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.
This article is a
content (and possibly POV) fork of
Duchy of Normandy. There is no consistent scholarly distinction between an earlier county of Rouen and a later duchy of Normandy. Some scholars, notably K. F. Werner, have argued for it, but it is hardly consistently employed and others have objected to it (cf. Robert Helmerichs, "Princeps, Comes, Dux Normannorum: Early Rollonid Designators and their Significance", Haskins Society Journal 9 [1997]: 57–77). The article on the Duchy of Normandy can handle the issue of the nature of the grant to Rollo, the theory of K. F. Werner, how the power of the counts/dukes changed, etc. The confusing titulature (and non-titulature) of the Norman rulers is covered at
Duke of Normandy, to which
Count of Rouen redirects. The article
County of Rouen as I found it dated the end of the county to 996 and spent most of its time talking about the 11th century. I excised the material that didn't fit, but my attempts to redirect it to Duchy of Normandy have been resisted.
Srnec (
talk)
00:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect as per nom - there is no scholarly consensus that these were distinct temporal entities and not an evolving style used to refer to the same entity, as with the lords of Pamplona becoming kings of Pamplona becoming kings of Navarre, which we all treat in a single article.
Agricolae (
talk)
01:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect (and protect against reverting) -- When I saw the title, I was expecting an article about a small fief, probably about a much later period.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Duchy of Normandy as per nom. Regarding protection, I think it is unnecessary for now, I am sure the user that resisted will accept any decision taken by the community with consensus. After all there was an urge to AfD if the nominator thought there is such an issue. --
Kostas20142 (
talk)
10:09, 21 April 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 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 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.
Has never played in a fully-professional league or at international level, in this case for a club in the English Premier League or Football League. No significant coverage that would suggest the player is notable outside of the current criteria.
Monty (
talk)
22:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - as per above, and noted in the article, he did play for 25 minutes in a League Cup match between two fully-professional teams.
Nfitz (
talk)
20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - Fair enough, that was an oversight on my part. I don't know how to close this, but it's pretty self-evident that I was mistaken in nominating the article for deletion - and reading it again, I have no idea how I missed that...
Monty (
talk)
00:17, 17 April 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 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.
Despite the egregious comments on the talk page, there is no evidence of notability here. He appears to be a local sports commentator with no evidence of notability. The two refs (one of which is a dead link) are from a local newspaper and the live link he wrote himself . Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 22:10, 14 April 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 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.
Delete Yes the film exists (and congrats to those involved in making it) but there is little info about in the four and a half years since the article was created other than it exists.
MarnetteD|
Talk22:38, 14 April 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. Delete for BLP reasons: the arguments provided by Jytdog and Eppstein are persuasive. The keep voters have a good point in that there are a great number of references--however, it should be noted that Bizapedia and the website for De Balie (a cultural center in Amsterdam) are not reliable sources, and there are two or three more sources that are not journalistic media.
In the end, if the scandal is negative (and her contribution in it negligible), we should probably propose what the article would be like without that section--and the answer is, there's not much. BLP1E is invoked by a number of participants, and many of the delete-voters point out that she doesn't pass PROF and it is TOOSOON. So. In my opinion the BLP concerns are valid, and I have no choice but to delete.
Drmies (
talk)
03:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I am taking the unusual step of renominating this article, immediately after it was closed with "no consensus", so the community can consider the BLP issues here, which was not done in the prior discussion. The article, when it was originally nominated, looked like
this and as the nomination progressed became even more promotional, becoming
this. Around 11 SPA accounts edited the article, as is listed at its Talk page. After cleanup and as of this nomination, it looks like
this.
There is a serious BLP issue here. Her initial notability was completely tied by others and by her in reliable sources, to her role in creating an artificial trachea in a lab run by a prestigious professor at University College London that was implanted into a person with throat cancer in 2011 by a prestigious surgeon, and this was widely hailed in the media, and she went on to found a startup to create artificial organs. Lots of hype and glory and awards and hope for her, especially as a young woman in a STEM field.
But turned out that the surgeon who did the first implantation, did that in 8 more people between 2011 and 2014, and seven of the people died (including that first person), and two had their artificial trachea replaced, and there was scandal driven by TV documentaries and mainstream media, and the surgeon was fired by 2016. And the professor under whom she worked in the artificial organ lab at UCL, was fired in 2016 for a different reason. And the startup was bankrupt by 2013. So - her original claim to N, which she and everyone else hitched her wagon to, has crashed burning all around her. She has apparently moved on and is doing something like health policy now, if
this comment can be believed.
if this article remains in WP, the content must tell the whole story. In my view this is a case of
WP:TOOSOON and the article should not exist. On the other hand, what happened is real and kind of instructive about the risks of biotech and of "glamour" in the world of science and medicine, and everything is well sourced enough. But the community should squarely consider the BLP issues, which it did not do in the just-closed nomination.
Jytdog (
talk)
18:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I still stand by my first assesment that she does not meet the notability guidelines for academics. There is a reason the guidelines are set high, and that is to avoid overly promotional articles that do not tell the whole story.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)reply
DeleteI totally agree that it's a case of
WP:TOOSOON and that she does not meet the notability guidelines for academics, since she is not and probably will never be an academic and not a public person. Also the article has many inaccurate things about her biographical elements, her education, her startup didn't go bankrupt or had any debt (dissolution doesn't equate with bankruptcy), and once again it's another thing to be in the scientific team that invents the prototype of an organ,a new drug, a new algorithm and another to be part of the translational team (that is usually a pharmaceutical company as it happened in this case as well, that obtained the IP rights) with the clinical team which was from another country that conducts the clinical trial. The way this story is presented is misleading to someone out of the science world. I agree that the page should be deleted because in my opinion it is promotional.
Pictex (
talk)
18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC) —
Pictex (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep The was just closed days ago. The discussion has been had already. WP:GNG is there based on extensive sources. Repeatedly calling the article "promotional" is to no effect as it is not a valid deletion reason, unless it is so promotional that content cannot be rescued, and that is certainly not the case here. Nominator proposes lots of theories on her notability that are a synthesis of original research. I have to ask myself, with these kinds of refs, would this be happening if she had a man's name?
198.58.162.200 (
talk)
23:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)reply
It was closed as no consensus, in a discussion where many participants commented before the connection to the Karolinska scandal was clarified. So, now that we understand more clearly what her supposed notability was founded on, it seems reasonable to me to have another discussion. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete because there's no credible claim of significance {{db-person}} and there's pretence of importance. The case of how the surgeon handled the patient has nothing to do with the invention itself, and it's shouldn't be reported as if it was her fault. If only all scientists were presented with how many patients died when pharmas conducted clinical trials.. Also why is it assumed that her award had been won about this when her startup was producing devices and she works at Nasa or in policy? I find the way it's presented intentional and sexist, but on the same time she needs to do so much more to be seen as a recognised individual worthy of a wiki page at this age.
SteCID (
talk)
19:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC) —
SteCID (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
NB: there is no discussion of any "invention" that Antoniadou made in any RS. The answer to the "why is it assumed...." thing is that it is not an assumption -- it is what the awards and interviews discuss .
Jytdog (
talk)
19:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Off to a good start (perhaps) but now
WP:Too soon for
WP:Prof and not enough in-depth material for
WP:GNG. The rest is
WP:BLP1E. Credit to the nominator for the investigation, which casts a light on the matter very different to the one in the original article.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
07:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC).reply
Delete per
WP:NPF. It's a borderline case — there's enough material about the subject that one could easily argue for a keep based on
WP:GNG, but it's not completely clear because much of this material appears promotional and not truly independent. But if we use this material as the basis for keeping the article, I think we must explain what happened subsequently — the deaths of the implanted patients, destruction of the careers of the higher-level people involved in the scandal, and the failure of her own company that was based on this same line of work. Based on the principle of avoiding harm to subjects in borderline BLP cases, I think we're better off deleting the article. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Sure,
Jytdog. My perspective is that if we have reliable sources for the negative aspects of her biography, then it should be added to the biography. I don't think it needs to be deleted.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per Megalibrarygirl. This individual passes GNG based upon the significant coverage in neutral, third-party sources. I favor adding additional sources to the article and expanding it appropriately.
Montanabw(talk)02:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Others have explained the situation exhaustively, I do not need to repeat what has been more eloquently stated elsewhere. Also, you do not help your own position by arguing with every single post. We all know what you think; we simply disagree. Also, speaking only for myself, it seems unlikely that anyone's argument will change your mind, so why spend more bandwidth
beating the horse?
Montanabw(talk)23:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Most of my comments here have been simply asking people to comment explicitly on BLP. You continue to not read but to talk anyway.
Jytdog (
talk)
00:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: I have pondered and returned to this article numerous times, giving it considerable thought. I still believe she passes GNG and Prof is irrelevant as secondary criteria. As with any BLP, "including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back"... Based on policy, then, there is far too much detail given about other people and their actions, which is problematic. It might belong in a biography of Macchiarini, but his actions and sanctions do not belong in a biography of Antoniadou. While factual, it should be removed to talk page, IMO. Three or four sentences would suffice. "AT UCL Antoniadou worked in Alexander Seifalian's laboratory, which focused on bioengineering and scaffolds. While she worked in that lab, Seifalian was approached to create an artificial trachea; Antoniadou and a colleague worked on the project. When a doctor at another institution implanted the trachea, it garnered wide media attention and Antoniadou founded an NGO organization, Transplants Without Donors, which intended to use tissue engineering to develop artificial organs. Later the patient died, further implantations showed the technology was not yet viable, and the NGO organization was dissolved." Pared back, factual and not focused on someone else's actions.
SusunW (
talk)
14:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
User:SusunW 2 notes. The startup was a for-profit, not a nonprofit which i assume is what you mean by "NGO". Also we don't know why it went bankrupt. Most startups die because they fail to raise enough money to keep going, and in
the Nature interview she says that raising money is their biggest challenge. So that is probably what happened. (if it is, the reason why they couldn't raise money, could be any number of things)
Jytdog (
talk)
03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
NGO is a non-governmental organization, they raise funds from private donations, not government funded sources. All organizations secure operational funds from some source. Doesn't mean that they are profit driven. The Nature piece doesn't make any claim that it is profit driven, only that they were seeking funds to forward development of products. Doesn't change the rationale for paring down the information. But, since the nature of the organization is unclear, I modified the text above.
SusunW (
talk)
04:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't know where the notion that her startup (which is what she and everybody else called it) was a nonprofit. Startups are generally for-profits, and every ref cited in the article talks about it like it was a normal startup that participated in pitch events to investors, was seeking investment, etc. (for example, the
forbes blur explicilty says they were seeking
angel investors).
Jytdog (
talk)
19:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The nominator accepts that the subject meets gng, but then makes the case that because of events that have happened since the references were created, that the notability has been diminished. Notability
is not temporary, so even if her company has gone out of business (at least in it's original home state), even if patients died and a surgeon is discredited, if it was notable then it is still notable today.
Jacona (
talk)
18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
User:JaconaFrere No, you have distorted the reason for the nomination. The reason people paid mind to her was really one thing - her connection to that artifical trachea and she started trying to build a career off that (the hope and hype business). There is a real
WP:BLP1E thing going on here. And on top of that, that one thing has been discredited - beyond that, evolved into a horrible thing. That she really had nothing to do with. Deal with the actual facts here please.
Jytdog (
talk)
00:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, let's deal with actual facts. What did reliable sources do? While I see that you
Don't like it, she was noted and discussed significantly by several reliable sources, as you have acknowledged. Deal with the actual notability here, please, not your opinion that it is "a horrible thing". Not your
opinion about whether she had to do with it, but did the
reliable sources cover it. They did.
Jacona (
talk)
22:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
As I noted in the nomination, I would understand a vote to !keep - her story is instructive. There is no "not liking" anything here; you have just now misrepresented me for a second time, leaving the first misrepresentation still unaddressed and have not addressed the BLP issues. There is nothing more to say here.
Jytdog (
talk)
22:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
While the nom holds that their reasoning has been misrepresented, that is certainly not my intention. It appears that the nomination is not questioning whether the subject has received significant coverage by reliable sources, but still wants it deleted. In my opinion, that certainly seems to fall in the realm of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, things happened after her recognition, but
WP:Notability is not temporary.
Jacona (
talk)
17:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
!votes that rely on misrepresenting others (third time now) instead of making their own arguments are generally ignored by closers.
Jytdog (
talk)
19:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
As far as addressing the BLP issues, they are irrelevant, the sources cover the information. You say it became a "horrible thing", but wikipedia is
WP:NOTCENSORED, and the thing, horrible or not, is sourced.
Jacona (
talk)
01:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for giving your own thoughts on the BLP issues. That is what was needed. As I noted in the nomination, I think keeping is not unreasonable but the BLP issues should be considered directly.
Jytdog (
talk)
02:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think anyone has provided any evidence of bankruptcy, just "Involuntary dissolution", which is what the state does when you don't pay your registration fee.
Bankruptcy is a legal process through which a company discharges its debt on court-provided terms (usually by not paying some or all of that debt). Many companies go bankrupt without being dissolved, and many companies get dissolved without going bankrupt. I've seen no evidence that this company had any debt, much less that it had its debt rescheduled. The alleged bankruptcy is mentioned as part of the noms discussion on BLP issues, but there doesn't appear to have been any bankruptcy.
Yes the content in our article says that the company is in involuntary dissolution. From the perspective of general discussion of the topic, everyday people understand "bankruptcy" to mean the same thing. Which is how I was talking here and at the article talk page. Not a big deal.
Jytdog (
talk)
19:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I can't speak to everyday people understanding involuntary dissolution as being the same as bankruptcy, but if they do, it's similar to mixing "died" and "executed". There's a very important distinction.
Jacona (
talk)
15:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment After reading the discussions here and on the talk page, I have adapted the suggestion from @
SusunW:, adding dates where available to give a better sense of time course and Antoniadou's involvement. I felt it was warranted to specifically address the investigations (briefly) and include the information that the ULC scientists were not considered to have acted inappropriately, rather the surgeon was. I've also removed the interlink to "bankruptcy" (which appeared on the text "involuntary dissolution").
Mary Mark Ockerbloom (
talk)
03:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Which I have reverted most of. Those edits were counter-factual and POV. The story is not pretty but it is what it is. If you think it is unwise to have a NPOV article about this person then please !vote delete. But obscuring what happened is not an option.
Jytdog (
talk)
03:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
... Almost all of which changes appear to have been reverted within minutes. I would appreciate it someone else would review them and decide whether they were of use. They did not contradict the cited facts; they specifically noted that there were conflicts and investigations undertaken, and they were not biased or inaccurate in doing so; they did however summarize extensive information which is not appropriate to the focus of this page.
Mary Mark Ockerbloom (
talk)
03:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
They absolutely did contradict the facts. They were dishonest at worst or sloppy at best. There is no evidence her company was a nonprofit - in fact all the evidence is that it was a for profit. And every one of the nine implants failed. Not "some". The artificial trachea thing was a complete failure. Soft peddling that is not acceptable. It wasn't her fault, but it was her launchpad.
Jytdog (
talk)
03:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Mary Mark Ockerbloom, I disagree with Jytdog's characterization of the changes. Neither the number of implants nor detailed information on other people's actions and or failures have anything to do with a biography of her. Policy dictates that the amount of detail be reduced, so I am unclear on why that would be reverted.
SusunW (
talk)
05:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
As previously pointed out,
Jytdog you seem to confuse non-profit and NGO. Which is one reason why I linked to NGO in the edits you reverted. Linking (once) to the name of the doctor involved would be appropriate. People could go there or to the sources for the more detailed information. Including the dates is important for establishing who was responsible for what. An extensive discussion of the case is not appropriate here. Quoting above The case of how the surgeon handled the patient has nothing to do with the invention itself, and it shouldn't be reported as if it was her fault. Referring to the investigations should be sufficient for this article.
