this is a Hoax. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability of the subject is clearly established. (non-admin closure) — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Fink (psychoanalyst)[edit]

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

Fails GNG, PROF South Nashua (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Dr. Bruce Fink is the foremost interpreter of Lacan in America. He is the author of six books on Lacan (which have been translated into many different languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, German, Polish, Croatian, Greek, Turkish, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese). His books have been published by top-notch academic publishers like Harvard University Press, Princeton University Press, Polity etc. Here are links to some secondary sources which establish his importance:

He has also given talks on Lacan and conducted workshops with Lacanian psychoanalysts are various places:

This is enough to establish his notability per WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLAR Mohanbhan (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this is what Google Scholar shows. The very first book in the list has been cited 769 times! He is notable beyond dispute. Mohanbhan (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. South Nashua (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. South Nashua (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. South Nashua (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mohanbhan. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mohanbhan. No question on this subject's notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. The redirect's target's AfD can proceed at its own pace. GoldenRing (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki Vidis[edit]

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

Looks unremarkable and fails pornbio. If the program is notable then redirect there. Otherwise delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for those involved in the creation of pronography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kiki's American Adventure - There does not appear to be enough readily-available sourcing about the subject here for a stand-alone article at this time. Guy1890 (talk)
Redirect to Kiki's American Adventure. This article fails WP:PORNBIO on its own. --Kbabej (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am striking my 'redirect' vote above. Having looked at Kiki's American Adventure, I do not think the film is notable enough to stand as an article on its own either. I think this article and the film's article should therefore be deleted. --Kbabej (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have nominated Kiki's American Adventure for deletion here. --Kbabej (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kiki's American Adventure. Even if the show is non-notable as well, as long as the article exists, it's a valid redirect target and if it happens to be deleted, the redirect will be deleted as well anyway. Regards So Why 09:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SoWhy. - TheMagnificentist 12:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Much of the discussion is spent on discussing the POV of the article, which should happen on the talk page - also, whether the plot was indeed driven by ISIS or not is not really related to notability. Anyhow, it seems like most of the opinions are keeps so going for that Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson[edit]

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

Single event with no historical significance or lasting notability. Texbook example of WP:NOTNEWS. Another article created by an editor with a history of creating articles that reflect negatively on Muslims or Islam. CrispyGlover (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crispy; just fyi, it is common courtesy to notify article creator when an article is taken to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a big enough event to warrant an article- Almost all the sources are not actually about it. Maybe merge/add a mention of the event under some other article - do we have a 'sectarian violence in Sweden' page this could go on? --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 17:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be misleading. This attack was directed remotely by ISIS, it was not confined to "sectarian violence in Sweden", but, rather, is one of a number of ISIS attacks on Shia communities and mosques worldwide, now sourced in article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In light of these sources and your points, It's clear to me that this ought to be a Keep. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Amusingly, Trump's assertion last winter that this attack was "under-reported" was probably true at the time, but the attack has since undergone several rounds of international coverage: 1.) in response to Trump's remarks, 2.) as part of a wave of international coverage of Islamic violence in what had hitherto been regarded as the peaceful Swedish utopia by an international media that was genuinely shocked by the 2017 Rinkeby riots in February, 3.) as the trial got underway in March 2016 and when it concluded in early June, 2017, 4.) in the context of the May 2017 attack on a mosque near Stockholm, and 5.) in late June 2017 when an arrest in Germany made it clear that this was indeed an ISIS attack. (That last round of coverage prompted me to write this article. Well, that, plus my horror over course of several years as what I still think of fondly as the idyllic old port town of Malmo descended into third-world levels of crime, smuggling, lawlessness, poverty, and gang violence.) And oh yes, after being acquitted by Swedish courts on all counts, the perp is back in jail and facing a second trial that will inevitably produce a new round of international coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that ISIS quickly claimed this attack, describing it as the Islamic State's first attack in Scandinavia. The claim was dismissed at the time. But it was true and is now part of this attack's notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you need to read the source about the arrest in Germany more carefully. IF proven, it proves that someone in Europe contacted the perp and reported to Amaq AFTER the event. If proven it would show that ISIS have 'reporters'/ verifiers in Europe. There is no suggestion in the source of active involvement in planning the event. Pincrete (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC) … … ps could you please provide a source that the original accused is "is back in jail and facing a second trial", because the source given mentions a different person accused of 'reporting' for Amaq, it says nothing about the original accused. Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom's assertion that this attack is a "Texbook example of WP:NOTNEWS" with "no historical significance or lasting notability." serves to demonstrate Nom's utter failure to perform WP:BEFORE, while the remainder of his skimpy justification for deletion demonstrates the WP:IDONTLIKEIT motivation of this nomination. In fact, this is the inverse of a NOTNEWS event; there was hardly any coverage when this attack occurred, a tiny blip in coverage a couple of weeks later when ISIS claimed it as an historic first, then, starting about February 2017, a steady drumbeat of international coverage as I detail in my note above.Note also that there will be a second trial and that no coverage in Swedish or languages other than English has yet been added to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per extensive national and international coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no keep/delete opinion at present, however the article title is very PoV. The present legal position is that this is not terrorism and therefore cannot be ISIS related. The most recent sources do NOT claim a relationship to ISIS, they merely claim that an individual in Germany has been arrested for 'reporting' and 'verifying' on behalf of ISIS after this -and other - attacks occurred, by contacting individuals on social media. ISIS involvement is therefore at present very questionable. Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In factwhat sources state is that after a Swedish court acquitted the perp despite the fact that he had ISIS flags and similar all over his personal computer and online footprint. then, in June 2017 an ISIS operative was arrested in Germany and German police released information showing that the ISIS operative was in regular contact with the terrorist who committed the Malmo arson attack before the attack took place and immediately after the event. Perp claimed to be carrying out the attack on behalf of ISIS and teh known ISIS operative immediately claimed credit for the attack online via Amaq News Agency. It's all in article linked fomr page. Here's a snippet form the New York Times story "this does show that they clearly have someone, who is one of their guys, and who is getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our name."E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the man in Germany is accused of is contacting AFTER the event to verify, not "being in regular contact with' as you claim: Mohammad G. contacted his source after the attack to confirm details of what had happened, according to the statement. .... Another expert says: There was an assumption all along that at least a small chunk of ISIS media is run by people in the West,” said Amarnath Amarasingam, ..... “This is an interesting confirmation of something people always suspected. So it’s quite important. ... running a media operation for ISIS does not mean running a terrorist operation for ISIS. Nor is there anywhere any suggestion that the original perp has been or will ever be re-tried (is that even possible in Swedish law?).

The whole quote you give a 'snippet' of is "“We’ve all assumed that they are reading news reports, and then saying, ‘Our guy did this.’ But this is interesting because this does show that they clearly have someone, who is one of their guys, and who is getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our name” .... "in our name" does not mean done by us nor with our involvement. … 'One of their guys' refers to the verifier, not the perp … this is a single speculation by a single individual at this stage. However you are happy to present it as fact in WP's voice both here and in the article and the title. Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

go back and reread. they were in regular contact before the attack, an attack that security services and security analysts are taking as demonstrating not only that the speedy, post attack Amaq claims that have been as regularly initially doubted as they have been speediy verified, are actually the consequence of ISIS inistigated, inspired and directed attacks that Amaq and other ISIS websites claim witamazing speed and accuracy because they were in contackt with the attackers. PINCRETE, we can all see that you WP:DONTLIKEIT, but you WP:DISRUPT discussions when you repeatedly make claims without reading the sources carefully.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if what you say were true (which it plainly isn't), when did an - as yet untested - allegation, become an established fact to be stated in WP voice. Guilty until proven innocent? Pincrete (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would an uninvolved editor please read the above and verify whether this source does indeed confirm that .... "the subsequent arrest of an Amaq News Agency operative in Germany demonstrated that the attack was directed by the Islamic State" . The edit has BLP implications in that it effectively claims that a person is guilty, whom a Swedish court has found innocent and a person in Germany is guilty who has not yet been tried.Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we keep the talk on whether to change the name confined to said article's talk page, instead of here?--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Diamond: I think this discussion between Pincrete and Gregory is more about whether or not the sources are being expressed accurately and appropriately in the article. There looks like there could be serious BLP issues and false claims made in the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is that really relevant to the discussion of notability? --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the talk page. /Julle (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Diamond: it depends. If you read into the incident as it stands now, the arson was not terror related (or at least has not been confirmed by RS). Do you consider an act of arson that caused no casaulties, minor damage, and had no long-term WP:LASTING impact as notable?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still see it as notable due to the accusations of ISIS involvement, and the Trump link.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my own defence, I was concerned that false claims made here (eg "The perp is back in jail and facing a second trial that will inevitably produce a new round of international coverage") and in the article (that there is now proof of ISIS involvement), could affect the outcome of this discussion. Having made that point, I will continue on talk.) Pincrete (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The evidence for this being an ISIS terror attack was tested in court and found wanting. This hasn't been treated as a major event of international importance in Malmö, where it happened. I see few sign of lasting relevance. But that's always difficult to see so soon, of course, so I could be mistaken. /Julle (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You MISSED the recent international news story, sourced her to a major story in the New York Times that emerged AFTER the trial ended demonstrating that this was an ISIS attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that I missed it as that I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't label something an ISIS attack based on an in court untested statement from a prosecutor, reported in another language in a newspaper on another continent. I wouldn't call that verified, nor – at the moment – verifiable. /Julle (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With the exception of the article's creator, unanimous agreement to delete, mostly based on WP:NOTNEWS. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Basirhat communal violence[edit]

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

Apart from WP:NOTNEWS, the article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of sources which includes opinion pieces as well. Jionakeli (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. I'm rather uncomfortable with us having an article entirely about a negative aspect of a living person especially when that person is a minor, the "crime" in this case is unproven, and the incident seems recent enough that the details are probably still unknown. Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (I'm creator of article) (1)Article rewritten and re-titled, hope it addresses Vanamonde93's concerns. (2) The article's subject is notable, the subject's impact is serious, one person has died already and reverberates nationwide, and permanent and ongoing, relates to chain of events related to Freedom of expression controversies, such as Charlie Hebdo shooting, Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy etc.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. --regentspark (comment) 18:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been moved to Souvik Sarkar Facebook post controversy by its creator. Ajf773 (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Updated according to move.~~ Jionakeli (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style." The subject of the article in question is certainly not WP:NOTNEWS

I think you missed "Who's who" point. Also 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Jionakeli (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Who's who" is not related as subject of article isn't Souvik Sarkar, the post is part of a series of violent attacks on FOE in various countries over the years, considering that it has been reported internationally, and has resulted in one at least one death. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any connection of it with "series of violent attacks on FOE in various countries over the years". If "Who's who" not related then why the title itself mentions Souvik Sarkar? You added this source of "police arresting a person for sharing a fake image from a movie as the image of the communal violence" for this edit. It is WP:CHERRY. Jionakeli (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't see" is OR, A TOI and it as a FOE issue, compares it with other such FOE issue,[17][18]

Comment - I find WP:CHERRY after reading all the sources. There are sources such as[19]. Jionakeli (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, I see you urged the creator to move the article to a non-BLP violating name; they didn't do that. I moved it to 2017 Basirhat communal violence, without a redirect, obviously leaving a whole lot of dead links; I'd appreciate your help in solving that issue. I agree, BTW, that the title was unacceptable, and I'm baffled that User:Yogesh Khandke didn't comply immediately; perhaps they need to be notified of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did this title violate BLP guidelines? Be kind enough to explain. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used to "Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy" as model. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know: bad choice. Lars Vilks is a notable person, and an adult to boot. He's not a schoolboy who is accused of having posted something on Facebook. Should have listened to Vanamonde. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone needs to fix this deletion discussion page since it points to a non-existent article. --regentspark (comment) 21:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the problems with fixing BLP violations, User:RegentsPark: 2017 Basirhat communal violence. If you know how to solve it, go for it. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear violation of the Wikipedia is not news policies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing administrator - The article has been renamed to 2017 Basirhat communal violence from Arrest of Souvik Sarkar. The delete votes came before that. Drmies who moved the page didn't use the appropriate title. If any editor searches as "Baduria communal riots", This has been going on for days passes WP:EVENT: Kartik Ghosh; Facebook Baduria.Marvellous Spider-Man 15:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, not all delete votes came after the move. You can ask Drmies for the appropriateness of the page title. The article as it stands is WP:CFORK. There are no sources relating this to "Events relating to freedom of expression" or "Cultural depictions of Muhammad". Few months ago there were similar incident of riots over facebook post in Odisha on April 7, 2017: Communal violence over Facebook post in Bhadrak; Communal tension erupts after offensive Facebook post on Hindu deities and the event is still being covered after 2 months: OHRC seeks govt report on Bhadrak clashes; Clash-hit Bhadrak gears up for celebrations Jionakeli (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- Keep your political agenda to yourself. Don't bring your POV dispute here by showing links to some other article. You can create article about Bhadrak riots to please yourself. Did you create article about lynching of Mohammed Ayub Pandith yet? as you created other articles about lynching. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not lecture me on what to create and what not to. I didn't ask you to keep your political agendas to yourself when you selectively made comments on AFD. The links aren't unrelated because violence over facebook posts are not new in India and it happened irrespective of caste or creed.Jionakeli (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marvellous Spider-Man, two admins considered the title to be a BLP violation. If the creator had listened, these page moves wouldn't have been happening during the AfD, and it's possible that it might be under a different name. Personally I don't care for the title one way or another, whether this one or "Baduria communal riots"; you and the creator could have been involved in that, but the creator chose to replace one BLP violation with another. The current title comes from one of the sources, so it can't be all that wrong, unless of course you know better than the sources. As for your "note" to the closing admin--I've already placed that note, but thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I've gone through wp:BLP one more time after your remarks. Especially privacy of names, considering the emphasis of the subject being a juvenile by you, reliable sources haven't "intentionally concealed his name" and his name has been "widely disseminated" in reliable sources, also WP:CRIME and the issue of victimisation doesn't apply, because incident related to person who put up the post, has been discussed as a victim of continuation of violation of FOE,[20][21] we have an article about a juvenile in a similar situation Rimsha Masih blasphemy case, please say why this article be treated differently. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not the place to discuss this, but I'll tell you that the opening paragraph of the larger section (WP:AVOIDVICTIM) and the BLP1E section give us admins more than enough latitude to consider the original name a violation. You should have looked at the policy when you were first asked about it. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read then and am re-reading now. (1)WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't apply imo, it says "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization", as I've mentioned it above, neither the content nor the tone of article indicates victimisation of the FB poster, just as Rimsha Masih blasphemy case doesn't seek or perpetuate victimisation of Rimsha Masiah, (2) wp:BLP1E, "Subjects notable only for one event", would apply if Sarkar had been the subject of the article, which he isn't, his Facebook post was. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that latter argument, which is pure nonsense, were accepted, you shouldn't have a problem with taking the name out the first time around. Plus, you're wrong: it's the controversy, not the Facebook post that's the subject of the article. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Please maintain decorum and keep this debate civil, please do not attack personally, we are all here to contribute constructively to this project, to the best of our abilities. As creator and major contributor,[22] imho it is controversial incidents related to teenage boy, Souvik Sarkar's FB post that are the subject of this article, incidents such as the burning of his house, his arrest, demands that he be handed over for stoning to death, posters demanding that he be hanged, arson, damage and looting of public and private property, violence against individuals and the killing of one person Kartik Das, all in protest of his post, also that Sarkar is a victim of an attack on his FOE, victim of society and the government, and this has been considered bad for democratic society... (sources for above statements provided in article, as inline citations) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for telling you that you're wrong. Stop playing the victim here. Drmies (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that there is discussion related to merging on this article's talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The demands for stoning to death, to be hanged are all "alleged" reported by few primary news sources. The event is not limited to a single facebook post of a morphed image[23]. The Citizen (India) gives a good insight[24]. An investigation has been ordered to find "who had created the trouble and who spread the rumours"[25] so unless you have sources that support your views, these all are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article 2017 Baduria riots already covers the event. I don't see a need for a separate article on the same event. Jionakeli (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Thompson (Canadian)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist and non-winning candidate for political office, with no strong or well-sourced claim of notability for either endeavor. Journalists do not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist, but must attain certain specific standards of achievement and sourceability for an article to become earned -- and non-winning candidates for office are not notable for that fact at all, but may have articles only if they already cleared another notability standard for another reason. But the referencing here is based mainly on primary sources (his own WordPress blog, press releases, YouTube videos, a directory of his own writing on the website of a publication he wrote for, etc.) that cannot support notability at all -- while the fewer sources that are acceptably reliable ones entail two pieces of the routine level of purely local coverage that an election candidate is simply expected to generate in that election's local media, one glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article that isn't about him, and one article in the publication he wrote for, which is thus not independent of him. So none of the sourcing here is good enough to get him over WP:GNG, and nothing claimed in the article hands him an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of enough quality sourcing to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Subject has not received enough national attention or achievement to be notable yet. ThePortaller (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed/Delete. Not a notable subject. No outstanding achievements that qualify under WP:NOTE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable failed political candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything particularly good here. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MUSHTAQ PAHALGAMI[edit]

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

A local activist. An article is deliberately overloaded with references. Those I looked into, do not even mention him. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Dear ArtHistorian1977, ::Please see, the following news paper, journal and television links for the subject's notability. 
1. http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/

2. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-conflict-ridden-kashmir--55615

3. http://www.millenniumpost.in/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-kashmir-161286?NID=324516
4.  https://web.archive.org/web/20160504121401/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/tourism-ministry-honours-mushtaq-pahalgami/184695.html 
5. https://www.upstreamjournal.org/2016/07/le-cachemire/

and

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF2PEYXWAKw

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1CXYd7W5I

(Also see the complete list of 111 references cited below as 'Full list', which fully meets the core Wikipedia policy values of NPOV, Verfiablity and notability.. and let me know exactly which one do you think dosen't mention the subject Mushtaq Pahalgami/Mushtaq Ahmad/Mushtaq Ahmad Magrey) regards, Samar khurshid (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Hi all, I had created this page (Mushtaq Pahalgami) in 2014 and it had gradually built it over the years. I was trying to merge it with another page that belongs to the organization that this person represents (Himalayan Welfare Organization, Pahalgam). This article got deleted by mistake and I have thus created this new page with the same name and content. There are certain refernces that appeared in more than 1 sources on the same day, hence the repetition, would be very grateful if the community could kindly approve for publishing. Thanks and Regards, Samar Samar khurshid (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is filled with crappy reference spam, and presents no clear case of notability. The page title is also mis-capitalized. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Please take a look at the following news paper, journal and television links for the subject's notability. 
1. http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/

2. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-conflict-ridden-kashmir--55615

3. http://www.millenniumpost.in/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-kashmir-161286?NID=324516

 4.  https://web.archive.org/web/20160504121401/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/tourism-ministry-honours-mushtaq-pahalgami/184695.html

 5. https://www.upstreamjournal.org/2016/07/le-cachemire/

and

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF2PEYXWAKw

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1CXYd7W5I

(Also see the complete list of 111 references cited below as 'Full list' which fully meets the core Wikipedia policy values of NPOV, Verifiablity and notability.. and let me know exactly which one do you think dosen't mention the subject Mushtaq Pahalgami/Mushtaq Ahmad/Mushtaq Ahmad Magrey) Samar khurshid (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (continuing my argument ..) The references I have used have been well accepted by the wider Wikipedia community since 2014 and most clearly mention the activist's name Mushtaq Ahmad Magrey/Mushtaq Pahalgami. Kindly point out the references that do not. Also, the page was accidentally requested for deletion by me, a single author/contributor, and I have requested that it be restored. I have made that appeal to Wikipedia and I make that appeal here on this forum too. References that are repetitious in fact only highlight how wide even the local protests/interventions/action-programs of this person are covered in the media, hence arguing in favour of notablity. Samar khurshid (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following references clearly establish that the subject Mushtaq Pahlgami is a prominent local activist, who has receives state awards for his social contribution and as can be seen, the news has been carried by a very large number of significant local news papers/news networks.

full list

1. "Tourism Ministry Honours Mushtaq Pahalgami". Greater Kashmir. 2015-03-14. Archived from the original on May 4, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-15.