Mary Mark Ockerbloom (
talk)
11:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Not the place for this discussion. NGO is not what we commonly call startup companies in WP or in the RW, and the changes violated NPOV up the wazoo. And there was no invention.
Jytdog (
talk)
11:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I actually wanted to !vote "keep" but the sad fact is that this person was not specifically the inventor of a successful technology, nor even a credited inventor of a non-successful technology. Nor is there a source crediting her with specific research on that unsuccessful technology, and we manage to run this BLP without naming the other person involved. Going on "aid missions" is something a huge number of people do, and is not something notable here, nor are the other minor facts sufficient to assert notability as such. Really, I want more articles on women in Wikipedia, but this is not a successful choice.
Collect (
talk)
19:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I vote delete because this person has not contributed enough in science or another field to have her biography listed here. I agree with
Mary Mark Ockerbloom on the fact that her startup was producing bioreactor devices and not trachea transplants or any surgeries of any sort. I don't agree with the inventor debate, as a masters student she worked on the prototype, because of course Professors don't even enter labs, but other than that she left for the USA as you already mention on the next paragraph (2010), while other teams got involved in the experimental surgery years later. UCL had nothing to do with the other 9 transplants either, it was completely different university teams and different tracheal prototypes used under that surgeon. I also agree with [[User: SusunW|SusunW] that there is more info on what other people done as if it is her fault. Overall she is too young to have a bio and wiki should have higher standards on who they include.
Tzsagan (
talk)
07:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Several of the sources demonstrate considerable international notability. Academic qualifications and/or status are not an issue here.--
Ipigott (
talk)
08:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Hi
User:Jytdog. I, on your nudge, have had a deeper investigation and have seen some of your concerns, I have moved my understanding and now lean towards a position similar to User:Collects, so I am striking my keep comment. Thanks for your efforts with this.
Govindaharihari (
talk)
10:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Surely passes GNG. Significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. However, the paragraph about the tracheas needs to be pared way back per
WP:UNDUE. Most of the facts here are about other people. And the article does seem promotional, but that's an argument for additional editing, not deletion. I hasten to add that I think this nom was totally appropriate. I usually decry repeat AfD noms that come so close in time after the original. But the BLP issues here (especially BLP1E and UNDUE) needed to be discussed and weren't covered in the initial AfD. Thank you Jytdog.
David in DC (
talk)
17:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. For these reasons: 1) She has
WP:GNG based on extensive sources, therefore she does not need to pass PROF. 2) As noted above, "AT UCL Antoniadou worked in Alexander Seifalian's laboratory, which focused on bioengineering and scaffolds. While she worked in that lab, Seifalian was approached to create an artificial trachea; Antoniadou and a colleague worked on the project. When a doctor at another institution implanted the trachea, it garnered wide media attention" 3) She posses international notability 4) As note above, she has significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.
Dean Esmay (
talk)
01:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for replying, but if you went and looked for refs you would find that all the RS are already used (you may find more but I doubt it), and you have not spoken to the BLP issues. So be it.
Jytdog (
talk)
05:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The "beauty" of an AFD is the nominator doesn't get to control the outcome nor dictate other editors' assessments ... no matter how many times s/he types the same comments over and over again.
Hmlarson (
talk)
02:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment, "all the RS are already used", the article presently has 16 references, as a subject can meet
WP:GNG with just 2 or 3
RS, it would be helpful if the nominator or 1 of the "deleters" informed us which ones are not RS or useable for notability, thanks.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
11:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Why does WP have a BLP policy and take it so seriously? We have it, to protect living people. It says "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.". So if you read the story of this person's life, her career was launched by her involvement in the project of her lab head and this surgeon, which generated a ton of press. (all of the awards she won and every source about her, talks about that work). The surgeon killed 7 people and his work had to be undone on the other two; her lab head turned out to be corrupt. She has (apparently) left the practice of science behind altogether now and is starting over... but there are no RS about that. So.. I said
WP:TOOSOON; others have cited BLP1E, see the note below, and see David Eppstein's !vote above. Sure we ~could~ keep this, but a clueful !vote will at least take the BLP issues into account. (and no, we cannot soft peddle what actually happened, if we keep the article - that would be an NPOV violation)
Jytdog (
talk)
10:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Reducing the content as per policy is not soft peddling, as you have asserted. It is also a POV to insist on keeping all the minute details about other people in the article. The company dissolved in 2013; 4 years have passed. Those things that happened to others have not destroyed her life or career. The actions of others have not stopped her continuing her career, as she is still actively participating on the world stage in various capacities.
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4].
SusunW (
talk)
14:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Oh she got a job with
International Marine Contractors Association! Good for her! As noted she is out of science/regenerative medicine. Left that train wreck behind. I never said that anything stopped her career (it would be very hard to stop a go-getter like this person) - what I have said, and said repeatedly, is that her initial launch and trajectory has crashed and burned. Of course she is starting over and she may go on to do important things. We don't know if she will or not yet. Hence my TOOSOON vote. But if this stays, the full picture of what happened needs to stay and the community will not allow what happened to be buried in phony bullshit. If she goes on to achieve great things, having overcome this initial adversity will only be to her credit.
Jytdog (
talk) 22:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC) (note - i just re-read and realized that this may come across as sarcastic. It wasn't. It is hard to relaunch, and it is great that she has found a job and is restarting.
Jytdog (
talk)
16:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC))reply
Cruelty. The subject has had her career and reputation destroyed by the actions of others. I think it is wrong to use Wikipedia to pillory her misfortune as that, in effect, is what is being done here:
WP:Do no harm. I would like to see this AfD debate redacted as well per
WP:BLP policy.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC).reply
Comment- Hi all, I'm a former student of Eleni from Greece, I wanted to say that this is a very unfair article of her because she has 5 degrees and is a person of poor background that won more than 20 scholarships to be able to go to the university. Also Eleni is known in Greece because she is the first Greek person to ever enter the NASA academy and to be an astronaut instructor, few people know about her medical research more people know about her space research and her philanthropic work at the elderly houses here in Greece. She was very helpful and kind as a teacher too and helped us to apply to universities abroad. I'm sorry I don't know much about wikipedia and it's rules, I just wanted to add this comment. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
LefterisP (
talk •
contribs)
17:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) —
LefterisP (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep The subject is notable per sources. BLP issues or NPOV issues, if there are any, do not indicate an article should be deleted; they indicate an article should be cleaned up so I don't see the need for discussion of BLP issues in the RfD context. If a subject is WP: notable deletion is not an option. Discussion on the clean up needed, if any, belongs on the article talk page not here.(
Littleolive oil (
talk)
00:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC))reply
Delete -- insufficiently notable, and thus BLP considerations take precedence. Especially given the SPA editing, better off deleted.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
00:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete With respect to the BLP issues, the article uses verifiable sources and, in contrast to its previous incarnations, has moved substantially toward a NPOV. It is certainly not an attack page. The subject's notability, however, seems to me questionable. It is true that the basis of that notability is interesting, as it made a complete metamorphosis from "Oh Yeah!" science to "Oh No!" pseudoscience, and in both manifestations it received a fair amount of press. A former association with a team of quacks, however, is something less than a notable achievement. Lastly, I know many people who spend their entire lives doing good works. It makes them significant, and typically wonderful, but not notable at the level of an encyclopedia.
JoJo Anthrax (
talk)
16:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Clarification: I think there is confusion here as to what designates notability per Wikipedia. "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Per the reliable independent sources this subject is notable. Borderline notable is also notable assuming that is the case. What does not matter is the opinion of any editor here as to what is significant, or that the subject experienced failure; if that was published in a RS this is exactly what is notable. We aren't here to determine whether there is science or pseudoscience here. And we can't conflate significance with notability. Our test for notability is the sources. Are the sources reliable, are there enough of them, and what is enough? BLP issues, notability issues, and significance have been conflated with a dressing of opinion on the scientific aspects of a career. We have to clarify and delineate and edit out what does not matter at this point in an article's construction. RS. That's what we need and we have them. (
Littleolive oil (
talk)
16:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC))reply
You are not speaking to the weakness of the sources, their restriction to being based on one small set of events in her life, nor to the actual BLP issues here. There is no pseudoscience under discussion so I don't know why you are mentioning that.
Jytdog (
talk)
16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"There is no pseudoscience under discussion...". Per Jobas "A former association with a team of quacks, however, is something less than a notable achievement." The subject has won numerous awards sourced. We can argue I suppose as to the significance of those awards. And as I said above BLP is not a criteria for deletion so I don't see a need to discuss it. If the discussion is BLP fine but BLP issues, as long as the sources are there, and I believe they are, and so do you apparently, "and everything is well sourced enough" does not point to deletion. These issues are being muddled together here and that is a concern.(
Littleolive oil (
talk)
17:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC))reply
Hm.
WP:DELETION does speak to BLP somewhat but more importantly BLP itself does speak to whether articles should exist or not. You are not dealing with what BLP says about that. I agree that some people have gone a bit far in characterizing the surgeon's malpractice; people have gone too far as well characterizing what the subject actually has done in her life thus far. It is hard to steer the middle and see what she did do, what happened around that, and where this young woman is in her life.
Jytdog (
talk)
17:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Could you reference what you are referring to when you say, "BLP itself does speak to whether articles should exist or not." I don't see such reference.(
Littleolive oil (
talk)
18:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC))reply
The whole section
Presumption in favor of privacy covers various aspects of how we consider the well-being of the subject above rote application of "there is a source for it so of course we say it" or "there are plenty of sources so of course there should be an article". The issues are hard with this person because all the hype and awards (which are not great sources) focus on stuff she did that fell to pieces. Earlier versions of this article didn't tell the whole story so were warped and fake; with the article telling the whole story we end up with all this WEIGHT on an aborted beginning of a career that has barely begun. Which is why I propose (and am not insisting, but propose) that we delete per TOOSOON. I could see that we would decide to keep it, but I find it ... unfortunate that so few "keep" !voters are really thinking through the BLP issues and the presumption in favor of privacy. A kneejerk "there are plenty of sources so keep" !vote does the subject and the spirit of the community consensus that generated and maintains BLP as a policy, a real disservice.
Jytdog (
talk)
18:37, 21 April 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 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.
Keep and definitely shouldn't be bundled. This is an article with 2 reliable references showing the person represented their country internationally - and not Andorra or Monaco, but a nation of more than 20 million people. Without being able to search in Chinese, I cannot say there are not more sources. This was also moved to the mainspace by
Beatley only 2 hours before AfD; more sources may take time, but what we hae is enough.
Boleyn (
talk)
06:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Nom Com I suggest reading the AN/I discussion YMblanter linked above. If you want the article kept, userfy it now, mass deletion to the tune of some 75% is about to take place, I don't know when.
L3X1(distant write)14:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
keep meets NATHLETE. afd is not a quality improvement process; if you have a quarrel with NSPORTS, and want to assert the supremacy of GNG, then change the policy. the mass deletion of articles that wery well meet notibility policy is proof of the moral sewer that prevails here.
Beatley (
talk)
16:45, 25 April 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.
Article contrary to Wikipedia's TOU, falling foul of
WP:PAID. GNG is not met, my own searches turned up nothing more than the usual interviews, "advertorials" and corporate puffery.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
20:58, 14 April 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.
Less than one step away from a hoax. No notability. Just an invention that got tweeted about. Fails utterly to meet
WP:GNG. Should be speedily deleted if there is a suitable category VelellaVelella Talk 20:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
As explained in the articles and also the Legitimacy page in the references on the Kekistan website, this as legitimate country as places like Liberland, Sealand, Hutt River, and other places that are listed on Wikipedia. It has been endorsed by Russia, and it has a constitution, a government, a flag and a coat of arms. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kevinthomas1864 (
talk •
contribs)
21:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Has received recognition from the
Russian Embassy to the UK, and has legal documents, such as a
constitution on their
website. They also have received more international recognition and notability than most micronations ~ not a hoax or a troll. They have the ability to be contacted and enter diplomatic relations, this can be done through their
social media. It appears a lot of effort has been put into creating their
legal basis, something that a simple 'hoax' or 'troll' could. KEEP & LET EXPANDUrshankov (
talk)
21:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - there are notable micronations, but this is not one of them. A hashtag in a tweet from an embassy ≠ official recognition by that government. If there is any "international recognition and notability" please show where that is, because it's not included in the article nor is it anywhere to be found through Internet searches. --bonadeacontributionstalk21:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete Guys, guys. I don't know if I'm more embarrassed that this wasn't CSD'd or that we're wasting time discussing this. There couldn't be a better example of a hoax. "kek" is a well known meme-ing term. What's next to it? "Dat boi island?" We're getting trolled fellas, and having a "flag" and "constitution" is about as credible as "Donald Drumpf".
Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk22:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Kek is also featured throughout Ancient Egyptian Ogdoad cosmogony, as can be seen here. This micronation also appears to be based on the geographic history of the origins of the Egyptian mythical creature. Rejecting the basis that a nation can be founded upon these fundamental principles would mean that we would have no nations to this day, as every single one has originated from a deity of some kind. I'm sure if this micronation kept it's traditional name of 'The Principality of Jonesia' you would have no issue with such? I am aware that this has become part of some 'meme' culture, but this micronation seems incredibly serious, and is far more functional than most of those in the list.
Urshankov (
talk)
22:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Exemplo347: If you're honestly trying to throw a petty insult because someone has done something you disagree with, you need to become more mature and realise people don't actually follow your little ideals. Due to such inflammatory and ridiculous behaviour, I would like to see your prior comment made invalid - as I'm sure if you read the rules you would understand that this is a discussion thread and is no place for personal attacks.
Urshankov (
talk)
22:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
From comments such as
Exemplo347 moaning about 4chan, and
Drewmutt saying "Donald Drumpf", it is clear that you are showing bias against this actual country simply because of your political beliefs, and trying to delete articles that do not reflect your political ideology. The threat to block
Urshankov is out of order. It is meant to be a fair balanced encyclopedia. This is a real country, that has been granted recognition by Russia and features in Buzzfeed. It has more credibility than the other micronations Wikipedia lists. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kevinthomas1864 (
talk •
contribs)
22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
KEEP & LET EXPAND Wikipedia has pages for other micronations such as Sealand, Hutt River etc.., all of which have received less international recognition and are less organised than this one. If Wikipedia has pages for these micro-nations, this micro-nation should definitely be allowed to have its own page.
MeekoMeeko (
talk)
22:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC) —
MeekoMeeko (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Seconded.
Abusing multiple accounts can get you banned from Wikipedia, particularly when you do it during Article for Deletion discussions.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
22:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Stop accusing people of making multiple account and actually engage in a reasonable, well argued, fact-based discussion as to why Kekistan should not be accepted into the community of nations despite satisfying the required criteria for a nation more successfully than any other micro-nation on this entire website.
MeekoMeeko (
talk)
22:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Exemplo347 that's a bit low, suggesting everyone who disagrees with you is the same person - so is everyone posting to delete this page the same person? Ok, Exemplo347, Hyperbolick, Velella, Bonadea, Drewmutt are the same person and should be barred from Wikipedia for trying to delete articles that don't satisfy their Democrat party political agenda.
KEEP & LET EXPAND Kekistan has a constitution, land, international recognition and a citizenry willing to give their lives for the nation if need be. Hardly any other nation on earth can claim to have such a stature of statehood. Long Live Kekistan and LONG LIVE THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE! SHADILAY!
Kekistani Nationalist (
talk)
22:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
L3X1: IHello, may I ask why you have opened an investigation against me, although there is no evidence of your claims I am willing to be IP checked and such, just to prove that this is not true, and is infact, a false allegation.