2. "Exclusive Interview". 2017-07-20. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

3. "Lidder pollution watch: Latrines come up on river bank amid save water body signs". 2017-03-12. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

4. "Paradise lost and regained" (PDF). 2017-03-20. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

5. "Education : Pahalgam Without Degree College". 5dariyanews.com. 2014-10-22. Archived from the original on May 4, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

6. "Social activist donates book bank to GHSS Pahalgam - Early Times Newspaper Jammu Kashmir". Earlytimes.in. 2014-10-08. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

7. "PAHALGAMI DONATED BOOK BANK TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY". Kashmir News Service. 25 May 2015. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

8. "Mushtaq Pahalgami donates books". 2015-12-08. Archived from the original on May 4, 2016. Retrieved 2015-12-12.

9. "Eminent social activist Pahalgami donates books to GHSS" (Mushtaq Pahalgami donates books). 2015-12-07. Retrieved 2015-12-12.

10. "Mushtaq Pahalgami donated book bank to Government Higher Secondary School Aishmuqam". 2015-08-08. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

11."himalayan welfare organization donates books". 2016-06-25. Archived from the original on July 4, 2016. Retrieved 2016-07-06.

12. "HWO donates books to students". www.knskashmir.in. 2016-06-25. Retrieved 2016-07-07.

13. ^ "HWO Organized free medical Camp". 5 Dariya News. 2014-09-23. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-05.

Apart from this there are a total of 111 references that very clearly and strongly support the claims in the write-up, and I'd love to debate significance and notability of the subject, based on each one of these supporting references, one by one. As is the case, Wikipedia rules clearly allow the subject notability and that is what I request the wider editorial community to consider.

The complete list of supporting references is as under,

"Tourism Ministry Honours Mushtaq Pahalgami". Greater Kashmir. 2015-03-14. Archived from the original on May 4, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-15.

Jump up ^ "Exclusive Interview". 2017-07-20. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

Jump up ^ "Lidder pollution watch: Latrines come up on river bank amid save water body signs". 2017-03-12. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

Jump up ^ "Paradise lost and regained" (PDF). 2017-03-20. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

Jump up ^ "Education : Pahalgam Without Degree College". 5dariyanews.com. 2014-10-22. Archived from the original on May 4, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

Jump up ^ "Social activist donates book bank to GHSS Pahalgam - Early Times Newspaper Jammu Kashmir". Earlytimes.in. 2014-10-08. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

Jump up ^ "PAHALGAMI DONATED BOOK BANK TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY". Kashmir News Service. 25 May 2015. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "Mushtaq Pahalgami donates books". 2015-12-08. Archived from the original on May 4, 2016. Retrieved 2015-12-12.

Jump up ^ "Eminent social activist Pahalgami donates books to GHSS" (Mushtaq Pahalgami donates books). 2015-12-07. Retrieved 2015-12-12.

Jump up ^ "Mushtaq Pahalgami donated book bank to Government Higher Secondary School Aishmuqam". 2015-08-08. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

Jump up ^ "himalayan welfare organization donates books". 2016-06-25. Archived from the original on July 4, 2016. Retrieved 2016-07-06.

Jump up ^ "HWO donates books to students". www.knskashmir.in. 2016-06-25. Retrieved 2016-07-07. ^ Jump up to: a b "Swine Flu Epidemic:Government Evading Responsibility". Kashmir Excelsior. 2015-02-27. Retrieved 2015-03-05.

Jump up ^ "HWO Organized free medical Camp". 5 Dariya News. 2014-09-23. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-05.

^ Jump up to: a b Kashmir, Precious (2014-08-27). "Environment Protection Law". Precious Kashmir. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

^ Jump up to: a b "Save Pahalgam". Precious Kashmir. 2014-08-19. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

^ Jump up to: a b "Threat to environment - Rising Kashmir.". Risingkashmir.com. 2014-06-20. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

^ Jump up to: a b Pahalgami, Mushtaq (2015-01-11). "Felling and smuggling of trees going on in Pahalgam Golf Course". Kashmir Excelsior. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

^ Jump up to: a b Kashmir, Precious (2015-02-03). "Protect wetlands: HWO". Precious Kashmir. Retrieved 2015-03-05.

Jump up ^ "FIRs BE FILED AGAINST THE PHE DEPARTMENT: PAHALGAMI". Kashmir News Service. 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-15.

Jump up ^ "Sewerage treatment at Pahalgam in shambles, authorities unmoved". Kashmir News Service. 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-04-14.

Jump up ^ "WORLD EARTH DAY CELEBRATED AT PAHALGAM". Kashmir News Service. 22 April 2015. Retrieved 2015-04-23.

Jump up ^ "Leakage in water pipes causes soil erosion in Pahalgam forests". Kashmir Reader. 2015-04-04. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "Amarnath Yatra and The Garbage Crisis". www.kashmirlife.net. 2014-07-05. Archived from the original on 2016-07-06. Retrieved 2016-07-06.

Jump up ^ "Lal Singh anguished over dumping garbage illegally near water bodies". www.jkmonitor.org/. 2016-06-27. Archived from the original on 2016-07-07. Retrieved 2016-07-08.

Jump up ^ "KNS, HWO organizes seminar on RTI". Kashmir News Service. 15 October 2014. Archived from the original on 2014-12-23. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

^ Jump up to: a b "Activist allege government departments for not obeying RTI act". Kashmirdaily.net. 2015-03-04. Retrieved 2015-03-16.

^ Jump up to: a b c "A Long Arduous Struggle for Rights, Conservation of Environment in Pahalgam". Kashmir Excelsior. 2015-03-18. Retrieved 2015-03-18.

^ Jump up to: a b c "Five years on, authorities fail to revise master plan for Pahalgam". Kashmir Reader. 2015-03-30. Retrieved 2015-04-15.

Jump up ^ "Preserve water bodies to save Kashmir". www.greaterkashmir.com. 17 Feb 2017. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

Jump up ^ "MUSHTAQ REPRESENTS HWO, PAHALGAM AT GPIW". Kashmir News Service. 24 May 2015. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

^ Jump up to: a b "Himalayan Welfare Organization holds seminar at Hillway Public School". www.knskashmir.com. 2016-06-04. Archived from the original on June 10, 2016. Retrieved 2016-06-12.

^ Jump up to: a b "HWO holds seminar on World Environment Day". www.greaterkashmir.com/. 2016-06-06. Archived from the original on June 6, 2016. Retrieved 2016-06-12.

^ Jump up to: a b "Himalayan Welfare Organization, Pahalgam organized National Seminar at Aishmuqam". www.5dariyanews.com/. 2016-06-04. Archived from the original on June 5, 2016. Retrieved 2016-06-12.

Jump up ^ "Pahalgam tourism bodies resist shifting of TRC". 2015-12-10. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-12-12.

Jump up ^ "Tackling the many Challanges of Poverty". 5 Dariya News. 2014-10-20. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-05.

Jump up ^ "Save girl save future". 2015-10-14. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-11-01.

Jump up ^ "HWO Expresses Support, Solidarity to ongoing women rights movements in the world". 2015-03-09. Retrieved 2015-03-09.

Jump up ^ "Countering Dowry in Kashmir: The need for collective action". Kashmir Excelsior. 2015-03-18. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-18.

Jump up ^ "Countering Dowry in Kashmir: The need for Collective effort". The Global Kashmir. 2015-07-09. Retrieved 2015-07-12.

Jump up ^ "Municipal Committee polluting major rivulet in Pahalgam with garbage". Kashmir Reader. 24 April 2015. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "SAVE KOLAHOI, SAVE LIDDER ECO-SYSTEM". www.jkmonitor.org. 2016-06-28. Archived from the original on July 6, 2016. Retrieved 2016-06-07.

Jump up ^ "Single doctor runs Pahalgam Civil Hospital". Earlytimes.in. 2015-05-06. Archived from the original on May 8, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-08.

Jump up ^ "World Famous Tourist Resort Pahalgam Sans Basic Facilities – people Protest". inslive.co.in/. 2015-05-06. Archived from the original on May 8, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-08.

Jump up ^ "Pahalgam shuts protest denial share in tourist trade". 2017-05-06. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

Jump up ^ "Pahalgam shuts for civic rights". 2017-05-07. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

Jump up ^ "Pahalgam residents protest proposed relocation of TRC to Yanner". kashmirobserver.net. 2015-12-10. Archived from the original on May 8, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-08.

Jump up ^ "Pahalgam tourism bodies resist shifting of TRC". Earlytimes.in. 2015-12-10. Archived from the original on May 8, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-08.

Jump up ^ "Pahalgam Municipal employees' continue strike". Earlytimes.in. 2015-05-22. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "Abolishing Municipal committee Pahalgam is unconstitutional:Mehraj Lone". www.scoopnews.in. 2015-05-22. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "Railway track at Pahalgam, Sonamarg anti people: Pahalgami". Kashmir News Service. 2015-05-13. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "Government abolishes Pahalgam, Gulmarg Municipal Committees". www.kashmirreader.com/. 2015-05-21. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "Municipal employees begin indefinite strike at Pahalgam". www.kashmirdispatch.com/. 2015-05-22. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "We are also citizens of the state but ignored time and again:Mushtaq Pahalgami". 2015-08-19. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

Jump up ^ "Pahalgam tourism bodies resist shifting of TRC: Accuse Shah of legalizing illegal Yanad huts". Earlytimes.in. 2015-12-10. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

Jump up ^ "Increasingly security-centric yatra has hit tourism inflow: Pahalgam businessmen". www.kashmirreader.com/. 2016-05-30. Archived from the original on May 30, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-31.

Jump up ^ "Amaranth Yatra: Tent Walas protested at Pahalgam". www.jkmonitor.org. 2016-06-26. Archived from the original on July 6, 2016. Retrieved 2016-06-07.

^ Jump up to: a b "Coallition of Unions Pahalgam demands revised master-plan". Kashmir Excelsior. 2015-03-23. Retrieved 2015-03-24.

Jump up ^ "Pahalgam residents urge Mufti to approve MPP". Early Times. 2015-03-23. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-24.

^ Jump up to: a b "HWO Organizes free medical camp". 5 Dariya News. 2014-09-23. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-07.

Jump up ^ "RTI Happenings: J&K: KNS, HWO organizes seminar on RTI". Rtiindia.org. 2014-10-16. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

^ Jump up to: a b "Omar's free ration announcement irks homeless flood victims - Early Times Newspaper Jammu Kashmir". Earlytimes.in. 2014-10-14. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

Jump up ^ "Seminar Held at Aishmuqam". www.knskashmir.com. 2015-03-28. Retrieved 2015-03-31.

Jump up ^ "Kashmir Floods: Are we Asking the Right Questions?". Kashmir Reader. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

^ Jump up to: a b "False Promises and Electoral Woes". 5dariyanews.com. 2014-10-25. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

Jump up ^ "Save forest land in Pahalgam". www.scoopnews.in/. 2016-10-20. Retrieved 2016-10-20.

Jump up ^ "Land Mafia (Mis)using 72-Yr-Old Order To Encroach Forest Land In Pahalgam". www.kashmirlife.net/. 2015-10-09. Retrieved 2016-10-20.

Jump up ^ "Land mafia eyeing prized forestland in Pahalgam". www.earlytimes.in/. 2016-10-02. Retrieved 2016-10-20.

Jump up ^ "Encroachment:Tourist resorts turning into concrete jungles". kashmirobserver.net. 22 June 2016. Retrieved 2016-07-07.

Jump up ^ "Hotel which becomes Pahalgham’s ‘Gair Mumtaz’". www.kashmirleader.net. June 3, 2016. Retrieved 2016-07-07.

Jump up ^ "PDA ruining Baisaran meadow in Pahalgam". Daily Excelsior. 2016-03-27. Retrieved 2016-04-18.

Jump up ^ "Pahalgam residents urge CM to approve MPP". 2016-04-11. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2016-04-18.

Jump up ^ "Tourists, people suffer as public toilets defunct at Pahalgam". Kashmir Reader. 31 March 2016. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2016-04-18.

Jump up ^ "Environmental activists demand action against all influential land grabbers". Kashmir Reader. 2016-02-16. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2016-04-18.

Jump up ^ "Seven months after cabinet approval, Pahalgam master plan unimplemented". Kashmir Reader. 2016-04-12. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved 2016-04-18.

^ Jump up to: a b Pehalgami, Mushtaq (2015-01-29). "Government needs to have a strong forest replenishment policy". Kashmir Excelsior. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

Jump up ^ "PDA foils Ex MLA's land grab attempt in Pahalgam". 2015-12-02. Archived from the original on May 8, 2016. Retrieved 2015-12-12.

Jump up ^ "Hotels Mushroom Along Notified Lidder River Area". kashmirobserver.net. 2016-05-11. Archived from the original on June 28, 2016. Retrieved 2016-06-28.

Jump up ^ "Encroachment: Tourist resorts turning into concrete jungles". www.globalkashmir.net. 2016-06-21. Archived from the original on June 28, 2016. Retrieved 2016-06-28.

Jump up ^ "Government can't bypass High Court, say legal experts". Early Times. 2015-07-07. Archived from the original on May 8, 2016. Retrieved 2015-07-12.

Jump up ^ "Pahalgam residents await implementation of revised master plan". 2017-02-05. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

Jump up ^ "Pahalgam Masterplan and Illegal Constructions:HWO". 2017-01-05. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

Jump up ^ "The Himalayan Welfare Organization organizes free camp". The Global Kashmir. 2015-07-06. Archived from the original on May 4, 2016. Retrieved 2015-07-12.

Jump up ^ "Lawmakers accuse Pollution Control Board of corruption". Kashmir Reader. 7 June 2015. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "Seminar on environment conservation held at Pahalgam". Greater Kashmir. 2015-06-06. Archived from the original on May 8, 2016. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "Aalami Mahauliyati din par Pahalgam mein takhreeb". epaper.kashmiruzma.net/. 2015-06-07. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "HWO ORGANIZES SEMINAR ON ENVIRONMENT". www.knskashmir.com. 6 June 2015. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "SEMINAR HELD AT AISHMUQAM". www.knskashmir.com. 28 March 2015. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ Kashmir, Precious (2014-08-19). "Save Pahalgam". Precious Kashmir. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

Jump up ^ "Warwan, Marwah: A Trek to remember". Precious Kashmir. 2014-08-18. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

Jump up ^ "Look who’s polluting Pahalgam". Kashmir Reader. 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-07-17.

Jump up ^ "Clean our environs - Rising Kashmir. Latest News, Breaking News From Kashmir, Kashmir`s very own English Daily". Risingkashmir.com. 2014-06-20. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

Jump up ^ "HWO holds seminar on World Environment Day". www.m.greaterkashmir.com. 2016-06-06. Retrieved 2016-07-08.

Jump up ^ "ulb kashmir kick starts segregation of waste at source drive". 2017-06-07. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

Jump up ^ "Is environment finding a voice in conflict-ridden Kashmir?". www.millenniumpost.in/. 2016-09-13. Archived from the original on Sep 19, 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

Jump up ^ "Is environment finding a voice in conflict-ridden Kashmir". www.downtoearth.org.in/. 2016-09-12. Archived from the original on Sep 19, 2016. Retrieved 2016-09-19.

Jump up ^ "Amid unrest, vandalization of Sonamarg continues unabated". www.earlytimes.in/. 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-20.

Jump up ^ "Encroachment: Tourist resorts turning into concrete jungles". www.jkmonitor.org. 2016-06-21. Retrieved 2016-10-20.

Jump up ^ "Encroachment:Tourist resorts turning into concrete jungles". www.kashmirobserver.net. 2016-06-22. Retrieved 2016-10-20.

Jump up ^ "Encroachment:Tourist resorts turning into concrete jungles". www.scoopnews.in/. 2016-10-18. Retrieved 2016-10-20.

Jump up ^ "himalayan welfare organization holds interactive session on depleted environment". 2017-06-07. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

Jump up ^ "lifting ban on polythene". 2017-03-12. Retrieved 2017-06-20.

Jump up ^ "Eight years on reconstruction of Pahalgam Club nowhere in sight Lastupdate:- Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:30:00 GMT". Greaterkashmir.com. 2013-07-15. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

Jump up ^ "PDA demolition notices to Movera hotel owners raises brows - Early Times Newspaper Jammu Kashmir". Earlytimes.in. Archived from the original on May 8, 2016. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

Jump up ^ "Activist Allege Government Departments for not Obeying RTI Act". Kashmir Excelsior. 2015-03-04. Retrieved 2015-03-05.

Jump up ^ "Move to raise entry fee for Betab valley leaves locals fuming". 2015-06-04. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "Adults to pay Rs100, children Rs 50". www.earlytimes.in/. 2015-06-03. Archived from the original on May 8, 2016. Retrieved 2015-06-09.

Jump up ^ "Encroachment: Tourist resorts turning into concrete jungles". jkmonitor.org. 2016-06-21. Archived from the original on June 28, 2016. Retrieved 2016-06-07.

Jump up ^ "Municipal machinery in the state is in a state of Shambles". Kashmir Excelsior. 2015-02-03. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

Jump up ^ "Of Incumbents and Incumbency". Precious Kashmir. 2014-10-29. Retrieved 2015-03-02.

Regards, Samar Samar khurshid (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. User Samar khurshid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account whose sole interest in editing Wikipedia is to promote one person and an organization that person founded. His first edition was deleted on August 6, 2014 as per the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mushtaq Pahalgami; he then re-created it a few weeks later on August 30, 2014. Nearly three years later, after he blanked it and tagged it for deletion a few days ago, I deleted it per WP:CSD G7 as sole-author request. He re-created it again a few hours later with this all-caps title and left a message on my talk page complaining that I had put it up for deletion (which I had not). As Arthistorian wrote above, it is "deliberately overloaded with references" while the ones checked "do not even mention" the article's subject, and as Power~enwiki also noted, it's "filled with crappy reference spam, and presents no clear case of notability." Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. – Athaenara ✉ 06:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:*Dear Athenara, with all due regard, I did not complain that you put the article up for deletion, I said, with all due respect that you acted on my request to delete the article, for which you may please refer to your talk page again. The fact that I do not edit other articles on Wikipedia does not make the page/subject Mushtaq Pahalgami 'promotional' or 'non-notable'. The claims in the article are supported by references from more than 25 different sources and presents a clear case of all three; NPOV, verifiablity and notability.

I am a working professional with little time to get involved with too many pages, but as somebody from the region from which the subject comes, I feel compelled to bring to public record and notice, the enormous efforts at Environmental Conservation, made by the subject and his organization. I must state again that the subject Mushtaq Pahalgami, is a very well recognized activist, whose social and political endeavors have been widely covered by not just local Urdu and English newspapers and news channels but also by respected national portals like Millennium post and Down to earth.

Please see, the following news paper, journal and television links for the subject's notability.

1. http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/

2. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-conflict-ridden-kashmir--55615

3. http://www.millenniumpost.in/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-kashmir-161286?NID=324516

4.  https://web.archive.org/web/20160504121401/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/tourism-ministry-honours-mushtaq-pahalgami/184695.html

5. https://www.upstreamjournal.org/2016/07/le-cachemire/

and

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF2PEYXWAKw

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1CXYd7W5I

(Also see the complete list of 111 references cited above which fully meets the core Wikipedia policy values of NPOV, Verifiablity and notability..and let me know exactly which one do you think doesn't mention the subject Mushtaq Pahalgami/Mushtaq Ahmad/Mushtaq Ahmad Magrey)

The argument besides notability, is that the page got deleted after having run for three full years, accidentally when I put up a request for deletion by mistake. I was trying to merge and transfer some content between the deleted page and a related organizational page. The mistake is mine and the subject must not be dealt the punishment of deletion for that! Further, The content and referencing of the page had been acceptable to the wider Wikipedia community for 3 full years, during which the subject's wider social credibility came to be associated with the wiki-page, whose deletion is bound to have serious financial implications for the subject's organization and it's credibility.

It is in this light and spirit that I have humbly and most earnestly urged the Wikipedia central admin and the wider editorial community to either re-consider the deletion of the old page or allow the new page on the subject to be published.