Urshankov (
talk)
22:51, 14 April 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 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. While the deletes outnumber the keeps by a small margin, there doesn't seem to be a strong enough consensus to justify any definitive action with this article. Both sides have compelling arguments. Additionally, the incident happened very recently, and new information is still coming out about it. This article was created on the day of the incident, and the AfD was started 8 hours after the article was created (which is discouraged by
WP:RAPID for this very reason). There will be a better opportunity for a stronger consensus to emerge after the dust settles. If there are still concerns about the article, I'd suggest renominating in a month or two.
‑Scottywong| squeal _23:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
keep this is a terror attack receiving significant coverage in international media- bbc nyt, reutets, cnn, etc etc. Also local. Seeing the 2017 st petersburg metro bombing has an entry, there is reason to treat this terror event differently. The article itself is well sourced and well written. Probably both the article and the afd should've waited a few days.
Icewhiz (
talk)
21:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note, as I said on the article's talk page, that many editors who work on Israel-related articles on are observing the Passover holiday, which continues through Wednesday, and are not editing at present. As are many Israeli journalists. I suggested there that we should wait to hold this discussion until the country returns from holiday.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
21:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep as per usual. by this I mean that it has become normal to keep articles about terrorist attacks because they generate substantive international coverage, as is the case here.( cf.
2017 Paris machete attack,
2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers, etc.) Nom gives a
WP:CRYSTAL argument for deletion, but, Note that in fact terrorist attacks tend to be revisited and referenced going forward, in this case, it is likely to be part of the growing attention being paid to
suicide by soldier, in which, as Shin Bet is suggesting here, an already suicidal perp commits a terrorist attack in order to achieve a socially approved, even lauded, death. Note also, as I have argued before at AFD, that it is far easier to create articles on these incidents soon after they occur - and sources are available without access to paywalled archives - rather than to hope that someone goes back years later to create an article when an incident like the
1980 Antwerp summer camp attack or the
1996 Paris Métro bombing comes back into the news.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
22:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Stick a knife in this one, it's done. I think it's time we reevaluate the notability of terrorist attacks in general, since this is one AFD too many for such articles.
Cyrus the Penner (
talk)
01:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The article fails
WP:NOTNEWS and, by definition,
WP:LASTING, but those policies are dead and never applied anyway. I'll note three things. First, there is already a page
List_of_violent_incidents_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_2017, which deals with violent incidents of all kinds. Of those, only some incidents are given wide coverage and people create articles on them, but that situation is so normal that it's not even worth talking about. Second: the motives of the attacker are not totally clear; he seems to be mentally unstable and had a history of sexual abuse. Lastly, technically the creator of this page shouldn't be creating pages at all in this area, since they don't meet
WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. The latter is not too important; I'm sure someone else would have created the page if not for them.
Kingsindian♝♚11:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Just imagine how stupid would it be to actually have this attack as a stand-alone article in a written encyclopedia. This attack hasn't yet generated any significant outcome. It is only that a foreign resident was killed, so obviously some British newspapers and other international sources would care. I also don't see a reason for this incident to be recorded on the rail's article, especially not in more than one sentence. The community should start having a consensus to start articles on recent terror attacks rather than having a consensus to remove them, we always have someone starting an article and then thanks to democracy, which is not the way of Wikipedia, we end up with countless articles about incidents that usually generate news reports because the media likes to support terrorism by popularizing it and enjoy ad revenue. The only reason for this article and other simmilar articles to exist is that there is "major news coverege" on that matter, but that's not enough to justify a Wikipedia article.
If we look at the article we have and remove the section headlines, it really looks like no other than a news article:
News article in Wikipedia
The attack occurred at about 1:00 pm April 14, 2017, as a knife-welding man stabbed a 23 years old British tourist. An off-duty police officer riding the light rail pulled an emergency brake and tackled the perpetrator, who was then arrested.
According to Israel's domestic security service, Shin Bet, the attacker was known to the authorities and this may have been a “suicide by soldier,” a phenomenon seen in other incidents in the last 18 months, "in which a Palestinian suffering from mental health or personal issues has chosen to carry out an attack as a way out of his problems."
Stabbing attacks were rare in Israel in 2017, although there was a spate of them in the fall of 2015 and early 2016. The attack took place as crowds of pilgrims form around Israel and the world gathered in the center of Jerusalem ot celebrate Good Friday.[5]
The attacker was Gamil Tamimi (57), a Palestinian Arab from the Ras al-Amud neighborhood of East Jerusalem who was known to security services had recently been released from a mental health facility where he was treated for attempted suicide.
In 2011 Tamimi was convicted of molesting his daughter.
Hannah Bladon, a 21-year-old student in Israel on an exchange program from the University of Birmingham was killed in the attack.
Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Radical Islamic terrorism is striking world capitals. Regretfully, terrorism struck today in Israel's capital – Jerusalem."
Israeli President Reuven Rivlin said “The bitter news of the young woman’s death in a terror attack in Jerusalem fills me with deep sorrow.”
Mark Regev Israeli ambassador to the UK, said: “My thoughts are with the family and friends of UK student Hannah Bladon, who was murdered in a senseless act of terror in Jerusalem today."
Per
WP:LASTING, this article is also too early, though I strongly believe it won't have any significant impact with encyclopedic value in the future. The attack didn't generate any big controversy, there isn't a big, complicated story here, there was no real response, millitary, legal or whatever, that followed this attack, only shock and grief.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)12:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that some news media have now responded to your comment [;-)] by ginning up a controversy around the fact that perp is entitled to a monthly stipend paid by the
Palestinian Authority from a budget subsidized by British taxpayers.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
14:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment no comment on whether the event is notable or not, but per
E.M.Gregory's comment I think the discussion should be put on hold until more experienced editors from Israel get to comment on the issue.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
12:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Content decisions can and should be determined by consensus of all editors, not a special group of editors.-
MrX13:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. This will be, as usual, voted in. The policies are clear, and it is in violation of them all, and none cited here have any other function than to give the impression this has something to do with policy. The only principle governing these articles is that any act of lethal violence undertaken by a Palestinian against a non-Palestinian has encyclopedic value. It's a form of politics on Wikipedia that survives by inattention to the clear evidence of our guidelines. Shrike for example
reverts out this as non violent from thelist, an episode widely reported as causing a sick Palestinian child's death by deliberate medical neglect because they could not extort from him information about his neighbours (
here,
here,
herehere,
here,
here,
here etc.) The incident is widely reported. This cannot even be listed as as form of extortionate violence leading to a death. One could, as is being done in this article, compose an article on the case and hope it would not be deleted. No. Responsible editors refrain from that because, however tragic, indeed evil, the incident may have been, it fails wiki criteria for notability, as does most of the daily thuggery in that area, which is best left to lists.
Nishidani (
talk)
20:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Isn't there a list this can go on? There doesn't seem to be enough to say about it to warrant an independent page, and I don't forsee significant additions being made to the content in the future. There is the same problem in some articles about terror attacks in Turkey where there isn't enough to say to meet notability guidelines, just a one-day news event. Fortunately Wikiproject Israel has a couple of pretty comprehensive lists this data could be added to. The category Kurdistan Workers' Party attacks has 6 articles. Palestinian terrorism has 169 pages and an additional 7 subcategories. Agree, "The only principle governing these articles is that any act of lethal violence undertaken by a Palestinian against a non-Palestinian has encyclopedic value"
Seraphim System(
talk)13:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Response I don't think a one day news event constitutes sources to support notability. If in the future this attack is studied in further secondary sources, and becomes significant in terrorism studies for any number of reasons editors have listed above (including policy changes, military action, or some other widely covered social significance like the gay pride stabbing) - then it could be added. Maybe it's too soon, but not every stabbing in every city in every country of the world meets notability guidelines only because it was covered briefly in news sources.
Seraphim System(
talk)14:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Deletion arguments based on the assertion that this article is sourced to "a one day news event" have been obviated by events in the days since the attack, including perp's mental status exam, widely covered public memorials at sporting events in Britain, and a developing controversy regarding British taxpayer subsidy of monthly stipend paid to this and other terrorism-motivated attackers by the Palestinian Authority.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
14:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that news coverage is ongoing, and will undoubtedly continue through the trial; it always does. Today's headline: Palestinian awaits mental evaluation after stabbing, killing British woman,[5]..
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
17:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Don't be ridiculous. You specialize in these silly articles, that can be summed up in any one of our numerous lists in 3-4 lines. I like many other editors could make several articles a month on similar things occurring to Palestinians - for every Israeli killed by this violence, several Palestinians are shot in very dubious circumstances, many in violation of Israel's obligations as a belligerent occupant of their land - but there is a general agreement among several of us that we should not imitate the POV pushing bad practice being used to promote unilaterally an Israel-the-victim-of-Palestinian terrorism mentality on Wikipedia. As long as drifting editors unfamiliar with this state of defiance of clear protocols continue to lazily vote instead of examining the merits, this crap will stay in, and consolidate wiki's repute for its
WP:systemic bias in the I/P area.
Nishidani (
talk)
17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Meaning everything should have an article on Wikipedia. If you are familiar with policy (
WP:AGF), you should be familiar with
WP:NOTNEWS. Not one remark by those promoting this 'stuff' seriously addresses that issue, and the detailed policy guidelines regarding what is of long-term encyclopedic interest, and what is just a blip in a news cycle. Get out of the toxic I/P mental framework of battling to promote a POV, and apply the reasoning used here, and you would get a wiki article on
this,
this,
this,
this,
this,
this, etc.etc. The only reason this is covered is that it is the Middle east conflict and involves an Arab Palestinian. All the other incidents occur in the US, and everywhere else in the world every day, and do not rate as articles. That is what
WP:Systemic bias is all about. It's quite disgraceful, but worse, a deliberate abuse of wiki space to push a POV.
Nishidani (
talk)
19:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
You didn't answer the question. What you are saying is that an attack by a known Arab militant, or a personal suspected of being motivated by ISIS gets coverage (I'm fine with that), therefore any attack by any Arab on a non-Arab must get coverage, even if he's a suicidal psychiatric patient, though we do not give coverage to any of the daily knifings by Americans, Italians (3 every week recently), English 'ordinary people', etc. The conceptual distinction is clear, and wiki excludes the latter.
Nishidani (
talk)
20:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Those who write these articles on Arabs never write articles like
From the perspective of those massacred (these events occur regularly once or twice a month, and have done so for over a decade) such attacks out of the blue are seen as we see the terrorist attacks we make articles on. In this Wikipedia is not global, but angloamericocentric, reflecting its own news and political interests. Anù the selectivity is quite deliberate, to promote a victimized by Arabs mentality
Nishidani (
talk)
20:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Because I do assume good faith, let me refer you once again to
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS - most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion - if you are writing on human shields and looking up citations from 10 years ago as research for your topic, most likely that is appropriate. If your peer-reviewed or specialist secondary sources cite news articles for a particular issue, most likely it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you are posting an article that is entirely about a single news story, which is not covered by any significant scholarship outside news reports, most likely, that is not appropriate.
Seraphim System(
talk)21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The mere existence of sources does not necessitate the creation of an independent article.
WP:Notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.-
MrX21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Per Bolter et al. I bet this one will be going to Deletion review. In the future, for best results, wait until thing has blown over before XFDing it. Easier.
L3X1(distant write)21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - An unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable but, for the most part, it doesn't work the other way around. Experienced editors need to have common sense about notability; independent news coverage immediately after the event does not make this notable. Stabbings happen (sadly) on the regular but they do not become articles. This is what policies are for people, come on.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
23:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete and transwiki to WikiNews per Bolter21's reasoning, without prejudice against creation of a Wikipedia article should
WP:LASTING effects occur. There's really nothing here beyond a summary of the events and the condemnations by various dignitaries. As it is, it's a bit awkward that this was created and nominated on the day of the event, as it's too soon to tell if it will fulfill LASTING, but considering the frequency of terrorist incidents that happen in the Middle East, I'm leaning towards no.
DaßWölf00:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep and institute clear guideline to ban wikiwashing campaigns and that obvious acts of terrorism are always notable, and not covered by the NOT NEWs which is always brought out everytime there is a terrorist attack. There should be an article on the increasing trend to stage terrorist attacks as "routine" crimes by mentally unstable people which appears to be a common and deliberate tactic of clandestine warfare. It is absurd to claim that even if the Israeli government declares an act of terrorism, it should not be covered as an act of terrorism by wikipedia. "unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable " In fact, the opposite should be true, when in Israel, every attack by an arab on a non-Arab is instantly recognized as a terrorist attack, elsewhere in the world, every similar attack when there is no other obvious motive should be recognized as a possible terrorist attack, instead of being instantly deleted as "routine news". Many terrorist sprees such as
Ali Muhammad Brown killing two gay men and a student and the
D. C. sniper attacks started out as "routine" murders with absolutely no evidence suggesting a terrorist motive. Indeed in the case of
Shooting of Robert Godwin, if this was an arab killing a Jews in Israel, there would be no doubt as to motive, yet in the United States, no source suggests any possibility of a political motive when it is always an obvious possibility.
Bachcell (
talk)
13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Bachel just curious how do you conclude this is an "obvious" act of terrorism when even the very article your voting to keep and current news sources state it is a possible act of terror? This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is not a news source: editors tend to assume things that are not verified yet.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
14:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
While we are pontificating on the lacunae of law, how did you arrive at the conclusion that motive is an element of a crime? You must be confusing motive with intent, and there is significant doubt, not only in the United States, but also in Israel, as to how this line of jurisprudence should develop. If you are talking of terrorism as a specific intent crime, it may not be what you were hoping for. While I support discussing current scholarship and legal developments about this on the relevant pages, we need to be sensitive to the BLPCRIME restriction in ongoing criminal cases.
Seraphim System(
talk)19:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't have a crystal ball, but maybe the case will be notable, if there are significant legal developments. The fact pattern seems to be developing in an unusual way. I still think delete is best for now, without prejudice to recreating the article if it satisfies notability in the future.
Seraphim System(
talk)20:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
As stated by multiple sources - e.g.
[6] - shin-bet has stated: “This is another incident of many in which a Palestinian suffering from mental health or personal issues has chosen to carry out an attack as a way out of his problems,”. Just because he had issues (he attacker after calling members of his family which refused contact due to the sexual molestation of family members) - doesn't meeting this wasn't terror (it has been labeled as terror by the relevant authorities) - as such an attack is a way to redeem one-self religiously and socially - and multiple terrorists (both in this wave and in previous waves) had a desire to die - just they decide to die killing out non-Palestinians and not by jumping off a roof or in front of train - this is a statistically significant phenomena, which isn't new - Pedahzur, Ami, Arie Perliger, and Leonard Weinberg. "Altruism and fatalism: The characteristics of Palestinian suicide terrorists." Deviant Behavior 24.4 (2003): 405-423
[7], and is exhbitied in other places as well - e.g. the Charlie Hebdo attackes [
[8]] and the Bataclan attackers had an assortment of personal issues as well -
[9]. The existence of a pre-existing motive to die does not preclude terror - to the contrary, this is a definite characteristic of many of the attackers in many such attacks (by Palestinians and non-Palestinians).
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Continued coverage (including the moment of silence mentioned above) prove the article meats WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING. RamiR08:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: I am strongly against the idea of merging the articles. The other article,
Jerusalem Light Rail, has a different and much broader focus, and doesn't have enough room in it for the information contained in this article.
OtterAM (
talk)
17:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:NOTNEWS, Attacks like this by the IDF happen all the time against Palestinians but never get their own article so why should this? Mention it on
List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017. I agree 100% with
Nishidani that attacks like these against Arabs never get the level of attention that attack perpetrated by Arabs get. Not saying this was intentional bad faith by the creator of the article but it's just how the world works. Perhaps, the issue lies more in that people aren't wiling to make an article where Arabs are the victim rather than the other way around. Consistency is all I ask for.