The fact that Pahalgam in Kashmir, form where the subject comes is a far flung area, with very little political representation and access to civic amenities and education, makes it all the more incumbent upon all of us to allow whatever little efforts are being made, to be brought into public notice, for wider appreciation and encouragement. I thus appeal to the collective wisdom and conscience of the Wiki-community to both, stand by the rules of notability and purpose as enshrined in Wikipedia's rules/guiding principles but to also allow a fair and impartial hearing to this case, keeping in mind the right to access to information and representation through information-dissemination .. of every individual citizen and subject in every part of the world, particularly so of those who come from under-developed and backward areas. I would rest my case by saying that rules are meant to make things simpler, not complicated, and as Martin Luther king Junior would have it, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' .. and if the 5 people arguing here fail to do justice to the cause and subject concerned here today, it shall be a collective failure on our parts to the cause of justice in general, and to Wikipedia's wider commitment to impartiality and truth. Most humbly, Samar

Samar khurshid (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - no improvement since the last deletion at AfD. long list of references dont support notability. Editor is a SPA. Flat Out (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The assertion is factually incorrect as after the deletion in 2014, due to a lack of supporting references/notability issues, the page was subsequently re-created with a substantial and acceptable list of references on the 11th of July, 2014 and was published and running till 9th of July, 2017, when it got accidentally deleted by the creating editor, that is me. It is in this context that I have re-created the page now and urge and appeal to everybody to re-consider the deletion or allow restoration of the page accidentally deleted by me on the 9th. For notability, please see just these 5 news paper, journal and television links for the subject's social significance and eminence ( besides the complete list of 111 references cited above and let me know exactly which one do you think doesn't mention the subject Mushtaq Pahalgami/Mushtaq Ahmad/Mushtaq Ahmad Magrey).

1. http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/

2. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-conflict-ridden-kashmir--55615

3. http://www.millenniumpost.in/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-kashmir-161286?NID=324516

4. https://web.archive.org/web/20160504121401/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/tourism-ministry-honours-mushtaq-pahalgami/184695.html

5. https://www.upstreamjournal.org/2016/07/le-cachemire/

and

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF2PEYXWAKw

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1CXYd7W5I

All of which fully meet the core Wikipedia policy values of NPOV, Verifiablity and notability..

Samar khurshid (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I very strongly feel that the fact that the page was fully functional for 3 years and got deleted accidentally by the creator is not being paid attention to in the debate. This is not a case of routine creation/deletion and thus merits and exception. Also, since the page has represented the Subject Mushtaq Pahalgami for as good as 3 years now, a period for which it was considered perfectly notable and acceptable to the wider Wiki-community, deletion on grounds of notability is not fair. Deleting/non-restoring it now will not only cause him undue and unfair loss of social credibility but will also incur him and his organization financial losses that those involved in the decision, shall be responsible for, a matter which we may then be compelled to pursue with Wikipedia's alternative dispute resolution channels.

I have also attached a complete list of 111 references supporting the subject's notability, a list which is not only 'long' as claimed above, but also very varied, including links where the subject was covered by reputed National and International journals and portals. Unfortunately, the list is also not being paid due attention to, only making our case of unfair argument, stronger.

Please see, just these 5 news paper, journal and television links for the subject's notability, verifiablity of the subject and NPOV (reporting from varied sources) before you decide (and let me know exactly which one do you think doesn't mention the subject Mushtaq Pahalgami/Mushtaq Ahmad/Mushtaq Ahmad Magrey).

1. http://www.jknni.com/2017/03/12/mushtaq-pahalgami-is-a-social-environmentalist-and-trade-union-leader-who-has-made-a-credible-name-for-himself-among-the-youth-in-a-relatively-short-span-of-time-in-pahalgam/

2. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-conflict-ridden-kashmir--55615

3. http://www.millenniumpost.in/is-environment-finding-a-voice-in-kashmir-161286?NID=324516

4. https://web.archive.org/web/20160504121401/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/tourism-ministry-honours-mushtaq-pahalgami/184695.html

5. https://www.upstreamjournal.org/2016/07/le-cachemire/

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF2PEYXWAKw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1CXYd7W5I

Samar khurshid (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:No legal threats. – Athaenara ✉ 14:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat withdrawn, appeal for just and conscientious intervention made again. Samar khurshid (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and stop spamming this page with links. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes Against Autism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:ADVOCACY for an unremarkable charity. Significant RS coverage not found; just passing mentions of athletes supporting it. Subject is not mentioned in Autism Speaks, so it's not a suitable redirect target. The first AfD closed as no consensus in 2006. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delere for lacking indepth sources. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete - No authoritative references support notability. External references listed: 1 - hijacked by Chinese retail website, 2 - dead link, 3 - 403 error, 4 - no mention of subject, 5 - short reference, possibly a press release, 6 - archived press release, 7 - essentially the same press release, also archived, 8 - DNS error. --Rpclod (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not nearly enough coverage or other secondary sources to establish notability. ThePortaller (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per many perivous editors words, fails to meet WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm inclined to set the bar pretty low for a charity, as such topics are not necessarily the most likely in the world to gain extensive coverage until they meet a certain threshold of cultural currency. However, in this instance we do not have so much as a single source (let alone an independent RS) that provides even incidental coverage of the topic. Indeed, not even a single flawed, non-RS source is even used in the article at present to even attempt to pass for sourcing, and the entire content of that article is a bare bones description of the charity's purpose and a list of athletes affiliated with it, all in less than encyclopedic tone. Simply does not pass GNG at present. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Nohir Uddin Ahmad Nuh[edit]

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

Sourcing has not significantly improved since Melcous tagged it for notability and BLP sources five months ago. The cited sources are a self-published website, two pieces by the same author and publisher (a shrine set up by the subject, so not exactly arms-length), and the homepage of an obscure newspaper. I'm not sure what we're supposed to see at the latter, but it's used to support the statement that the subject "has traveled more than 20 different countries". Searches of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and various Bangladeshi newspapers found no reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahidiah Kalimiah Darbar Sharif, another article by the same author. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1Forge[edit]

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

The only sources are from 1forge itself. The cbs8.com ref is a press release via newswire that accuses a competitor of orchestrating a Denial-of-service attack. Such an accusation making up the bulk of an article cannot stand without substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please postpone deletion until I find more sources. Is it possible to allow me 72 hours to improve this before you make the deletion decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd0492 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All mentions are incidental or self-published, and pages main author appears to have a WP:COI. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here establishes notability and nothing more found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of the sources are independent. The Newsire article specifically credits 1Forge. And I can't find any more sources. --Hirsutism (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, mentioned only in passing in most sources cited. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, besides, it isn't notable. NikolaiHo^☎️ 06:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GoldenRing (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramencon[edit]

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

non notable convention.The references appear to be a mix of PR and notices, and there's no reason why a local convention would have anything else. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Note: I am the creator of the article. While the sourcing is not the strongest, we have coverage from local (The Times) and two statewide sources (Inside INdiana Business, Chicago Tribune). I believe with this mix, Ramencon meets the minimum for notability, but weakly. Esw01407 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As the article creator suggested, the sourcing is not the best, but the coverage the convention has received from the Chicago Tribune (a well-regarded newspaper) makes me inclined to think that the article passes our notability guidelines, if barely. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "the first anime convention in Northwest Indiana" is hardly a claim to notability, and significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very small convention with no significant coverage from RSs outside of the local newspaper. Cjhard (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not enough local or even state coverage to establish notability, especially in the lack of a claim to significance. ThePortaller (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I've removed the egregiously-excessive annual details. There's not a good case for notability here, but no other case to delete the article other than a lack of notability is presented. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Normally I abstain from qualifiers, but I find myself agreeing with Power~enwiki a little bit. The mentions aren't real great, but I feel they just get in through the GNG. NWItimes, a Tribune article and another Tribune mention is good enough for me. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm sorry but I just don't see this passing WP:GNG, the coverage doesn't really go that in depth on the subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Bahadur Rawal[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist.Only coverage about an incident where he was subject to a thrashing by army personel along with several others.Won a non-notab. award.Articles by him are present, about him are absent! Winged Blades^Godric 10:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wolfram Research. So Why 08:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceWorld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)/Wikipedia:Notability (websites) requirement. Some mentions - sufficient to confirm the website exists - but nothing to suggest it is notable. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Immensely valuable web resource on science, complementary to Wikipedia. Passes WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. And neither is WP:ITSNOTABLE. Sources, please, not assertions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per the previous AfD; the sources mentioned therein (e.g., [26][27] and especially [28]); others that are easy to come by (e.g., [29][30][31][32](subscription required)[33][34]); and the number of Wikipedia articles that use it as a reference or supplement ([35]). All that said, I have no objection to merging it into MathWorld, since it is an offshoot of the latter project. XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @XOR'easter: All of those are just one paragraph (at best) directory entries. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Not a single one is analytical, they just state it exists and what it is. I don't think that merits WP:GNG requirement for in-depth coverage. The merge proposal seems quite reasonable, and offers a possible compromise (I would be fine with soft delete through merge and redirect). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum to my !vote: I found when checking from home that the ProQuest page requires a subscription, so I've made a note of that above. The citation is to the following: Larson, Carolyn, et al. "Best Free Reference Web Sites: Sixth Annual List." Reference & User Services Quarterly 44.1 (2004): 39. The Google Scholar search which turned that up also finds a smattering of papers which use ScienceWorld/Eric Weisstein's World of Science as a reference, which seems rather sloppy bibliography practice to me, but it does indicate that people read the site. (When one book after another recommends a site as useful and generally reliable, that may be worth noting, even if each individual book has little else to say about it.) But since it's hard to imagine this article growing much beyond what it is now, perhaps merging into MathWorld—which is hosted on a sibling domain, even—is the most satisfactory course. XOR'easter (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum to my addendum: My search also turned up a piece on the astronomy part of ScienceWorld in a journal called Reference Reviews. However, I was unable to access that journal through my institutional subscriptions. XOR'easter (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @XOR'easter: I was able to access it. It is a short ~1 page? review of the astronomy section of the site. It is certainly better than the blurbs we found elsewhere, but it is also a review of only one part of the site. It is worth noting that the review describes the site as "good - in the past": "Some years ago this site was one of the most valuable and useful sites for the budding physicist or astronomer to turn to. However, today when one takes a critical look at the site while there remain some elements of value; the time has long passed when this could be considered an essential primary resource.... There are links from some of the articles to external resources, not all of which are working.... Overall until a few years ago World of Astronomy was a much loved and valuable resource. Today looking at it in contrast to other printed and electronic resources available, it feels dated, incomplete and sadly long past its time. Whilst there is still limited valuable information in some entries, they are by no means guaranteed to be current or complete. That World of Astronomy is freely available is its sole boon, but this reviewer is no longer able to recommend it as a primary or indeed secondary resource for the astronomical student or professional. A moment of pause to mourn the passing of a legend; no flowers, by request. " and for our own pleasure, I'll quote this: "The site was clearly in part a precursor to multi‐author crowd‐sourced online information resources such as Wikipedia, although with a focus on drawing contributions more from the established scientific community. However, in many regards it has been overtaken by other initiatives – contrast an entry on Blazars: on World of Astronomy this is a scant two lines, not illustrated and with only two cross‐references. On Wikipedia this runs to several pages, with two colour illustrations, and countless cross‐references to related articles. This is sadly not an isolated example, and illustrates how limited this resource is for a reader." FYI, I probably quoted a 20-25% of the entire review, so you can see how short it is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Piotrus: Thank you very much for accessing that review! I particularly like the "no flowers, by request" quip. Moreover, it agrees with my own general impression that MathWorld is the best-developed site of the bunch. Considering that this appears to be the most substantial thing we could add to the ScienceWorld article, it really does seem now that if the article were kept, it would remain a permanent stub. Folding it into the article on MathWorld, with a couple mentions of how people took note of it (e.g., the American Scientist blurb linked above), now feels like the best way to go. On reflection, therefore, I am now advocating a merge. XOR'easter (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just for our own amusement, I'll note that the World of Astronomy "Blazar" page is still only two lines long, and by the looks of it, it wasn't even copy-edited. XOR'easter (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 13:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, as evidenced by Piotrus and XOR'easter's search. (Redirect seems like a plausible outcome as well, but I have no opinion whether the suitable target is the editor or the owner. No referenced content to merge to either.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the best target for a redirect is MathWorld. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wolfram Research and redirect - and do the same with MathWorld. Minimal independent third party coverage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems clear that this should be merged somewhere, but it's not yet clear what the right target is. User:timtempleton's suggestion that Wolfram Research might be a better target than MathWorld came late in the AfD and didn't see any discussion. Relisting this mostly so people can sort out which of those is the better target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging both the ScienceWorld and MathWorld articles into Wolfram Research would be fine by me. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McGinnis (author)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG wholesomely.PR sources.Usual promotion.At best could be redirected to Fear of missing out. Winged Blades^Godric 10:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'CSD G3 - vandalism' . Alexf^(talk) 12:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punch Valley[edit]