Kamalthebest (
talk)
00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that today's headlines "Palestinian who stabbed British woman to death ruled fit for trial"[11], makes it clear that far from being the single news cycle event asserted by multiple editors above, coverage will continue as perp is tried and sentenced.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Good grief. Every crime leads to a scheduled trial, ergo, every crime must have a wiki article because the time gap between the event and the court trial makes it a 'durable' reality! Jeezus.
Nishidani (
talk)
08:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Shrike, you mentioned
WP:DIVERSE above, and are repeating yourself after I asked you to actually read that policy. I'll plug it down here to ensure you do.
'Similarly, where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ..."), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability (see
Wikipedia:Bombardment).
Wikipedia:Bombardment Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that a subject is notable if there are multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This suggests that an article bristling with sources should be safe. However, not all sources are equally valuable. A source may be reliable, but only cover a subject in a trivial manner, and if a subject is covered only by trivial mentions then it may not be notable no matter how many of them there are (see WP:BASIC).
For example, single events may be given bursts of news coverage in hundreds of newspapers around the world, prompting hundreds of news articles published on a single day. From the next day, not a single news source can be found. Even if coverage continues for a period of time, local interests are not always viewed as encyclopedic.Nishidani (
talk)
10:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
If there are ongoing diverse reliable sources - it should be in wikipedia. Just like
Murder of Carol Cole (single victim, by stabbing) is for instance. We should not judge why the international (and local) media ascribe significance to Jihad inspired murders (particularly of young white women - even more so when the killing is on
Good Friday in Jerusalem) - it is clear that they do, hence there is a place for an article. Those complaining about the coverage, should complain to NYT
[12], WP
[13], BBC
[14], the Guardian
[15], Haaretz
[16], thousands+ article (hard to asses GNEWSHITS when they are over 100,000 supposed top-line (which is incorrect and includes potentially links to from other places) etc etc - it is not our place to judge why others consider this noteworthy, but to assess the noteworthiness ascribed to the incident by others.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
'it is not our place to judge why others consider this noteworthy'.
Actually it is our job to judge why editors think this kind of event. but not similar incidents occurring to Palestinians or Arabs, is noteworthy. It's PR for one party in a conflict, obviously. For several years, every day an incident like this arises, I have seen two or three editors, usually the same folks jump on it, write it up as an article, and then defend it at the inevitable AfDs. That these articles are written within hours of the event, before anyone knows if it may pass durability-over-time evidence, is prima facie evidence that policy is being systematically ignored, in order to get wiki space for another murderous Arab incident. Many get deleted by consensus for all the reasons given above. Quite a few slip through because many passing editors have no knowledge of this practice in the I/P area. It's a simple game. Incident+victim+death or trial of attacker, reactions: you can bloat that into a page, or sum it up in 4/5 lines. There is no POV pushing in the deletionist approach. The only neutral way to handle this is a chronological list, summarizing every incident of violence by whichever party, as has been done.
Nishidani (
talk)
09:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTADVOCATE Your argument, that Israel/Palestinian - related articles must be judged by different standards than articles about other parts of the world is against policy. Palestinians don't get their own special rules. And we are not here to Right Great Wrongs.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
10:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
non-Palestinian terrorist attacks also get created same day - e.g. -
2017 Fresno shootings which was created within hours of the event, and several others (e.g. -
2016 Magnanville stabbing). These get created - because there is wide coverage in reliable sources of the events, with the usually reasonable expectation that the coverage will be continuing.
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
They get created because
WP:NOTNEWS is dead, and has been for a long time. If you look at
2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, it is entirely sourced to contemporary news reports in December 2015. There was a catchy phrase which was in the news at the time. Apart from that, there was a brief bit of news coverage in mid 2016 when the attacker was sentenced. That's basically it. Otherwise, the incident has no
lasting impact. The same will be true of this event. But I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that these pages will continue to get created because a significant portion of the userbase wants these "breaking news" articles, and it is a significant driver of traffic and volunteers. It's fun to create a page which gets to the top of the Google search results immediately.
Kingsindian♝♚13:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
There has, in fact, been ongoing coverage, cf :"Leytonstone Tube attack: Isil-inspired knifeman jailed for life after targeting strangers at Underground station "[17]. Plus brief discussions in at least 2 books
[18] ,
[19], although the attack occurred just over a year ago.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, I can do a Google search as well. Apparently, it's hard to read what I wrote: Apart from that, there was a brief bit of news coverage in mid 2016 when the attacker was sentenced. None of the mentions in the books you cited are of any significance: they don't discuss the attack in any sort of detail (only a sentence or two). That does not count as "ongoing coverage". This is because the attack has had no lasting effect, just as I said. Your numbers are also wrong: the typical pageviews are about 500 a month, except for some spikes around mid 2016, and one during the recent Parliament attack. Look at the daily chart
here: the typical daily pageviews are less than 20 a day. I don't know if readers find them "useful", and I am rather ambivalent about the whole matter, but Wikipedia should stop pretending that
WP:NOTNEWS is policy, because it clearly is not.
Kingsindian♝♚14:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Just out of curiosity, Offhand, how many of the articles you have written on this topic have been deleted after AfDs? Quite a few, from memory.
Nishidani (
talk)
20:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Nishidani: you seem to have an extremely poor memory. But I am happy to
WP:AGF and point out to you that if you want to know this sort of thing, you can look at my editing record - or that of any editor - and find a list of all articles that I have created, with a notation of those that have been deleted. I trust that you will report back here on the number of articles in "this topic" that you find. By the way, how do you define "this topic"? I/P? Terrorism? Crime? After making that assertion, I do feel that you owe us an accurate report on how many articles I have created and how many have been deleted, on "this topic." And at what point in my editing career they were deleted? Also on how you iVoted and who nominated the articles for deletion.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I just checked and I have created 359 articles since joining Wikipedia two years ago. I don't know how exactly many have been deleted partly because I find it convenient to live edit, and a few times I have deleted by blanking tha page of an article I began to create and thought better of (these showup as a deletions). he most recent deletion that shows up in a search is
Basket of deplorables, an article I created only to see it deleted but which was soon recreated by another editor despite which it shows up as a deleted article, as do some other articles such as
Kate Prusack (one of several candidate spouse articles that I created during last year's presidential campaign, but that was merged - not deleted, and
Nebraska Book Award, which I created for the purpose of redirecting to
Nebraska Center for the Book, but which shows up as deleted on the list of articles I have created.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
A procedural question. This seems to be quite a partisan issue, with opinions more-or-less strictly down partisan lines. I was wondering, is there a procedure for getting more comments on this AfD from the general Wikipedia community outside these two sides?
OtterAM (
talk)
20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
That is a good point, and perhaps should be acted on. I insist however that this is not simply a partisan divide. It is true the same people make the same quick articles on incidents of Palestinian terrorism. It is also true that editors here systematically refuse to exploit hundreds of incidents where Palestinians are shot (dead or wounded) by Israeli 'policing actions'. To give one example of dozens, when a grocer Salem Shammaly, was shot dead in front of a video camera, and the
clip went viral, and the incident widely reported, neither I nor others who have objected to this article rushed to exploit it. Using E.M. Gregory's methods, to do so would have been easy to cite
the New York Times,
Sydney Morning Herald,
Daily Mail,
Mirror July 22 2014 The Mirror,
The Guardian,
Vice News,
Al Jazeera,
New Zealand Herald,
Unispal,
Newsweek, and even its durability 3 years later in books, i.e.Marouf Hasian Jr.
Israel's Military Operations in Gaza: Telegenic Lawfare and Warfare Routledge, 2016 p.16, or other venues, such as
Testimony of Eran Efrati that Golani soldiers shot the lad. or
Max Blumenthalon Transcript a year later. 'We' don't do this kind of article except when coverage is massive and continued over time. E.M. Gregory starts these articles instantaneously using breaking news. The AfDs may look partisan, but there is a neat divide between the rule-ignoring behavior of those who exploit incidents where Palestinians are culpable of violence, in order to write articles, and the rule-observant behavior of editors who do not write week by week articles of Israeli killings of Palestinian civilians. In short the procedural question requires some administrative oversight on what the fuck do the policies cited for and against actually mean, since numerous editors read them selectively, or cites them without reading them, or construe them in ways antithetical to what other editors take them to mean. I don't think the Shammaly incident merits inclusion, like hundreds of other similar cases, often on video. Stuff like this fails
WP:NOTNEWS, however tragic or shocking, but can qualify for a list.
Nishidani (
talk)
21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Giving as an example the death of young man in the midst of a hot warzone during a very active war is quite different from the homocide of a peaceful woman not in a active warzone, who was clearly targeted (NOT collateral damage, but actual target) while having nothing to do with the conflict. In addition there are allegations that this particulsr viral video is faked / staged.
Icewhiz (
talk)
21:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
It occurred during a ceasefire, arranged between the parties. Efrat interviewed the soldiers present when the sniper fired. The video was not faked. The 23 minutes of coverage was handed over to the mainstream newspapers, such as the NYTs, and nothing ever came of the 'allegation' a word always employed exclusively to incidents of filming where it would appear an innocent has been killed by the IDF.
Nishidani (
talk)
07:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
short ceasefires are frequently broken - especially when you are talking about a very hot spot which the site of a major battle -
Battle of Shuja'iyya. The clip itself went viral for about 2 days. Later mentions were very scant - so there was no reason to investigate beyond the short newscycle (
[21]). The killing of young men (of fighting age) is not terribly significant in a warzone in which some 2000+ died - and if it significant for a video of the death itself (which by itself shows little besides the death) - hard to say this is significant. In contrast incidents such as -
2014 Gaza war beach bombing incidents which involved children, filming, and continued coverage beyond a 2-3 day news cycle (and minor coverage by Efrat - which isn't exactly RS) - do have articles.
Icewhiz (
talk)
07:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Even if you did have an article regarding the clip, the subject probably would have to be the clip - as a viral video, and not the shooting of Shammaly (both of these, and together, don't meet notability IMHO. The viral video had a lifespan of less than 3 days, and Shammaly or the killing of Shammaly even less). Some of the coverage didn't even mention Shammaly by name
[22].
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) The direct answer to your question,
OtterAM, is that AfD discussions are advertised quite widely. Every one is listed centrally (in
Category:AfD debates and in a subpage of
WP:AFD), and most are also advertised to various interest groups. This AfD, for example, has been listed among the deletion discussions related to Israel, crime, terrorism, the UK, and events. If you can think of another list that may be appropriate to notify, please feel free, but please read
WP:CANVASS first and be neutral in your invitation. —
Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk21:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - additional coverage from 19-20th April -
[23][24] fund raising campaign for Bladon family,
[25] coverage of warning sent to Bladon of a "killer on the loose" by a friend - after Bladon had been stabbed - and other comments by flatmates (exchange students) in Jerusalem,
[26] stabber mentally fit for trial,
[27] Coverage in a weekly Hungarian paper.
Icewhiz (
talk)
07:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
May I suggest that some of the participants on this page give it a rest? I count about 18 comments from E.M.Gregory, 13 comments from Nishidani and 10 comments from Icewhiz. I think you have all made your points pretty well. From my experience, I can say with a pretty high probability that you're all wasting your breath anyway.
Kingsindian♝♚08:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Meets
WP:NCRIME per; media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources and
WP:Notability per; "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Just some of the many different available sources;
CNN,
ABC News which also links to multiple other sources including
BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, etc, etc. Many many Israli sources including
Times of Israel. All of these have provided more than a simple one paragraph repeat of every other source. There's also more minor mentions like this one in the
WashingtonPost. To put this a little further, there's a requirement for reliability which should be self-evidently met, but, look at the sources for yourself. Sources are both secondary and independent of the subject. Now, this gives it presumed notability which is not the same as notability as some would be quick to point out. Because of that, it makes sense to address some of the arguments for deleting the article presented above. Argument 1
WP:SUSTAINED; That is something of a
WP:CRYSTALBALL assumption, but, a credible one. I think it'll last a little bit longer than your "run of the mill" attack given that a British exchange student is the victim and thus forces international coverage. There might be some greater implications than a random stabbing attack on a local would. The same reasoning applies to
WP:PERSISTENCE as well. Argument 2 - "likely fails
WP:EVENT + + +"; from the guideline itself This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Same crystalballing being applied as the first argument. But, again, the argument to keep is crystalballing in the opposite direction. Argument 3 -
WP:GEOSCOPE; obviously does not apply given international coverage due to death of British student. This is not local news, its gone international. Argument 4 -
WP:NOTNEWS; ... editors are encouraged ... and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. There's no guideline or policy on what constitutes "significant", but, there are a couple of essays on it that really don't do anything to help (e.g.
WP:SIGNIFICANT and
WP:CCSI). I think
WP:DIVERSE applies here and that it suffices to establish significance per; Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable which of course if this is being reported in Israeli, US, British, Australian and even German sources is more than enough to meet "diverse". These sources aren't just word for word repeats of each other either, but, they do cover the same general gist of what has happened. Argument 5 - An unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable but, for the most part, it doesn't work the other way around. That is a
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument of Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. In this case, that is not a credible argument for deleting. Lastly I'll tackle
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS; again, this does not apply. It has nothing to do with; routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Other than that there are quite a few more delete arguments which are "per somebody else". It makes greater sense to me to look at the
WP:MURDEROF essay (even though it's a bit more than just a murder) which links to a variety of guidelines and policies most of which have been mentioned here but only one which I think needs close inspection; "Persistence". I think the strongest argument for delete is
WP:PERSISTENCE specifically because; Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. To extend this back to "Murder of", persistence is met if at least some of the following happens; Some factors that may lead to a murder being notable include a large volume of coverage beyond the local area of its occurrence and continuing for a lengthy period of time thereafter, a highly publicized investigation or trial, an article about the case in a magazine long after the case has been closed, coverage on a TV series, a movie or documentary being made about the case, a new forensic technique being used to solve the crime, a law being passed as a result of the crime, or other lasting effects. I've emphasized one point which has already been met. The trial is already being lightly publicized; fit to stand for trial. Whether or not the trial itself gets any attention is a matter for when the trial comes along. It's still in the news cycle and may or may not be as notable in a week, month, or year from now. My feeling on this is that while it won't be a huge deal it already is more than a minor local affair. I think because of this, the article merits inclusion on the encyclopaedia. Side-issue; There is a lot of, to be honest, useless nonsense written above that is entirely distracting from the issue. I have to endorse Kingsidian's comment about "giving it a rest".
Mr rnddude (
talk)
11:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Despite the extensive argument above, this is news. That it gained coverage is no surprise (though a "lightly publicized trail" isn't much), but that this coverage makes it an encyclopedic article, I dispute that.
Drmies (
talk)
16:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Yeah, sorry about that. I am not good at condensing an argument into something short and solid. I always find things to add and expand till eventually it's a solid mass of words arguing part for and part against my position. Well, if it was informative in any way than that's good enough for me.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
No need to apologize. I respect people who actually do some work round here by actually examining the details, though I disagree with your conclusions. I would note that no article has been done (rightly so, it's not politically sexy enough) on
this incident, which I noted while catching up on the backlog. If you examine it, it is identical to the incident in this article up for deletion or otherwise. It received a few news reports in Israel and Palestinian sources, not abroad. The difference is that the incident treated in this article we are discussing affected a foreign woman. The motivation appears to be otherwise identical, an attempt to get killed by killing someone. I agree with
Drmies. Both deserve registration in a few lines in the appropriate list, but fail our criteria for durability.