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

- not notable (google search produces nothing) - not enough content to identify the location to try and expand it - not verifiable AntiVan (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Poonch I could find mentions of 'Punch Valley' often written 'Poonch Valley', Kashmir, and it is mentioned in the Poonch article. I couldn't find enough sources to justify its own article, although I suspect they're out there, just not in English. Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please, everbody, let's WP:AGF, argue the merits of the article, and avoid WP:ADHOMINEM arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage of Shannara[edit]

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

This doesn't establish notability for the grouping as a whole. Each of the four novels has an article and the main article already has a section for it, so this appears to be a useless split with nothing to merge. TTN (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an intermediate step between a notable fictional franchise and individual notable works. So what if the books aren't necessarily covered under the name "Heritage of Shannara"? This is equivalent to a season of television: Part of a larger work, logically subdivided, and then further subdivided later. Notability may not be inherited, (although almost all the time I see that cited, it's incorrectly applied) but if A is a part of B is a part of C, and A and C are clearly notable, attempting to delete B is unproductive and unhelpful. What, really, is to be gained by deleting this article? There's not even a bare assertion that the encyclopedia will be improved here: There are a thousand better deletion debates to have: NN biographies, promotion, and whatnot, but the assertion here is that the encyclopedia needs to not have an article on a grouping of notable works in a notable fictional universe? I utterly fail to see the utility. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an equivalent comparison. Episode lists are an immediate given simply because in most cases they cannot fit in the main article. Season articles for the most part have to establish their notability, except in cases where a series is so massive one episode list would not work. If none of the novels had articles, they would definitely need to be covered, and if the main article was too large, splitting them out into their collective series would be necessary. The main article is not too large, the novels do have their own pages, and this page in particular provides no pertinent information. The only reason for this to otherwise exist is if it happened to fulfill the criteria of establishing notability as a grouping. There's little reason to ignore a useless page just because it does no harm. TTN (talk)
- You've just argued totally from a rules interpretation perspective, and written one, solitary, virtually non-sequiter sentence about the potential harm of having such a grouping. From a delete/keep perspective, I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye, but I'm hard pressed to see how one can argue in good faith that this is worth spending any amount of time on. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The page does not establish independent notability and serves no particular function, content-wise or navigation-wise, so it should be removed on that basis. It's a pretty simple argument. The idea of relative importance being a factor in such a process makes no particular sense. On the case of the four novels being compiled into one, I cannot imagine such a compilation would ever be able to establish notability, as I would imagine a box-set of BDs would not be able to establish notability. It would have to be a very old series that had been newly compiled long after the initial publishing date to receive any independent coverage of the compilation. Either the series article or the singular novels can mention the compilation. TTN (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TTN, note also that It's a book, a real hardcover compiling the four shorter novels listed here. Does that change your nomination at all? Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, where are the reviews of this book/series as a whole? at the moment the article is unreferenced, so how can this meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, oh, oh, just had a look at the individual book wikiarticles, they also have no references, maybe Hullaballoo Wolfowitz can assist here? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple all of these books were published long before the Internet, so online sources are going to be a bit scarce. Publishing a compilation volume, such as this one, tends to attract few to no new reviews, so that absence is unsurprising. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So, without having to delve into ridiculous detail, there do appear to be a lot of RS covering one or more of these four books, often in context of the television efforts. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once again, it's clear this nominator hasn't bothered to do a shred of the appropriate research. All four books in the series were widely reviewed -- the first volume, for example, was covered in Booklist, Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, and School Library Journal, to cite only the most usual suspects. The fact that TTN espouses the irrational belief that popular fiction doesn't merit coverage in an encyclopedia doesn't entitle him to inflict so much time-wasting and annoyance on the reality-based Wikipedia community. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever once mention the four individual books that make up the sub-series? This has nothing to do with them, unless you would like to make the argument that they should be merged into this page. This page in particular is the one being nominated, and your response has nothing to do with it. Please address the functionality of this page and why it needs to exist over Shannara#The Heritage of Shannara, which has the same function of listing the four books. TTN (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're just highlighting the irrationality of your argument. You effectively admit that you haven't complied with WP:BEFORE. incorporated into AFD policy, and have no idea whether the commentary on the individual volumes is also sufficient to support an article centered on the series they comprise. And you didn't bother to search for reviews of the edition of the full series, as is your norm. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that have to do with anything? Either show sources that have to do with the the sub-series as a whole or admit you have no argument. You have been right before, but the number of AfDs where you just spammed wikilawyering nonsense leaves me to have no trust in what you say. TTN (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does your failure to follow AFD policy have to do with the validity of your deletion proposals? Lord, if you can't answer that, it's time for you to go back to seventh grade and write that essay about Why Daddy Buys Life Insurance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you have nothing? So far the arguments are "well, there's no reason for it to not exist because other stuff is more important" and then you claiming my supposed failure to follow BEFORE means anything in particular. I get you have this weird little vendetta, but it gets kind of silly after a point. Just provide some kind of actual point as to why this is a relevant article when the main series article covers exactly what needs to be covered: the name of the sub-series and the titles of the four books. TTN (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly already more in depth than space allows for in the Shannara article, so it isn't a 'useless split' at all. This article could be expanded to a good article easily with the sourcing that I found in 3 minutes of google searching. Note to TTN, please stop badgering everyone voting on this, they are allowed to have a different opinion. You asked for sources specifically about the sub series? There are numerous such sources to be found with a simple google search, if you use the right search parameters. Clearly meets notability requirement, best you could ever argue for is a merge into Shannara, which I don't think is appropriate as there is plenty of room for expansion here. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 14:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A difficult one, but the source seems to meet several automatic notability criteria, as well as arguably meeting GNG anyway. Also widely cited by other reliable sources. (non-admin closure) — Insert CleverPhrase Here 14:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Philanthropy[edit]

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

To comply with WP:BEFORE I checked for significant coverage in reliable sources to see if the subject of the article meets WP:GNG. While the founder of the organization has authored books, and the mention of the organizations work has been made in numerous reliable sources, very little has been published where the organization it self was the primary subject of the reliable sources. Therefore, appearing to fail WP:ORGCRITE & WP:ORGDEPTH. One can argue that the current article is of stub quality and thus significant coverage does not exist " to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Now, this may change, and significant coverage may be found to expand or restart the article, to prove that my current findings are wrong (and thus why I am not currently advocating for WP:SALT, and I am human and thus can make mistakes), however, I am creating this AfD cause I am presently of the belief that the subject does not yet meet WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has plenty of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Meets both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Softlavender (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, let us look at the first news article from a google news search that mentions the subject:

Unlike Earth’s first-richest person Bill Gates, whose charitable foundation has a $39.6 billion endowment and is one of the largest in the world, Bezos and Amazon have not been known for public acts of generosity. A profile of Bezos in Inside Philanthropy described him as a “relatively quiet” philanthropist who “believes in the concept of self-reliance.” In the past, the media has criticized Bezos for his poor philanthropic effort: “There are lemonade stands that donate more to charity than Amazon.com does,” wrote a Slate reporter in 2009.
Since then, the Bezos Family Foundation (run by Bezos’ parents) has granted millions of dollars for education. Jeff Bezos and his wife MacKenzie Bezos have also donated tens of millions dollars toward health, science, and education, according to Inside Philanthropy. He also gave a reported $42 million to fund the Clock of the Long Now, a clock designed to keep time for 10,000 years.
— Quartz Media

In this Inside Philanthropy was mentioned, but was not the primary subject of the article, and only briefly mentioned. I found this a lot, mention of its work, but very little where there was significant coverage of the subject of this article.

Just cause the organization is cited by notable reliable sources, doesn't necessarily make it notable.