Nishidani (
talk)
20:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV. This article is used by some of the more vocal defenders / editors of the article to further an agenda. Notice edits like
this from last hour, re-adding "terrorism" wherever possible (including the navbox for "Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2010s", even though this was highly uncertain as a terrorist attack, and not against an Israeli, adding categories like
Category:Mass stabbings (as explained multiple times, there was no "mass" stabbing here) and
Category:Palestinian terrorism (which seems to be the main reason why this article was created and must be kept separately at all costs). This is a minor incident, probably not an actual terrorist attack but simply a deranged, deluded murder, which gets hyped up to further a political agenda. We shouldn't play along with such games. If it has real, lasting repercussions beyond one very sad death and one trial, it is time to revisit this. Until then, this shouldn't be on enwiki.
Fram (
talk)
14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that if User:Fram had read the article he would have seen that perp has already undergone psychiatric examination and been judged competent to stand trial.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Please both keep your insulting remarks to yourself. Cyrus the Penner, you are the one claiming on the article talk page "Agreed. Mainstream media hasn't exactly been reliable these days, so there should be some reliance on editors' good faith to share more accurate information that is being neglected. ", so I don't think I have to take any lessons from you in how wikipedia should deal with this kind of subject. I'll take my advice from neutral readers and editors, not from partisans like you two.
Fram (
talk)
08:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Jerusalem Light Rail for now. Saw this article referenced on AN/I. At this time I think the attack fails
WP:PERSISTENCE and
WP:NOTNEWS. If at some point in the future there are additional attributes that make it worth an article, then it can be revisited.
Coretheapple (
talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Changing to keep on the basis of
this Daily Mail article and others that I had not seen when evaluating this article originally. That pushes it into "keep" territory in my opinion due to the political repercussions in Britain from the payment.
Coretheapple (
talk)
13:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I oppose such a merge for 2 reasons. 1.) as I have argued with school shootings, merging places
WP:UNDUE emphasis on a single foul incident in an article about a major institution, and 2.)it is not done with attacks on trains/trams in cities worldwide and attacks in Jerusalem should be judged by the same standards we apply to attacks in other cities.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
In that case I would delete, again, without prejudice to the facts ultimately justifying an article. At this point it seems clearly not to be more than a news event, a terror incident in which there were not mass casualties.
Coretheapple (
talk) 19:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Striking out as I've changed my !vote to keep.
Coretheapple (
talk)
13:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Disagree. There may have been few casualties in this event, but these kinds of events (no matter what the casualty count is) always find their way back into the news cycle, always whenever a new terror attack occurs and
WP:RS brings up previous attacks as a sort of comparison. That on its own implies long-term notability.
Cyrus the Penner (
talk)
22:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Coretheapple: I read the Daily Mail article, and I don't see any political repercussions. Firstly, it cites Palwatch, which is a worthless source. Secondly, even as the Palwatch head says, there is absolutely nothing new in the practice; it is routine. Thirdly, if the UK government actually stops aid to the Palestinian Authority or something, that would meet the criterion of political repercussions. Right now, it's just the Mail bloviating about how UK taxpayer money is funding terrorism (big surprise that the Mail would take this line /sarcasm). Any supposed political repercussions are just
WP:CRYSTAL, in my opinion.
Kingsindian♝♚14:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Perhaps, but then there is
2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers which was a nonfatal assault and notable enough for an article, and
2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers, ditto. I read the news every day and I don't even recall those two. Yeah, I know, "other stuff exists," but this shows how we handle such things. And of course, the Taylor Force indicent,
2016 Tel Aviv stabbings. So I think keeping the article would be consistent with this practice, especially given the payment and all that entails. The world will not end with either outcome of this discussion and really wish people would get a grip.
Coretheapple (
talk)
15:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per NOTNEWS. Run of the mill terror incident in which one person was killed with a primitive weapon without tangential social impact. Lionized here, as is often the case, because it is an example of Palestinian-on-Israeli violence.
Carrite (
talk)
19:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Coretheapple and Carrite set up standards "run of the mill" and "not mass casualties," but because of the 28 articles listed in
Stabbing as a terrorist tactic, only the
2014 Kunming attack seems to have had mass casualties - indeed many of the listed attacks had no casualties except perp - this appears to be a case of editors arbitrarily applying a standard to attacks in Jerusalem that are not applied to attacks elsewhere.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
21:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:NOTNEWS is a dead letter because
WikiNews has flopped. To see a fresh example of this, compare
our coverage of the recent Paris shooting with
theirs – a bare single sentence. Our core principles of
WP:NPOV,
WP:V and
WP:OR work better than theirs when it comes to digesting the world's news. Such cases are certainly notable and notability does not expire. Our other policies such as
WP:PRESERVE and
WP:CENSOR then apply.
Andrew D. (
talk)
21:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I disagree with this reasoning. Are we going to create articles on events such as
this or
this (both comfortably pass
WP:GNG criteria)? Wikipedia and Wikinews are fundamentally different projects, and it's not up to one to pick up the slack of the other.
DaßWölf00:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note Continuing on-going coverage from 20th-22nd April -
[29] Coverage of salary killer will receive from the Palestinian Authority due to his act of "resistence",
[30] - another moment of silence by UK football team.
[31] - British hotel turning down screening of a film honoring a Palestinian terrorists following Blandon's murder in a Palestinian terror attack.
[32] - Coverage of the Palestinian Authority's attempt to glorify a convicted Palestinian terrorist in London in the wake of the murder of Blandon.
Icewhiz (
talk)
19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep- It clearly meets
WP:N/CA and
WP:GNG - in my experiance,
wp:not news is almost never followed here (unless there is a clash with the projects bias) and so needs reviewing, the project is so big now that it is impossible to stop editors reporting what is in the immediate press, the position is there are multiple
wp:rs so I can republish it here.
Govindaharihari (
talk)
19:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
due to
WP:SIGCOV. Why do news outlets cover terror attacks more than other murders? Perhaps the general public is more concerned with people who are out to kill them to make a point (as issue also with insane mass murderers) - and less concerned with people who have a specific motive to kill a particular person (due to a dispute) or are attempting to commit robbery (usually death avoidable if you fork over your cash). In any event - the terrorist stabbing in Jerusalem, as other terrorist attacks elsewhere, has received very wide coverage - leading to
WP:SIGCOV and meeting
WP:CRIME. Two UK football clubs have decided to honor the victim with a moment of silence - not done for any random murder victim.
Icewhiz (
talk)
11:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"The terrorist attack... The terrorist attack..." you remind us breathlessly, yet it seems every reliable source points to him having mental health and suicide issues. "...psychiatric examiners judged him mentally fit to stand trial." You say "People who are out to kill them to make a point." Yet there's zero evidence of him having any kind of "point". It could still be a notable
Insanity defense attack, however.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
There was coverage of the San Francisco stabbing in LA Times, People magazine, the Guardian, the Independent, Seattle Times, etc. for more than a month. But I doubt that anybody here (including myself) believes the San Francisco stabbing should have its own article.
Jrheller1 (
talk)
20:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The only reason this tragic but run-of-the-mill news item has an article is because of where it occurred and the ethnicity of the perpetrator. The bludgeoning of dissenting opinions by some editors here (which I note is amongst the reasons for one of them gaining themselves a topic ban) does not reflect well on the motivations for this article existing.
Black Kite (talk)13:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The reason why one incident garners attention and another does not is irrelevant to judging notability, we follow sources, published articles are the metric by which we gauge notability of recent crimes. In this case, coverage has been intense, international, and ongoing. Today's headlines include "Why a UK woman's murder in Israel should boil your blood and make you rethink foreign aid"[33], & "British Taxpayers to Pay Hannah Bladon’s Killer a Monthly Salary"[34].
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for deletion.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
14:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The Daily Mail will use any excuse to print something xenophobic. Otherwise, the incident has largely disappeared from the British national press. It's not a IDONTLIKEIT issue, it's a matter of NOTNEWS - there's nothing here that distinguishes this from hundreds or even thousands of similar incidents - except, as I said, where it happened, which is why it's got an article in the first place.
Black Kite (talk)17:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete and Redirect to
List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017 (or Merge, I guess, but it looks to be covered there already) - Doesn't look to be lasting significance such that it demands a stand-alone article. The Daily Mailarticle, which is mentioned above to point to lasting significance, in addition to being our only quasi-"official" unreliable source, is demonstrating unreliability here. To read the story, you would think that the Palestinian Authority looked at this case and said "yes, this guy -- let's give this guy a reward", when in fact it's just a routine gripe about UK foreign aid and a controversial policy of the Palestinian Authority. "...Tamimi or his family qualify for a 'salary' from the PA, according to Itamar Marcus, spokesman for the Israeli monitoring group Palestinian Media Watch. 'According to PA law, everyone who is imprisoned for 'resisting the occupation' receives a PA salary,' he said." In other words, it's a bit of advocacy that could be run as a boilerplate and has nothing to do with developments in this particular example. No objection to this being recreated down the road if it receives lasting coverage, of course. — Rhododendritestalk \\
14:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:RAPID is not a temporary shield from standard policies and guidelines, as it is most often invoked to be when linked at AfD. Don't rush to delete articles and don't rush to create articles (often, there's only an opportunity for
WP:RAPID to be argued at AfD when someone has ignored the rest of the page that section is taken from). Sometimes it makes sense to delete, sometimes it makes sense not to create. Unfortunately (but not actually unfortunate, of course) there's no long process like this for creating an article, weighing arguments about whether someone is creating something too early. There's nothing preventing those who wish to create the article from also revisiting in 6 months or a year. Certainly not opposed to userfying to make that easier. — Rhododendritestalk \\
15:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
They are all mass or multiple stabbings, not similar to a psychiatric patient suddenly turning on a woman next to him and stabbing her, and apologizing to the family (and no doubt contradicting himself). Jerusalem has nothing to do with it: his ethnicity is the reason this has been made into an article.
Nishidani (
talk)
16:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I again suggest to you that you read the links before making grand, sweeping and inaccurate assertions. Although the main point is that coverage suffices to support an article.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I was inclined to agree with Nishidani until I noticed that there are non-fatal stabbings in Europe that resulted in Wikipedia articles. I might add that the ones I checked were not subject to deletion discussions like this one, which leads me to believe that POV issues perhaps exist on both sides. (surprise surprise)
Coretheapple (
talk)
16:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I've never disguised my POV in this area, Core. But it would be extremely easy for me to write up, on E.M.Gregory's principles, a hundred short articles of Palestinians killed without justification (according to
Human Rights Watch,
B'tselem,
Amnesty International, and other reputable NGOs) so that, by links, and cats, one could cram Wikipedia with that POV. I've done only one article like this,
Zion Square assault, and began it 12 days after the incident, when it was apparent that the incident was assuming a notable dimension in global newspaper accounts. Whatever influence I have has been expended repeatedly in reminding editors identified as being sympathetic to Palestinians as well, not to imitate this execrable practice. Even
User:Sepsis II whose editing partisanship worried me at times, waited 17 days before starting
Beitunia killings, though I had been mulling the propriety of doing it myself since it was an egregious example of IDF murder, but was more conservative in thinking of the appropriate time to write up the material.
Nishidani (
talk)
19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
No. Life's too brief. There's far too much serious encyclopedic work to be done on the passing away of thousands of peoples and their distinctive cultures to allow oneself to play games on stacking this place with quickie one-off articles that can be summed up in a few lines. I refuse to be sucked into imitating erratic or negative behavior just to 'get even'. It takes the same amount of time to write an article on an extinct Aboriginal people as to write one on some single event of modern terrorism, and it is indicative of our times that we get the horn over, treat as spectacular, single events of violence, while your average American, Canadian, South American or Australian can't even recall the names of whole ethnic groups wiped out or rendered extinct by land-grabbing attrition, usually on the land their suburbs and farms are built on. Statistically it is far more dangerous to get into your car and go driving than to walk the streets of cities, like Paris, afflicted by incidents of terrorism. France wiped out a third of the population of Algeria in 40 years; Italy was the first country, in 1911, to douse poison gas on a native population in Libya wiping out whole tribes (a practice endorsed by Churchill in 1925: the British used it in Iraq in 1919) but no one remembers that 'stuff'. But they will tend to think, thanks to Wikipedia's activism on behalf of tabloids, that several incidents each year 'demonstrate' the undying enmity of the 'Arabs' against 'white' civilization. We must focus on, as one editor said here, the 'truth' of their religious hatred.
Nishidani (
talk)
07:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I ask you to at least consider whether this article is being judged by different standards - I would say that this question would only be relevant if those also went to AfD and the same editors opined in a clearly different way. I've only gone through the first two on the list, which do not look to have gone to AfD, and which likely should go to AfD. Neither the Munich nor Reutlingen articles contain any indication of lasting coverage whatsoever. Brief mentions in lists, the obvious update upon sentencing, and that's it. All of the citations otherwise come from within a week of the event. Perhaps the reason it's easier to form an opinion on this one is that there is an obvious merge target (though there may be for the others, too -- I haven't looked yet). If you think that I have different standards or that another editor exhibits different standards for evaluating notability, it may be worth bringing up, but as this stands, it's a textbook
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Responding to the direction of this sub-thread since E.M.Greegory's initial question, I don't know why fatal/non-fatal, multiple/single distinctions matter in terms of evaluating notability, aside from to say that they are indications of the only thing that actually matters -- that the events receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject over a period of time. — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Meets notability criteria, has sufficient references, potential to develop more fully exists. I do not see the argument to delete, except an ideological one - which should not be the basis for deletion.
Ifnord (
talk)
17:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment There is a high standard for
WP:NCRIME because it must meet
WP:RS requirements including
WP:NEWSORGS - since this article has liberally cited multiple sources for a single article (which should be treated as one source) - a careful examination of the sources may prove that this article does not have sufficient references. I have cleaned out the obvious ones, but there may be more.
Seraphim System(
talk)22:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Given the regrettable frequency with which this kind of terrorist attack occurs in Israel, I don't think it is useful to have a separate article on every single such event. I think it is better to have an article on this kind of event as a category, which can list individual events such as this one. While there will inevitably be enough media coverage to build an article on every single such event, it is somewhat akin to having an article on every single murder, which isn't really encyclopaedic. Terrorist attacks generally stand out from your average murder due to their rarity and their individual impact on the public consciousness – the sad fact is that this sort of terrorist attack has become common enough in Israel that I don't think that is true any more for these attacks individually, although it is of course still true of the terroristic pattern of which they form a part, so have an article on the pattern/category instead of the instances.
SJK (
talk)
06:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
User:SJK and others who make this argument fail to respond to the question that I raise above, a question that has caused at least one editor to change his iVote from Delete to Keep: Since it is the case that in instances where ongoing, widespread, in-depth sources exist, terrorist attacks (including terrorism-related attacks in which no one or no one except perp was killed,) and stabbing attacks (including not only stabbing attacks in which perp is under treatment for mental instability and high-profile stabbing attacks that prove to be free of ideological motivation) are kept, even in countries like France, Germany, Belgium, the U.S. and Australia where such attacks can be described as "common," (
Category:Stabbing attacks) in iVoting to delete this article are editors inadvertently treating events in the Jewish differently from Wikipedia's treatment of events in other countries?
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
18:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
E.M.Gregory: I think a number of articles in that category probably need to be deleted and/or merged. If you want to AFD some of them I'd probably support you. (For example, I don't think
2017 Queanbeyan stabbing attacks is an event of lasting significance and probably should be merged into
List of terrorist incidents in Australia.) So, no, I don't think I personally am applying a different standard to Israel-related articles than to those about other countries. (I'm not going to speculate on the motivations of other !voters because speculating about the motivations of other people is rarely helpful.)
SJK (
talk)
20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just a minor point: despite repeated attempts by editors to insert cats stating that this 'occurred in Israel', it took place in territory where Israel is technically in international law a 'belligerent occupying power'. This does not exculpate murderers, of course, nor mitigate the gravity of the crime.