Additionally if the organization's founder is notable, which is debatable, that does not guarantee the organization the founder creates is notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED), it still must stand on its own merits.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rrachet (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As its steady citation by other reliable sources shows, this has become a significant source for the charitable sector, and thus passes criteria #3, #4 and #5 of Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. In any event, a merge/redirect to David Callahan would also be a better result that deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this AfD is not a newspaper, magazine, or journal; it is a website that has not received significant coverage. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a journal; the fact that it is online does not change that fact. Softlavender (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. major resource in its field. It is difficult to use the gng for periodicals or serious website. DGG ( talk ) 14:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kubra Khan[edit]

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

Minor roles only. The articles about films in Indian newspapers are not reliable sources--they are always based on PR alone. . DGG ( talk ) 14:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG. has her own section, first mentioned in headline. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article all to herself d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:RS.-Umair Aj (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pakistan RS available in the bio therefore the page could be kept. --Saqib (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems notable. sikander (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable as she had won recent Hum Award per search. Greenbörg (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merging can be discussing per WP:Merging and should be considered before renominating. So Why 08:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lantern Corps[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This doesn't establish notability. The only real world information is primary info from the creator. TTN (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No policy- or guideline-based reasons for deletion. An author's discussion of creative decisions made during the writing of a work is not "primary info" or sourcing; the nominator's statement that it is shows a fundamental lack of competence in this area. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy-based reason was "doesn't establish notability"... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously not policy-based. It's saying that articles should be deleted based on the state of the article at the time of nomination. Deletion policy, which probably should become familiar with. WP:DEL14 is pretty clear on this point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that links where you think it links - I'm not sure how "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" has anything to do with the current state of the article. I think that WP:DEL8 - "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" - does fit here, though. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Blackest Night, maybe? Or Emotional spectrum? I'm not sure which one is the better target. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on his claims and also for the fact that this group is part of the emotional spectrum. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we're really going to need a clearer explanation of what the secondary sources in this article are supposed to be. Right now, I see two IGN links that mention the group in passing, a load of citations to works of fiction, and some citations to people talking at San Diego Comic Con. Notwithstanding the impassioned claims above, this really isn't enough to justify an article on this group. Where are the discussions about the group in newspapers, magazines or scholarly texts? Where are the published interviews with the creators? Where are the reviews discussing the group in-depth? I'm not saying there are none, but we're really going to need to see some. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Rtkat3: Anything to add on this? Josh Milburn (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- all "in universe" content cited to DC comics, ComicCon conventions, etc. There's nothing to merge as the article does not cite independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recurring characters across multiple storylines deserving of their own page. Artw (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one or another of the proposed targets; WP:ATD-M is clear that we shouldn't be deleting NN things that have an identified merge target. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with WP:NPASR. So Why 08:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Issa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - most of the sources (if not all) do not look like WP:RS to me. I can't even confirm that there is a Palestinian poet named Abdulla Issa. Maybe someone who speaks Russian or Arabic can help with this, but I can't find any mention of him in any English language sources. The article also seems to have been created only a few months after the 12 year old Abdullah Issa was beheaded - I considered nominating it for speedy deletion as a hoax, but maybe someone else can find a source that confirms there was a Palestinian poet from Syria who moved to the Soviet Union and directed a film called "Muslims are proud of Russia" to show that there is no conflict between the term "Muslim" and "Russian patriot". Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Not a hoax (Can't verify all details, but the guy does exist in Russia). I suspect this was machine-translated from the Russian wiki (as google-translate of the Russian wiki is surprisingly similar and contains similar language issues). Some of the sources are bad. Others are OK (even if passing mention), e.g. - [36] , [37], [38]. I didn't go over all of them - and many are bad (not RS), or not too good (passing mentions) - they do need to be pared down and reffed - but my Russian is not up to task on this.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, al watan does seem to verify that he exists, thank you. I'm still not sure if it is enough for WP:GNG so I will just let the AfD run so other editors can comment. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alla Ablaberdyeva[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Sealle (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the Bach, Shostakovich, Stravinsky recordings [39] (WP:MUSICBIO criteria 5). They were on the Melodija, Hungaroton, and Orfeo labels respectively with reviews of all of them in print publications. There are also reviews of her recitals in London in Financial Times, Times, The Independent, etc. There's a 2017 article in Russian but I suspect much coverage of her will not be online. A large part of her career was in the old Soviet Union. She did not come to the UK until 1991 when she was nearly 40. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter Ray Project[edit]

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

I found one news article about the release of this band's second album. I couldn't find anything else in reliable, independent sources to show that they meet either WP:GNG or WP:BAND. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; insufficient coverage found to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. gongshow talk 18:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RQW Heavyweight Championship[edit]

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

Main article, Real Quality Wrestling, has been deleted via AfD. If the promotion isn't notable then its championships aren't notable either. LM2000 (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating other RQW championships:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them per previous nomination. Nickag989^talk 11:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. I also agree with the nom--if the promotion isn't notable it's hard to see how its titles can be notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford michaels[edit]

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

Authorship of one book which itself has achieved no great claim to notability in the ten months after its release. bd2412 T 01:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC) bd2412 T 01:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for complete lack of any indication of notability, WP:SIGCOV or WP:RSes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per E.M.Gregory. AntiVan (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Provided sources are blog posts, press releases, and 404's. Nothing better found to establish notability. --Finngall ^talk 03:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gajula Vari Palle[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:RS Umair Aj (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – According to the latest survey of India, there's a village in Andhra Pradesh which has similar name to the above village – Gujjalavaripalle. But I couldn't find the exact match. BTW, there's also another village which has a partially matching name – Gajulapalle. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tunc[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources, no indication of notability. As mentioned in a previous discussion, no record of the term in either the Oxford or Merriam-Webster dictionaries, either. --Oneforfortytwo (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be deleted rather than closed as no consensus as was done last time. If it's so tough to find sources to confirm such a usage (I've tried quite hard), then the topic is not worth an encyclopedia. Lourdes 07:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a dab page, as I recommended the first time. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 08:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuji Abe[edit]

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

Had nominated for CSD but was declined. Subject does not appear to meet the English language notability criteria. KDS4444 (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not sure what are being referred to as "English language notability criteria". As WP:GNG states, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." There is no requirement that subjects need to be notable in the English-language world to appear in the English language Wikipedia. As for Abe, he has been on television in Japan for over two decades, most recently as a news and entertainment reporter. His is a face most Japanese know. Here are just a few articles about him or that feature him: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], etc. He actually has appeared a lot in the news in the last few days because his daughter was selected as Miss Universe Japan. Michitaro (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your first example appears to be a very spammy endorsement of some book by him -- at any rate, it does not appear to represent independent coverage; 2 seems to be run of the mill coverage of him being in a traffic accident; 3 is some sort of gossipy capsule item with only a brief mention; 4 is another fluff item about him and his daughter appearing in some sort of minor fashion show; 5 is another short piece critiquing his appearance and "blunder" (if I understand correctly) on some Fuji TV variety program; 6 is another minor piece of him simply having reported on a VR project of some kind -- and so on. I'm not going to go through them all, but I'm struck by how many of them are just -- forgive me -- crap. Yet taken as a whole it does seem as if he's a known TV face, if not much of an actual serious reporter, in Japan. And of course, 'seriousness' is not a criterion here. I'm not going to !vote at this time but he probably passes the bar. Indeed, the article creator states on his user page that "I mainly create articles of Japanese tarentos," which are "celebrities who regularly appear on mass media in Japan, especially television." Which is what Abe is, for better or worse. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are not great (I've been busy and I got them after just a few minutes of searching), but I wouldn't call them crap. They are pretty normal for entertainment coverage in Japan. What is not in question is that all the sources are from major news sources, and thus reliable. They are independent of the individual. Their number indicates that Japanese major media consider him notable. Not all the articles are significant, but I believe these--and whatever else is out there--are sufficient to produce more than a stub article (per WP:N). Especially if one includes other criteria such as WP:CELEBRITY, particularly criterion 1, there is sufficient case for notability. Michitaro (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, taken as a whole, I do agree the coverage amounts to a pass of WP:ENTERTAINER. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine Expo[edit]

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

One time event, that got noticed only because of threats that it was going to be cancelled. I didn't find any sources, related to it and not to it's possible cancellation. If someone provides the sources, I am glad to reconsider. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have a considerable number of references. Artw (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all references are practically talking about one event - cancellation, that didn't happen. There are no references, talking about expo itself, reviewing in, showing what and who exhibited there. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Are one time events not allowed on Wikipedia? I think putting it up for deletion for it being a "one time event" is not a valid argument. Many one time events have and deserve to be included in Wikipedia. The second argument that @Arthistorian1977: made, was that it's only notable because of "threats that it was going to be cancelled". So? Many credible news outlets found it relevant enough to report on it, so that is enough justify its inclusion on Wikipedia. In good faith, I think these arguments for deletion are invalid. Amin (Talk) 17:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename. The article has a sufficient number of WP:RS reliable sources WP:V verifying the WP:GNG general notability of this subject. It is therefore qualified to have a standalone article. If it turns out the event is cancelled, the article should be renamed to Palestine Expo controversy. AadaamS (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think about it, but I would actually agree for renaming to Palestine Expo controversyArthistorian1977 (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Wilkes[edit]

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

Contested PROD. While there's no debate whatsoever that this player doesn't meet the sport-specific guidelines, I'm not convinced based on my digging that he meets GNG at present either. That said, I do recognise that a very small percentage of incoming college freshman athletes in any sport are already notable, so I'm happy to have this one discussed here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added three sources from major media sources (ABC News, USA Today, Indianapolis Star) and there were others available from Indiana newspapers as well as the LA Times that were full articles with Wilkes as the subject. This will only increase as we get closer to the college season in November, as he will play for one of the top programs in the country (which gets significant media attention because of it). To be clear, I think he meets WP:GNG right now and that this will only become clear in the next 3-4 months. Rikster2 (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets GNG per the sources in the article and others on the internet. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Rikster2's sourcing & improvements to the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 08:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaane Ki Aane[edit]