Nishidani (
talk)
06:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Especially since despite East Jerusalem being distinct from the rest of the west bank (in being annexed), the stabbing occurred in
West Jerusalem held since 1948 - in "IDF square Jerusalem"
[35] - which as-per google-maps
[36] is very close to the pre-1967 border - but definitely on the pre-war Israeli side and not even in a
no-man's land (the "green line" isn't really a line, but two parallel lines in many places).
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
If you guys cite Wikipedia articles to challenge what I say, at least read them. 'Israel's claim of sovereignty over West Jerusalem is considered to be stronger than its claim over East Jerusalem'.
West Jerusalem. A claim of sovereignty means it is contested. In international law, whatever the de facto situation, it remains a
corpus separatum. This is really basic knowledge, that all editors should be familiar with in the I/P area
Nishidani (
talk)
13:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
While
corpus separatum is relevant to west Jerusalem (and likewise - eastern Jerusalem vs. any Palestinian claim) - this is a rather dead in the water claim. Israel, regardless of this claim, is definitely not a 'belligerent occupying power' (in contrast to the 1967 areas) - as no such international body was ever founded. The corpus claim is fairly similar in strength (though marginally stronger) in relation to any 1948 area outside of the
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - of which there is quite a bit. Had your original statement had been about Eastern Jerusalem - it would have had some basis (even though less than areas over which israel didn't asset sovereignty)
Icewhiz (
talk)
14:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
If you cannot use sources, please desist from opinionizing. Allenby Square came under Israeli control in 1967.
Allenby Square did not form part of Israel 1949-1967. It was taken in the Six days War.
Unlike yourself, I provided a source. Google maps on idf square jerusalem clearly show the railway outside of the no man's land.
Icewhiz (
talk)
19:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
And if map reading is not enough as per PRIMARY, see the secondary geo-location (map widget on the right of the page) as per
B'Tselem -.[1] You may be confused as the Allenby monument (to the south and east of the rail-line - in a small park between the road/rail and the wall of the old city) - is in no-man's land (which, should be noted, is a different status than what is east of the no-man's land. Belligerent occupation of no-man's land isn't a strong claim). The light rail line does cross the green line - but that is farther down the line
[37] - around
ammunition hill it is clearly across (before - it does go into no-man's land - but that is after IDF square). I'm not sure if b'tselem's geo-location is 100% accurate in terms of pin-pointing the exact spot on the line where this happend, but as the rail line itself is to the north and west of the no-man's land strip in this zone (from a bit after the damascus gate stop (which in no-man's land, but not across the no-man's land strip)) - it really isn't an issue. To summarize - the attacker boarded in the
Damascus Gate station (which is to the north-west of the gate itself) which is no-man's land, on a westward bound train crossing across the western side of no-man's land after approx. 200m, and from that spot onward the rail (including the spot given in various sources as IDF square) is west of the no-man's land strip.
B'Tselem supports this reading (as evidences by their geo-location)- and this is an anti-occupation movement.
Note ongoing British news coverage as new issue emerges in this case."May urged to secure pledge from PA over Bladon murder",
The Jewish Chronicle, Lee Harpin (news article), 25 April 2017.
[38] The story deals with a request by the
Labour Friends of Israel asking Theresa May to insure that no British Foreign Aid funds go as a Palestinian Authority monthly stipend to the attacker who killed British citizen Hannah Bladon.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:31, 26 April 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.
Delete. Short, promotional CV (resumé) of a person who fails notability criteria. The article makes no credible claims to importance or significance.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
09:53, 15 April 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.
Unreferenced article that fails to assert notability of the subject. The only external source is a generic link to hum.tv, which does not seem to show this program. The only other source that I could find was a single article that mentions the program in one paragraph.
[39] That's not enough to satisfy
WP:GNG.
AussieLegend (
✉)
20:25, 14 April 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.
Delete. There are claims here that could get him a Wikipedia article if it were significantly better sourced than this, but as written this article is based far too strongly on
primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and not nearly enough to
reliable source coverage about him.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:55, 16 April 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.
Delete - coverage is mostly local in nature and/or just a passing mention. typical stuff for a minor-party candidate. nothing notable.
Glendoremus (
talk)
05:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Unsuccessful candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates — if you cannot show and properly source that she already cleared another notability criterion for another reason, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed notable because election per se. But this is based almost entirely on
primary sources, but for a small smattering of purely local and
WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage of the depth and breadth that every unelected candidate for any office could always show — so nothing here demonstrates preexisting notability for other things, and nothing here shows her candidacies to be more notable than the norm.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:06, 16 April 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.
Wholly unreferenced biography. Previous PROD immediately removed by author with no improvement. No evidence of any notability - just another YouTube contributor. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 19:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - fails the
WP:GNG. Seems to be a long novelization of a bunch of non-notable drama related to a bunch of youtubers. Sourced entirely be unreliable sources, most of them first party accounts YouTube videos.
Sergecross73msg me15:36, 21 April 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 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 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.
Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:BASIC. The last AfD was over six years ago when his unsuccessful campaign for elected office was going on, but Wikipedia standards have tightened and the subject has not done anything that would make him notable under our current standards.
Kurykh (
talk)
19:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete A promotional article on an entirely non-notable candidate for office whose main claims to fame seems to be that his cousins hold elected office and he is a member of the "Turlock Irrigation District Board"
AusLondonder (
talk)
23:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. In 2010 there was still some support (albeit wobbly support, as note the fact that the first discussion closed no consensus rather than as a clear keep) for the notion that unelected candidates in US congressional elections were notable enough for articles on that basis in and of itself. But that's since been much more cleanly discounted, so that non-winning candidates for political office are considered notable only if (a) they can be shown and properly sourced as having already cleared a notability criterion for some other reason before running as candidates, or (b) there's a
WP:GNG slamdunk because the campaign coverage exploded into something resembling the firestorm that swallowed
Christine O'Donnell. Neither of those conditions has been satisfied here, however; the strongest claim of notability is serving on a local infrastructure board, which is not an NPOL pass, and the referencing is a mix of
primary sources, purely
routine local coverage of the type that any candidate for any office could always show, and a glancing namecheck of his existence in a source that isn't about him. This is nowhere close to what it takes to make a candidate notable because candidate.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:15, 16 April 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.
Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:BASIC. Online sources all relate to his unsuccessful bid for Congress last year and his current campaign for the same office in 2018 (which is insufficient to demonstrate notability).
Kurykh (
talk)
19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018#District 49 or delete. Non-winning candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles because candidate, in and of itself — to get him into Wikipedia, you would need to show and
reliably source that either (a) he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself, or (b) the campaign coverage exploded wildly out of proportion to the volume that every candidate in any election could always show (e.g.
Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those things is being demonstrated here at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
You forgot the word "inherently," JPL... Losing candidates CAN be notable if there is sufficient auxiliary material to pass GNG.
Carrite (
talk)
19:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect per longstanding precedent that run of the mill losing candidates for high office, even those of major parties, even those who almost won, are presumed non-notable unless sufficient additional sourcing beyond that generated by the campaign itself can be provided. I don't like this consensus, we're supposed to be the sum of human knowledge blah blah blah, but I recognize it.
Carrite (
talk)
19:14, 21 April 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 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 article is about a volleyball player who was on her national team (India) but never played at the Olympics, nor at the Worold Championship, which is the highest level of competition in her sport. This, she fails
WP:NSPORT. The sources merely confirm that she exists, and do not describe her in any detail. Thus, she fails
WP:GNG as well.
Ymblanter (
talk)
19:25, 14 April 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.
Delete. Advertorially toned BLP of a musician who has yet to release even his debut recording, and is not yet the subject of enough
reliable source coverage even to meet
WP:NMUSIC #1 (which is basically just "meets
WP:GNG", and is thus the easiest criterion for a musician to pass.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when actually accomplishes something that would get him over an NMUSIC criterion — charting, getting airplay on
CBC Radio 2, garnering a
Polaris Music Prize or
Juno Award nomination, etc. — but Wikipedia is not a free publicity database, and musicians are not automatically entitled to have EPK-type profiles on here just because they exist. And for added bonus, the article was created by a user named "Maisonnette Music": see "labels" field in the infobox, and insert
conflict of interest here. I'm definitely intrigued by the Tom Waits and Leonard Cohen comparisons, and will certainly take the opportunity to check him out if and when the album is up somewhere I can stream it, but it takes more than "he exists" to get a musician into Wikipedia.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:22, 16 April 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 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 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.
Declined prod. Fails
Wikipedia:Notability (events); no enduring significance or in-depth news coverage. Sources are limited to "police blotter/breaking news" type copy; there are, for instance, no feature stories or analyses, wider reactions, etc. There were just two arrests and no deaths or injuries. As an alternative, we could merge into
West Oaks Mall (Ocoee, Florida).
Neutralitytalk17:24, 14 April 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.
Delete no substantial coverage in reliable sources, does not meet notability guidelines. Page was tagged by me as possibly not notable a year ago and nothing has been located in that time.
FuriouslySerene (
talk)
20:17, 14 April 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.
Unnecessary disambiguation page for just two people. Per
WP:TWODABS, all we really need here is a hatnote from the undisambiguated title to the disambiguated one -- we don't need a third disambiguation page on top of that.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I apologise for causing confusion and have struck out my silly error (
Bearcat,
Oculi,
bojo1498). This is clearly unnecessary, as demonstrated in the link given above. It is best for a reader who ends up as the main page to see a hatnote to the other article, rather than click on a disambiguation page and click again to the article. I can see no benefits to going round the houses.
MartinJones (
talk)
19:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete – I disagree with Bearcat and agree with MartinJones. I created this but am perfectly happy to learn that 2 people do not justify a dab page.
Oculi (
talk)
18:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Clarification It would appear that both other commenters support getting rid of the DAB. I'm not certain why
Oculi said they disagreed with
MartinJones but disagreed with
bearcat when they said they agree with Bearcat (while confusingly voting keep). Hopefully these editors can clarify their positions.
bojo |
talk19:06, 14 April 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.
Weak Delete Not sure that just being noticed by a single group with an interest in the subject should not count as notability. But the lack of RS in general (I am not finding any that I think count as RS) makes this a dubious inclusion.
Slatersteven (
talk)
09:55, 17 April 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 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 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.
I can see no evidence of notability here. Most of the refs are niche publications in the advertising industry just noting its existence. The BBC ref is simply about the UK Budget and not about Brass. The rest are just recording the facts about the nativity of Brass and its cost cutting. Nothing there to indicate notability. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTHVelellaVelella Talk 16:18, 14 April 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 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.
I thought initially if "side boob" had it's own page, this may be notable enough for it's own wp page. Then I clicked on "side boob" on the page and it was a redirect to "Cleavage." If side boob isn't relevant enough for it's own page, I don't think we can make the jump to side butt having its own page.
ComatmebroUser talk:Comatmebro00:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
keep, anyone who follows social trend in tabloids will notice that this is an increasing trend among celebrities. As such believe that since fashion trends are interesting we should cover it. Since the trend is also relatively recent I predict we will start seeing more high quality sources beginning to cover this as well as reliable publishers. We already several analogous articles such as
Buttock cleavage. As a sidenote, even if sources do not use the term it would still be notable since we are currently living in a climate of increased controversy surround clothing and appropriate attire, plus the aticlecould also be expanded beyond the current focus on fashion towards a focus on the specific anatomy of that region, which currently lacks a corresponding article. As such, why would important social discourse (or for that matter missing anatomical pages) remain blank on the world largest encyclopedia?
Wishhunniezulliej (
talk)
10:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Gossip magazines/columns/tabloids are not
reliable sources and so don't contribute to the subject's notability. That looks to be all we have here, along with a listicle on the Cosmo website. Fails
WP:GNG/
WP:NEO. I don't think there's enough to merge into
buttocks, where it would be
WP:UNDUE weight to include (i.e. there is a ton of reliable source coverage of the subject 'buttocks', and almost nothing about this). If it's not in that article, it doesn't make sense to redirect. Maybe it will be notable in the future, but it doesn't look to be now. — Rhododendritestalk \\
23:24, 16 April 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: one final relisting to try to get some opinions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG (
talk )
15:17, 14 April 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.
Keep. The article is a bit of a mess, but that's not a reason for deleting. Ayers was a high school football coach for 34 years, but high school football coaches rarely satisfy notability standards. Ayers was also an assistant coach (freshman coach and then administrative assistant to the head coach) for the
Georgia Bulldogs football team from 1964 to 1981. (In an embarrassing chapter, he was arrested for scalping tickets several months after retiring. See
here.) Assistant coaches do not get a pass under
WP:NCOLLATH and are judged under the standards of
WP:GNG. Here, there has been some significant coverage of Ayers in independent, reliable sources, e.g., (1)
here, and (2)
here; (3)
here; and (4)
here; (5)
here; (6)
here; and (7)
here. See also (8)
here; (9)
here; (10)
here; (11)
here; and (12)
here.
Cbl62 (
talk)
02:59, 16 April 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.
Advertorially toned
WP:BLP of a record producer, with no strong
reliable source coverage to carry his notability per
WP:NMUSIC. The only sources here are a glancing namecheck of his existence in the very last paragraph of a Billboard article about something else, and a profile in a music directory which contains no actual content to
verify anything claimed in this article -- literally all it confirms is his name. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to an article just because passage of an NMUSIC criterion is claimed -- he gets one when the claim of notability is verified by enough reliable source coverage to clear
WP:GNG. Also
conflict of interest, as the creator's username was "Riprock22" and the subject's production moniker is Riprock.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - As
Bearcat identifies, whilst there are claims made in the article which may meet
WP:NMUSIC, there is minimal coverage in the sources which I can find to support these claims. As it stands, unless someone else can come up with some better sources than I can, it does not meet
WP:NMUSIC,
WP:ANYBIO or
WP:GNG. --
Jack Frost (
talk)
23:23, 14 April 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.
Advertorially toned
WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC and no strong
reliable source coverage to support it. The strongest things here are winning or being nominated for music awards that are not "major" enough to satisfy NMUSIC #8, and charting on a digital radio service's non-
IFPI-certified single-network
bad chart. And except for a single deadlink of one CD review in a magazine, the referencing here is entirely to
primary sources,
blogs and simple directories that cannot assist notability at all. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists; reliable source coverage must support a notability claim that satisfies NMUSIC for an article to become earned.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:04, 6 April 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.
This article fails to demonstrate the notability of Jambatan Kedua Sdn Bhd. Its only reference is the company's official web site, whereas notability for Wikipedia requires coverage in independent reliable sources.
Eddie Blick (
talk)
23:46, 6 April 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 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 only sources cited are some articles he's written, his social media pages, and a press release saying he'd been hired. No reliable sources to back up why this person is notable.
Werónika (
talk)
04:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notability should be demonstrated, not simply remarked upon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kurykh (
talk)
02:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, for the reasons given by the nominator. Wikipedia isn't a directory of magazine journalists. Admittedly Bush is featured in a few paragraphs of
an article in The Guardian but, as far as coverage goes about him, I can't see anything else. Failes
WP:GNG.
P.S. I'm wondering whether the 3 !votes above are by the same person, particularly the almost identical phrasing and formatting!
Sionk (
talk)
16:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Well I only voted once. Quetzal1964 14:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (
talk)
Keep, The work of Quetzal1964 this afternoon demonstrates that should Stephen Bush's article be deleted, it will probably need to be recreated in the not too distant future.
Philip Cross (
talk)
17:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Not sure how Quetzal's additions have improved anything. One source is from Bush's employer, The Spectator. The other is cited to Bush's own cookery article. Neither are independent.
Sionk (
talk)
19:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Actually, Bush is employed by the New Statesman, a left of centre political weekly, The Spectator is a right of centre political magazine which I don't think he has worked for. Quetzal1964 19:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm my own person. I think
Philip Cross might have hit the nail on the head in saying it'll be recreated: while Wikipedia isn't a directory of magazine journalists, he's "special correspondant" for the New Statesman, the main left of centre weekly in the UK and seems to write circa 7-10 articles weekly for the online (link:
http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/stephen_bush) and 1-2 articles for the press edition; hosts the podcast, and for a UK political journalist has a large-ish following on Twitter: in UK political journalism, he's relatively the same prominence in the UK as
Helen Lewis (journalist) and is either going to go the way of
Mehdi Hasan or
Laurie Penny or fade into obscurity. He's not a
WP:BIO1E type thing: just several very moderately notable ones in a niche area.
Da-rb (
talk)
22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
That's what journalists do for their job, they write news/opinion articles. It's not a qualifying crieria for
WP:GNG. There seem to be lots of soothsayers here, predicting this journalist is going to be notable in the future. But it clearly implies he isn't at the moment.
Sionk (
talk)
00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep because he is notable, not in the same league as Mr Hitchens but still is reasonably well known in the UK as a political journalist who is likely to have a long career. In any case there are now enough independent sources cited to establish notability (BBC, The Guardian, Huffington Post, The Spectator) so does meet notability guidelines. Quetzal1964 14:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Also: naiveity on my part: as this is the first one of these I've been involved in. This as been relisted a few times now, and is probably under the wrong category now (Author related, rather than journalism related). When does this get decided upon?
Da-rb (
talk)
10:48, 25 April 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.
Keep- His PILs had generated a storm of debates in India(As a resident of India I say this).The persons may not be notable himself but his actions certainly are notable as they have affected the Indian education system
WIZRADICAL (
talk)
10:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Winning awards should not be criteria of notability. Nobel laureate Kailash Satyarthi never won any padma award but straight away won Nobel peace price . I feel this page should not be deleted or merged with any other page. Some people prefer to speak though their work and you should recognise the same . He is also a writer with various published articles [2][3][4] Thanks
Shibanihk (
talk)
11:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep There are more articles which supports his work [1][2][3][4] Some PILs or RTIs are either filed by the name of individuals or in name of non profit but lets accept that small grassroot organizations have very limited resource it is ultimately the work of founder only and also they do not get engaged in any paid news or self glorification.
Shibanihk (
talk) 11:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)You only get one !vote.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
17:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I hope you read it carefully, articles are about his contribution towards the foundation & selfless work for the society :-
Ref 1: " Rahul decided to start the Uday Foundation in honour of his son to provide quality healthcare for the underprivileged, especially the children."
"Rahul says that it is always tough trying to strike a balance in life, especially when one has a sick child at home, but says that the family of four (they have a daughter as well) is well up for the challenges. Once again, he comes back to empathy. “We must sensitise our society better. "
Ref 2: story of "his" son who was born with birth defects and inspired him to start this foundation"
Ref3: Rahul Verma, of the Uday Foundation for Congenital Defects and Rare Blood Groups, which exposed the AIIMS deaths after a request under freedom of information laws, said: “If you are rich in this country you go to a private doctor. You certainly don’t put your child up to be experimented on.”
Ref4: Rahul Verma, a Delhi-based activist and founder of non-governmental organisation Uday Foundation for Congenital Defects, had filed the RTI with National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO).
Also please check these links about "his" article as writer [1][2]Shibanihk (
talk)
18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is no notability except with respect to the foundation. One article is sufficient. Two articles for relatively minor figures of this sort normally indicates an attempt to get as many articles as possible, otherwise known as promotionalism . We shuld not be encouraging it. There is a type of publication that does include accouts about people which are designed for emotional impact--tabloids, but we're NOT TABLOID. DGG (
talk )
02:07, 24 April 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.
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason.
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.
Delete - Also should be noted that this article had previously been a draft at
Draft:Luv Israni, but was deleted about 4 days ago as abandoned.
बहिर्जी नाईक was not the account that created the draft, yet both versions contain ridiculous language about the subjecting having "a keen eye for directing"
[47][48] (only admins will be able to see the deleted article). I suspect paid editing here, or COI, given that the creator of this article also took a stab at an article on
Megha Israni, again with promotional language and insufficient establishment of notability. As for Luv, even running his name through the
Indian newspaper custom search I don't find sufficient articles to warrant a unique article. I see
this, which is a passing mention and
this, another passing mention, and
this, which is an interview (and thus insufficient for notability as
WP:PRIMARY). The guy probably has lots of credits and may be well-known in the industry, but there is a lack of substantive independent coverage. Even the article creator had trouble finding references as noted in the
contested speedy-deletion nomination. So I think delete, since I don't see where we could intuitively redirect.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
15:40, 14 April 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.
Comment - I've nosed about Google some and I'm still undecided. I had trouble finding any news articles focused predominantly on him, although he is regularly mentioned in impressive contexts. He gets very nice coverage in
three paragraphs in this article, which is a start at the least. But if good reviews of his work come out, or if enough citations can be gathered per
WP:ACADEMIC, I might lean towards keep. ACADEMIC doesn't need the same type of coverage as GNG, so that allows some leeway in interpretation of sources.
Yvarta (
talk)
02:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)reply
We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement.. By Hughett, Amanda. Journal of African American History, Jan 01, 2016; Vol. 101, No. 1/2, p. 201-204
Umoja, Akinyele Omowale We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement New York: New York University Press 351 pp., $40.00, ... By Gritter, Elizabeth. History: Reviews of New Books, Jan 01, 2016; Vol. 44, No. 1, p. 5
FREEDOM AND FIREPOWER. By Morgan Ward, Jason. Reviews in American History, Jun 01, 2014; Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 341-345. A review of the book "We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom ... mor
We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement. By Briley, Ron;McCutcheon, Camille. Journal of American Culture, Jun 01, 2014; Vol. 37, No. 2, p. 267-268
Akinyele Omowale Umoja. We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement. By Strain, Christopher. American Historical Review, Feb 01, 2014; Vol. 119, No. 1, p. 207-208
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.
Non-notable shop which existed for four years. This is actually not really about
David Ruff's workshop at all; about one paragraph, it seems, is actually about the shop- the rest is about Ruff, his works, his friends, and the works they illustrated. Notability, of course, is
not inherited; and there are
insufficient sources to suggest that the shop has any independent notabilty. There is little coverage with either
WP:DEPTH or
WP:PERSISTENCE, most of the mentions being passing. A possible option, of course, is redirect / merge to David Ruff. —
O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.12:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge into article about David Ruff. I agree--this is actually about Ruff, not the print shop. In fact it's actually a better article than the original about him. Print Workshop isn't notable enough to stand on it's own.
Glendoremus (
talk)
19:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
David Ruff; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. I don't see a reason to merge, as the article is largely an unreferenced essay and lists one source. The rest appears to be original research.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
02:09, 19 April 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 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.
Comment: there are around 500 MPs per five years in india. The news he has been in, all were just before and after the elections. Each and every contestant has that enough media coverage. Nothing special.
he was never in coverage after that. Did not do anything. Niether notable nor un-notable.
Comment:WP:NPOL, and
WP:POLOUTCOMES states, and I am quoting: "elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable". The key word here is generally. Please use general reasoning/logic
WP:SNOW, instead of being bureaucratic. As of March 2017, there are
4120 members of legislative council, and around ~500 Member of Parliament. That is per five year. Pasha Patel here, is not notable at all except being a member. So the "generally" clause can be, and should be applied here. I always support for keeping articles, secondly of merging (you can see my recent contribution on AfD discussions), but Pasha Patel hasnt done anything notable, neither good stuff nor controversial. Actually, he hasnt done anything at all. —usernamekiran[talk]17:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The elected or appointed membership of a state or national legislature is one of those topics where Wikipedia's explicitly stated and consensus-established goal is to be as complete as possible a reference for all of them. We do not apply special arbitrary standards to determine that some members of the legislature are notable enough for articles while others are not; people want and need information about all members of that legislature. Yes, the article needs more substance and more sourcing than it has right now — but it doesn't require more evidence of basic notability than it already has. And the fact that this is the second time this has been tried this year alone suggests a political agenda that violates
WP:NPOV, not a serious or objective concern for Wikipedia's standards of notability.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:21, 14 April 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.
Keep as a fork from
Environmental policy of the United States#impact and/or Merge all new material into
Environmental policy of the United States and particularly
Environmental policy of the United States#impact. Above it is claimed that all of the material is easy to find in disparate subjects like
environmental health,
Environmental policy,
environmental law,
environmental protection, etc., but I do not see the work that the student has done when I go to those subjects: This student is writing on the relationship between the policy and the impact, which is different than simply describing the policy (current, past and proposed), describing the technical procedures required to follow the policy (and what that might cost), or simply describing the health impacts alone as in
environmental health. If the material exists it is in scattered about in numerous disparate places and not particularly well organized to make it easy to find. The closest is
Environmental policy of the United States#impact which is very weak in comparison to the student's work. I would hope the student(s) can help us improve the organization and structure of our environmental articles so the relevant material on this subject is easy to find. As an example of how poor some of our existing articles are on this subject compared to the student's work, one need only look at
Environmental_protection#United_States (under the strange category "Social Democracy"). Or look at
Environmental_health#Concerns and explain how one is brought to the right topics summarizing impacts and policy related to "
Toxic chemical exposure whether in
consumer products, housing, workplaces, air, water or soil" or look at
United_States_environmental_law. This article has material assembled together we do not have. Keep and improve. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
12:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as fundamentally unsuited to being a Wikipedia article, largely per nom. Some of the content is good, but those parts are already covered in other articles mentioned above. The WordsmithTalk to me14:33, 21 April 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. "Keeps" easily outnumber "deletes", but given the developing agreement at
this related RfC, as well as the more longstanding
WP:NOTINHERETED, having published numerous notable works is not sufficient to cement a publisher as independently notability. As such, I can find no consensus for either keeping or deleting. – Juliancolton |
Talk18:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I did follow
WP:BEFORE (which I said in my nomination). What links of those show notability? Hits prove nothing. Also,
WP:CORP is the relevant thing here so how does the article pass that guideline?
SL93 (
talk)
21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep has published many significant works from notable authors. The fact is that the coverage seems to be biased toward the works, rather than the publishing house.
Jclemens (
talk)
02:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: So basically people think that
WP:IAR should be used I guess. The history of the business link is a primary source from the company. I see how authors can be notable for their works per
WP:AUTHOR, but I think that the publishing company getting that notability is a stretch.
SL93 (
talk)
02:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Even if that is the case, one source is not enough to show notability and no guideline based reasons for keeping were put forth. I hope that an AFD closer would have sense to relist this AFD until guideline based reasons are given.
SL93 (
talk)
12:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Multiple sources aren't strictly indicated by
WP:N, rather it notes, "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." I've added a couple sources, but those aren't strictly independent, as they are published by Eerdmen's, a publishing house which frequently collaborates with Paternoster. Do you think the article passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR? Do you think the page is better suited to be a sub-topic in another article (which one)? My answers are "yes" and "no" respectively; and I feel my previous comments and this one are based on guidelines and policies.
Smmurphy(
Talk)14:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
If you look at
WP:N again, you will see statements like "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Note the s.
SL93 (
talk)
14:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
It seems we are talking past each other and I'm sorry to have pushed the discussion off-topic, feel free to follow up on my talk page. Best,
Smmurphy(
Talk)18:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep notability of a publisher can be validated by publishing multiple, significant books, just as notability of an author can be validated by publishing multiple, significant books.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
12:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
This is the case with
WP:AUTHOR, I am arguing by analogy. A similar analogy would apply to an identified architect or artist about whom virtually nothing is know except that a number of notable buildings or objects are the work of a particular, named individual. (not infrequent with material from ancient or medieval times).
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
17:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that the article has now been sourced. This is not to say that it is perfect, merely that we can close this discussion and move on.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
19:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not closing the discussion. The sources are not independent of the subject. As for The Irish Times, I'm doubtful about it being significant coverage (per your obvious bias) and I can't see it.
SL93 (
talk)
19:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sufficient sources have now been identified to establish the notability of, and to verify substantial content about, this significant Christian publisher. This article provides significant, verifiable encyclopedic content which improves our coverage of the subject of Christian publishing; can't see how deletion would be a benefit. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
20:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Don't invent standards. Nowhere is it written that "the majority" of sources have to be independent. Editors have sourced this to 2 independent sources:
The Irish Times and the librarians at
John Rylands Library. Take a deep breath and ask yourself why you are so intent on deleting a reputable publishing house that started putting out well-regarded books during the reign of Edward VIII.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
21:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Since you are the only one with access to The Irish Times source, can you tell me how many sentences or paragraphs cover the company? No matter the outcome of this AfD, my RFC is still needed because the keeps were originally about it being notable just because it publishes notable works which isn't said anywhere and is likely inventing standards.
SL93 (
talk)
21:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Just the sentence I quoted a snippet from, but it suffices. Paywalls area a problem, though many editors have access to news archives.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
22:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: Happily, I do have access to the Irish Times, and I am at a loss to figure how anyone claiming familiarity with the provisions of the GNG could possibly claim that this casual one-sentence namedrop meets the requirements for "significant coverage," since it most bloody explicitly does not. I am likewise at a loss as to how anyone could think that
WP:AUTHOR applies to a publishing house. Publishing houses are not authors, and I wonder what other entities E.M.Gregory would care to unilaterally rewrite (or invent wholecloth) extant notability criteria to cover where notable books are concerned. The shipping companies? The bookstores that sell them? Banks that handle the financing?
As far as E.M.Gregory's question uptopic, I'd like to turn that around: why are you so intent on keeping this article that you're willing to rewrite or ignore the criteria upon which we make such decisions? SL93 is exactly right: AfD is not the proper venue to legislate notability criteria, and we must determine the notability of subjects based on the criteria that are in place. If you want to change those criteria, the appropriate talk pages are where you do it.
Ravenswing 10:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This is a significant evangelical Christian press. The criterion is verifiable, not verified. There should be no difficulty in finding plenty of reviews of books they have published in the Christian press.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: I can't find any independent sources. IMHO, many keep !votes here are along the lines of well all publishers of lots of books are notable. This is an argument that should be thrown out, as a violation of
WP:NOTINHERITED. I have seen the comments about the irish times, and it seems there is a lack of
WP:SIGCOV, further, online I can't find anything independant, with sigcov.
TheMagikCow (
T) (
C)
14:55, 22 April 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 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.
Maldives is 99%+ Islamic country and follows the Hijri calendar. That calendar has no Bihuroz. I checked google scholar, google books and major scholarly resources behind paywalls. I can't find a single reliable source that mentions "Bihuroz". This article is original research.Ms Sarah Welch (
talk)
14:36, 14 April 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.
Delete - ElegantJ BI seems to use a proprietary technology
Managed Memory Computing, a business intelligence tool and also at AfD, for data analysis. I think neither meets
WP:GNG as I can not find coverage of either of them in independent reliable sources.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
18:45, 16 April 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.
This is not a notable political party. There is no coverage in independent reliable sources that I can find. Outside YouTube, Facebook and occassionally a soap box in Hyde Park, this doesn't seem to have any real substance as an organisation.
Fences&Windows14:12, 14 April 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 Userfy (to
User:Tamsberk/Food Justice). There is broad consensus that this is a POV term/fork, and that at least for now userfication and further development is the best solution. Note also that votestacking has been observed to have taken place in this AfD.
Drmies (
talk)
18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Linking to those pages mentioned (Hunger in US & Food Security) is a valid point and will be considered, however, food justice movement is significant and merits its own page.