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

No significat coverage in independent reliable sources to support WP:GNG and no indication of passing WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film was one of the major releases in Assam, India in the year of 2016. Usually Indian local newspaper articles are not accessible online. Google News search will generate these articles from reputed sources. --SlowPhoton (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlowPhoton: Alright as you agreed it fails WP:GNG and failed to receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources which is not always possible to find on the internet but apart from your original research that it was one of the major release do you have any evidence to support WP:NFO? and you also need to prove you claim. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GSS-1987 you're a terrific editor, but pardon... I do not know how you somehow could decide and assert he said something he did not, as he did not state the topic failed WP:GNG and only pointed out a often-found difficulty in finding sources. What he did do was point to a search that met WP:NEXIST. The Assam Times is quite substantive, supported nicely by The Indian Express, Indian New England , The Statesman, Business Standard and others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alt searches with WP:INDAFD: Gaane Ki Aane গানে কি আনে

KEEP Meets WP:NFILM through WP:NEXIST. Under Wp:NONENG we do not expect nor demand western sources for a non-western film topic. And while the article can benefit from using them, we do have a number of non-western sources available speaking about this project in enough detail to avoid original research. Signicant does not mean substantive. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Michael:~~ @MichaelQSchmidt: A Google news search for "গানে কি আনে" returns only one link to as:গানে কি আনে same as WP:INDAFD. The English sources are weighted toward Zubeen Garg and I can't see anything that talk about the plot, production or anything else except who's going to romance whome. There is no doubt about the existence of the sources but those are not indepedent of the subject to support WP:NEXIST. The film was released in 2016 and didn't recived a single review nor a full lenth coverage which is a big question mark on it's notability. I don't belive it should be kept rather than a redirect to Zubeen Garg. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: NIce that you are aware of the non-Google search engines at WP:INDAFD created because of the problems with Google and non-English searches for non-western Indian topics. Are you now arguing for a redirect? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: lol I'm just suggesting a redirect because the independent notability of the film is really weak and yes am aware of non-Google search engines at WP:INDAFD and it was a part of my WP:BEFORE research. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~For now a redirect to Zubeen Garg is fine to me if not kept. 20:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 04:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But still, the WP:SIGCOV is convincing enough for me. IE: The Assam Times is quite substantive, supported nicely by The Indian Express, Indian New England , The Statesman, Business Standard and others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: I'm not sure about the reliability of the assamtimes.org which is the only in-depth coverage about this film and it looks more like WP:USERGENERATED so it will be helpful if you can share your thoughts at RSN/assamtimes.org. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Meets WP:NFILM through WP:NEXIST. Also: a harmless, non promotional article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamekiran (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wala Mirza[edit]

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

Unsourced orphan article. There don't appear to be any reliable sources that mention this person, and as a son of Akbar, he would be well known. This is very likely a product of a TV serial or some such and only users (who are soon banned for unsourced editing) appear to attempt to link to it. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V. Jahangir was made governor of Ajmer in about 1595,"governor+of+ajmer" so it isn't clear who this other son was who held a similar position. Akbar's sons (who survived to adulthood) are well discussed, so sources shouldn't be hard to find. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 04:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- completely unsourced; nothing worth preserving. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Sol[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/director fails WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE done only supporting non-notable roles no secondary sources only passing mentions for now it looks WP:TOSOON. FITINDIA 06:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The enormous number of sources presented demonstrate clear notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josedlal101 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — Josedla1101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, of course the article creator says "Keep". The number of sources is, however, not at all enormous, they are not of sufficient depth, don't always support the claims of the content, and are not all reliable sources. Subject, not for want of the article creator trying, does not meet GNG or NACTOR or CREATIVE. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 04:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Firstly, the subject's business in candid and wedding photography is not notable. Secondly, his roles in Ithihasa and Sexy Durga appear minor and do not confer notability. That leaves the subject's two short films on YouTube ([52], [53]): the latter had some press coverage because of its topic, but I don't see that as sufficient to demonstrate the director's encyclopaedic notability under WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Pfantz[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage. Of the five sources here, one is her album's iTunes sales page, two are PR platforms, and the two that actually represent media coverage both represent local media coverage in her hometown and the nearest larger media market to it. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where emerging musicians are entitled to have articles just because they exist; it's not "get a Wikipedia article to help you make it big", it's "make it big and then you'll get a Wikipedia article". Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for muscians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What little coverage there is is run of the mill, small time, and insignificant. The text seems to be merely rephrasing the content from the subjects website. Overtly promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Faublas[edit]

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

I have removed the A7 tag from this, because it makes a credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is also a Draft:Liz Faublas which is a copy of this. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Creating author User:Efaublas has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Not G5 because wasn't blocked at time of creation. Not in itself a reason to delete, but lack of notability is. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Berg[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a YouTuber, which is not supported by sufficient reliable source coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability standards: of the three sources here, two are his own self-published YouTube videos, and one is an article that interviews him in a context that has nothing to do with YouTube. But it takes more than just one reliable source to pass GNG, which means that the sourcing here simply isn't even close to good enough. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lumpy da comedian[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a comedian, whose claim of notability ("youngest comedian headliner") is not supported by the sources. Of the four "references" here, one is a primary source copy of a commercial he was in (not a notability-assisting source), one is a mere photograph of him and two other people on a user-generated PR site, and two are to the webpages of local TV stations' morning shows which fail to link to any actual content about the subject. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but exactly zero of the sources here right now are helping him get notable under either our notability standards for comedians or WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. The article has also been salted due to having been re-created multiple times. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajeet Aryan Sharma[edit]

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

I can hardly verify this person exists, much less that they're an elected member of a political party. Fails WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NPOL is not passed just because the article claims that its subject is a political officeholder — it's passed only when we can properly verify that the claim is true. But this is based entirely on his own self-published primary sources about himself, and even those sources don't claim that he holds office but merely that he's a member of a political party. If he were actually an officeholder, the parliament's website would list him, which it doesn't — so in other words, what he's doing is trying to get himself into Wikipedia by making false claims about himself. Also note that this has already been deleted and recreated three times, so a dose of WP:SALT is also needed. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is quite clear from these sources 1, 2 that author falsely claimed that the subject is a Member of the India Parliament from Palamu Lok Sabha constituency. Razer(talk) 16:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politician who does not hold a notable position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the new thing is saying they work for Blogger. Still not notable. Gatemansgc (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above deletes and and an attempt to remove the Afd tag on the article. Jus da fax 01:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because you assert you meet WP:POLITICIAN, doesn't mean you actually do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, this is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing joke article and also a recreation of Ajeet Aryan. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Underlined Passages. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantastic Quest[edit]

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

Non-notable. No notable reviews and no charting. Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into artist page, Underlined Passages#The Fantastic Quest--Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The result was keep. The French article has lots of sources which could be used to expand the article here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ortolana[edit]

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

notability tagged for two years. just a one-off in a who's-who somewhere Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might help, Kintetsubuffalo if you said something more precise than "one-off" and" a whos's-who somewhere." It seems she'a "blessed" Roman Catholic from the 13th century, who is the mother of Saint Clare of Assisi and Saint Agnes of Assisi. I know notability is not inherited, but considering that the first is one of the most important of all Roman Catholic saints, with a world-wide fame and influence for the past 7 centuries and continuing today, and the second a less famous but almost as important saint, they will be discuss in every bio. of St. Clare or book about the history of the Franciscans. There's a long article on her in frWP, with 11 separate references. DGG ( talk ) 14:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have tagged it for expansion from the French. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than meets the GNG. Notability is not inherited, but because she was the mother of arguably the most significant female saint of the Middle Ages, she is inevitably covered in depth in multiple sources: just think of all the biographies that have been written on Clare of Assisi. Here are several "Ortolana"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj815XKif3UAhUEFT4KHQ2ZC-A4ChDoAQgjMAA#v=onepage&q=%22Ortolana%22&f=false "Ortolana"&dq="Ortolana"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj815XKif3UAhUEFT4KHQ2ZC-A4ChDoAQg4MAQ "Ortolana"&dq="Ortolana"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0oY-viv3UAhUCCz4KHad4AOYQ6AEIQDAE "Ortolana"&dq="Ortolana"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixi92-iv3UAhWIWD4KHcibB2k4FBDoAQgmMAA. These are just English-language sources for a beatified individual who is not popular in the English-speaking world. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean "beatified"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Shawn in Montreal. Autocorrect is not kind for such words it seems. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a Blessed of the Catholic Church. That alone conveys notability, as far as I'm concerned. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- has a well developed article on fr.wiki, with sufficient sourcing: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The result was delete. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shraeya Srinivasan[edit]

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

fails WP:NATH. Possible COI. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree on the suspected COI, most of the references are from one publication so independent verification is pretty difficult on this. DrStrauss talk 20:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shreaya is an upcoming national level athlete and just finished her high school. That's why you see lots of articles, references from the local newspaper and her school. She's just starting to get regional and national attention as a champion and there are now new references from the reputed Boston Globe, Boston Herald.

Also since most of the articles are from single local source, its easier to verify as well. Let me know if you want the journalist contact and i can have it arranged for verification.

Srinisankar (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)srinisankar[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NATH. Routine local coverage of a good high school athlete. I suggest save the sources to create an article as soon as she fulfills any one of the criteria at WP:NATH. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's simply WP:TOOSOON to have an article on this subject, but one would imagine that she'll fulfill the relevant criteria in future years. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete being the trach and field champion at the high school level is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fast food restaurant chains in Serbia[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT. I am unable to see this as encyclopedic. Comatmebro (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fast food restaurant chains in Albania. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If some of the redlinked chains are notable and specific to Serbia, then this would have value. But a list that comprises a couple of international companies and some non-notable, unreferenced, minor companies should be deleted (although information could be mentioned in articles on the fast food companies or possibly on Food in Serbia). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only two notable list entries are international chains, not unique to Serbia. The rest are redlinks and unlikely to be notable. Ajf773 (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be a prototypical example of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations.--Rpclod (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Bangladesh Premier League team rosters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable list of players that does not belong in a article. Qed237 (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This information is (or should be) in the articles on the individual teams, and this article is an unnecessary compilation of sections of those articles. Johnlp (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - partially duplicates lists contained in individual team's articles. The fact that this list does not appear to be up-to-date is partial reason why it should be deleted.--Rpclod (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnlp. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incomplete and no clear selection criteria. As per Johnlp content like this is best listed elsewhere instead of a stand alone list. Ajf773 (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rwake#Discography. Leaving the history in place if anyone wants to merge something. So Why 08:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xenoglossalgia: The Last Stage of Awareness[edit]

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

Non-notable demo album Jennica✿ / ^talk 10:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 11:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist page --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rwake. Artw (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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