Tamsberk (
talk)
23:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not only should this article obviously be deleted, but it is close to being suitable for speedy deletion, as the whole article, from start to finish, is clearly written to promote a point of view. Such use of Wikipedia is unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
23:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete and redirect (with a lowercase "j") Valid search term, article is entirely POV pushing as JamesBWatson states. –
Train2104 (
t •
c)
23:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
What specific sections are pushing a POV? The creators of the page are EXTREMELY open to feedback and making necessary changes; we are new users and act/write in good faith. This topic is extremely valuable especially as a resource for those affected by food injustices to be informed. We welcome edits to the page and look forward to collaborating to improve this article, rather than rushing to deletion.
Tamsberk (
talk)
23:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"What specific sections are pushing a POV?" How does one even begin to answer a question such as that? The whole article, from start to finish, is clearly written to promote an opinion. To quote just a few of the most glaring examples, "Food justice is the right of all people", "Food assistance programs are important for food justice", and "structurally faulty legislation that disproportionately affects people of color and socioeconomic minorities". None of those can conceivably be viewed as neutral and dispassionate reporting. However, it would be a serious misunderstanding to imagine that all that needs to be done is to remove a few blatantly promotional sentences such as those, because the whole concept of the article is that a particular view of issues relating to food is the "just" one; even the title of the article indicates that. Furthermore, your message here indicates clearly that your purpose is to use Wikipedia for promotion. Consider the phrase "for those affected by food injustices to be informed": you are both asserting the view that the issues in question are "food injustices" and indicating that your aim is to use the article to "inform" people of the views expressed in the article, i.e. to publicise or promote those views. No matter what the merits or demerits of an opinion, Wikipedia's policy is that articles must not express or advocate that opinion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
15:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
-Hello, thanks for the feedback. The article is still in progress and we will edit to reflect more POVs and not use biased phrases. Food justice is an important, well-established concept in environmental justice discourse and merits its own page. It is a bit more difficult to write neutrally about social justice related topics; see also the pages food sovereignty and via campesina have some similar points. Feel free to read through our references. They are all reliable and the majority are peer-reviewed. As for the phrase "structurally faulty legislation that disproportionately affects people of color and socioeconomic minorities", I can see how the words "structurally faulty" may be perceived as bias, but there are statistics and peer-reviewed studies that prove environmental and food access issues disproportionately affect minorities. We do not seek to promote a certain viewpoint, but rather to post information on food justice issues publicly in a manner that is easily accessible for those affected. Thanks.
Laejstudent2 (
talk)
19:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The concept of food justice is undeniably intertwined with food injustices, and to ignore that would be a waste of knowledge and only deflate the value and quality of the article. One of the phrases you quoted was pulled out of context; earlier in that sentence it was clearly stated that "one PROPOSED cause of food deserts is structurally faulty legislation...". Some legislation, particularly FDR's New Deal as we noted in this example, has direct and explicit implications that we touch on in the article as possible contributors to food deserts. The team behind this page does find value in your critique and we intend to include more theories on the causes of food justice - related issues. No views are being pushed, much of our data comes from the US government -- we do recognize that this article is mostly focused on the US and encourage others to contribute to the article to help make it more worldly.
Tamsberk (
talk)
01:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. As the above commented or noted food justice is a part of a larger established environmental movement it also refers to much more. It is deeply tied to racial justice and economic justice. It is understood as one way that we can challenge racism and classism in the public sphere. It is not homogenous movement. It refers to many different movements and smaller perspectives. Food justice does not simply refer to a POV; it is a movement and an object of scholarly analysis. Anthropologist, sociologist, scientists, feminist and queer studies scholars have all analysed food justice in their work.
HmEdit (
talk) 15:32, 11 April 2017 (EST) —
HmEdit (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keepor Userfy -- the article, as is, has significant problems, as noted above (
POV; too many inadequate
sources; and,
WP:OR). However, as the authors correctly point out,significant improvement from when I first suggested to Userfy (revised 04:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)). The subject is notable because of coverage in secondary sources. Although we do have just a tiny little section
Food_security#Food_Justice_Movement that the best material could be merged to, ultimately this subject is significant enough that it will need its own article. So it seems a wasted effort to merge and then have to separate again later. Instead, it would be better to get the students to fix the article to comply with our standards. If this was indeed part of a school assignment, we should do outreach to the instructor to explain our sourcing standards and the problem with
WP:OR, not delete the students' hard work. That outreach has occurred. [added 04:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)] --
David Tornheim (
talk)
04:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete or userfy per JamesBWatson. Although the subject may be deserving of an article, this is not the article it deserves. I think
WP:TNT applies here.
StAnselm (
talk)
20:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I made a change to the first sentence of the article citing far better
WP:RS than the
WP:OR that was there previously. With
WP:RS like what I added, I see potential for this article to grow. There is other good
WP:RS in the article that can be found from
Google Scholar search of food justice and possibly some references listed in the journal article of the new lede sentence. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
01:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - The perceived and actual discriminatory policies that it describes and seeks to counter is matched in this article by equal and opposite bias. This is neither balanced nor encyclopaedic and the content should have been incorporated elsewhere. I would rate this as an essay at best with very strong whiffs of
marshalling arguments to fit a preconceived outcome. VelellaVelella Talk 19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Food justice and associated movements are political, so descriptions of such a movement may contain discussion of political opinion. This page is worthwhile and growing. It could use editing, but by no means should not be deleted.
Aaron Whyte Talk 17:00, 14 April 2017 (EST) —
Aaron Whyte (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
What about keeping the article and adding a tag saying "the neutrality of this article is disputed" until it has been more thoroughly edited?
Laejstudent2 (
talk)
22:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, but make POV. Reasons for keep: 1) The is a lot of peer-reviewed literature regarding Food Justice. In short, it is fashionable among academia. 2) As noted above, food justice is a part of a larger established environmental movement 3) As note above, the article has sources such as: Routledge, JSTOR, journals, government sources 4) Google trends shows a steady interest in the concept.
[51] 5) Google shows over 450,00 search results for "food justice".
[52]Dean Esmay (
talk)
Keep, - Food justice work, increasingly and explicitly named as such, has been accelerating in the US since the 1990s, with food justice scholar Sbicca defining is as a movement, or to be specific: “a budding social movement premised on ideologies that critique the structural oppression responsible for many injustices throughout the agrifood system” (Sbicca, (2012, p. 455). [1] The work of food justice activists is as real as any other movements (e.g., environmental justice, Black Lives Matter, Occupy), whether or not scholars and scientists find it (to use a word above) fashionable to document, discuss and analyze that work. However, especially with the rapidly growing reams of scholarly and other written and multi-media documentation of that work (including by academics such as myself and by activists), makes the notion that this entry could or should be deleted rather bizarre. The motivations for suggesting is should be deleted are either uninformed or driven by those holding a "POV" that would wish that "food justice" were not a goal, movement or concept. It is all of those things -a goal, a movement and a concept. Like most Wikipedia entries about current social movements, the content is inherently political, and the movement itself of course "contains" very strong points of view. But describing those views and the movement, as mostly this entry does, does not constitute being "merely" a POV. There is no such thing as a view from nowhere, so in that sense, all entries are a "POV", but one of the beauties of wikipedia, is that assembling and integrating multiple points of view gets us closer to what Sandra Harding calls strong objectivity.
CMPorter (
talk)
17:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC) —
CMPorter (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
^Sbicca, J. (2012). Growing food justice by planting an anti-oppression foundation: opportunities and obstacles for a budding social movement. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(4), 455-466.
userfy There is ~almost~ a Wikipedia article here, but this needs a lot of work improving sources, removing OFFTOPIC/COATRACK content (like the Industrial Agriculture section), and removing SYN and advocacy. Sentences like "Food assistance programs can be important for food justice because they help struggling groups of people get the healthy food that they need to sustain and nourish their bodies" show how this article is an essay, stitching together stuff that the authors believe is relevant and advocating for certain solutions. Wikipedia articles don't participate in real world disputes; WP articles describe them. (see
Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers) That may seem subtle but the quoted sentence is well over the line (and that is one teeny example). The editing community would be pushing back just as hard if the Cato institute sent a team of interns to create a slew of content advocating for libertarianism in WP. We actually just went through something like that and are still cleaning up after it.
Jytdog (
talk)
01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I have revised the sentence you objected to, and I hope
this version addresses your concerns about that sentence. If no source can be found for the sentence ending with the {{citation needed}} tag, we can of course delete it. I leave research of that material to the students for now. Thanks for pointing to the problem so we could fix it. Is there any other material you object to? Perhaps raise it on the talk page of the article? --
David Tornheim (
talk)
05:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
KEEP - This article reflects the academic literature in this field of study. It is a topic of discussion at dozens of national and international conferences. This entry describes the food justice movement and the concepts linked to it. The students can comply with any standards required for a post on wikipedia. —
Ametrine-Ametrine (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding
unsigned comment was added at
19:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) (UTC).reply
Having read in more detail, it's going to be a big job to fix. It seems shot through with POV (for example: TPP is bad, NAFTA good). I would still prefer to keep, but I am not certain that it will get fixed in a reasonable time. All the best: RichFarmbrough,
10:21, 19 April 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 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 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 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.
Another violation of
WP:NOTESSAY from a UC Berkeley class. There is a very little in the article specific to the topic at hand, and a great deal of hand-waving. But the topic itself fails
WP:N.
StAnselm (
talk)
12:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The part of the nomination that I have doubts about -- and the key part for the purposes of any Afd -- is the nominator's statement that "the topic itself fails
WP:N." When I Google "pesticide" and "Central Valley" -- as I assume the nominator has done -- there is news coverage of the impact of pesticides on residents in the area.
Grist (magazine):
"No, that’s not snow: Pesticides coat California’s Central Valley" (2012); The New Republic:
"How Gross Is My Valley: America’s toxic agricultural capital" (2010). The New Republic piece is especially detailed. And then of course there's the citations on the article such as
Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice (MIT Press, 2011), whose abstract indicates that California agriculture is the focus.
Central Valley (California) is "California's single most productive agricultural region and one of the most productive in the world." Wherever you have factory farming on such a vast scale there are going to be issues with pesticides. Here in Canada, there've been many articles and at least one documentary on pesticides and health in tiny Prince Edward Island, for example. Anyway, whatever problems there may be with the article, it is exploring a notable topic, from what I can determine. Keep.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, I intentionally referred to the broader concept of notability rather than
WP:GNG.
WP:NOTESSAY is also part of notability. So, yes - I see some hits, but that would only be enough to mention the Central Valley in the
Pesticide drift (which is very thin - why wasn't that expanded instead?) - not a standalone article.
StAnselm (
talk)
13:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, NOTESSAY is often confused with Notability because of the shortcut
WP:NOT -- it's why we have a hatnote on the policy page to clear that up for people. They're both part of policy but not notability, necessarily. One can write an essay that's unencylopedic on a notable topic.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article itself is an overly broad essay that is already covered by topics such as
pesticide drift or other articles dealing with environmental effects in general. Any sources that do mention that location (including Google mentions above) do not establish a unique
WP:GNG for pesticide issues in this location. In terms of pesticide issue notability, this topic would be equivalent to having an article every time a regional newspaper reports on a flu outbreak and saying that qualifies for a Flu outbreak in X state article. This location would have a long ways to go to warrant its own article.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
14:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep California's Central Valley is likely the most important single agricultural area in the world. See
this Wiki section for just a bit of the evidence for this, and the scale of pesticide use, its proximity to large populations of workers and residents, and the interactions of agriculture with California's
unique approach to toxics regulation All point to super-notability! --
EJustice (
talk)
08:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Recommend Renaming this article to something less technical and more understandable, specifically "Pesticide Regulations in California" which does meet
WP:GNG but can still use most of this article for background. I would be willing to contribute to help expand and clean up some of the POV language in the article (like changing "Trump administration" to EPA, etc.)
Seraphim System(
talk)01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
move and repurpose. The current title is much too narrow for encyclopedic treatment. It results in synthesis of more general materials. We already have an article
Environmental impact of pesticides. However this is big enough already so the article here could be renamed to
Environmental impact of pesticides in California. The section "Burden shared by marginalized communities in the Central Valley" looks to be original research, but that is easily fixed by deleting that section only. The alternative to repurposing to a broader topic would be to delete, but there is some useful material here worth preserving.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
02:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The article title itself doesn't seem to overlap any more with that than pesticide drift, etc., so a redirect really isn't appropriate here.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
14:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment my guess is the topic is broader then appropriate - it would also seem borderline WP:SYNTH except in the specific context where secondary sources establish a relationship between an observed effect of regulation or a regulatory outcome and a policy implementation - for example, there are sources that discuss how the EPA's statistical methods impact regulatory outcomes, but that is graduate school level material - there could be something to add at
California Department of Pesticide Regulation, but I think
Environmental impact of pesticides in California would likely be a better choice.
Seraphim System(
talk)06:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Response: thank you for all of the recommendations. We appreciate the feedback in order to make the page stronger and more relevant. We're willing to comply with several of the requests; the first of which being changing the name of the page. However, this seems difficult to do. Can anyone help with that?
Irenekeller
Generally, it's better not to change an article's name while a deletion discussion is going on. If there consensus is to keep the article under a different name, the person who closes the discussion will probably move it.
StAnselm (
talk)
20:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The current version is not specific to the topic; the earlier version was, but it was a cross between advocacy and a term paper. This has been a perennial problem with some courses in the educational program--what is suitable for a class paper will rarely be suitable for an encyclopedia . A class paper is normally intending to prove a thesis, but we do not do this. DGG (
talk )
02:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I was going to recommend merge to
pesticide drift, as the topic makes a much better sub-heading within the general article, than a standalone article; however, the current format is very much that of arguing a thesis, as pointed out above - using a variety of sources that are all applicable but not specific to the topic, while pulling in bits of information from the firmament at large to bolster a point. Strip that unsuitable structure away, and very little is left here.--Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
10:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete/ take back to the sandbox to turn it into an encyclopedic format. Reads like an opinion piece and not an encyclopedia article right off the "is a cause for concern." and finishing with "What's at stake in California There’s about a half million expectant moms and 2.5 million children under age 4 in California that could be at risk from toxic residues of chlorpyrifos on food"
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Certainly pesticide drife and Central Valley agriculture are important topics. This article, however, has a
WP:SYNTH problem, failing to show that pesticide drift in the Central Valley is an independently notable topic.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
12:42, 26 April 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.
Keep.Yagya Bahadur Thapa was Former military Captain who was given death penalty by the government of Nepal for his armed revolution against Panchayat Government. I provided references as Himalayan Times, one of the leading Nepalese National English daily and Kathmandu Post, another leading Nepalese English daily. Also, there are a dozens of Google Books which has mentioned his name. Yagya Bahadur Thapa has been included in Nepalese curriculums and many govt. gazettes. He is a man of high rank and character. The most important part is you can easily rely on these two independent national English daily which has strict editorial control and guidance policies.
Best Wishes
Airkeeper (
talk) 12:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Yagya Bahadur Thapa was leading revolutionaries in Eastern Hill as per sources and was notable enough for special tribunal decision and further to Supreme Court of Nepal as mentioned in the sources. Those revolution events against Panchayat is a National Discussion Subject that resulted in abolishment of autocratic Panchayat rule in Nepal. He obviously deserves an article in the Wikipedia. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Airkeeper (
talk •
contribs) 12:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
User:onel5969 The revolution events are notable enough in Nepalese context and I described everything in the paragraphs above. That revolution is called Timurbote Incident in Nepal and all these incidents resulted King
Birendra of Nepal to abolish
Panchayat (Nepal). I think we need a Nepali admin to understand the notability of Nepalese topics. Please check the sources and edit it but do not delete the article.
Kind Regards
Airkeeper (
talk)
07:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The subject was a revolutionary leader in Nepal in the 1970s; returns numerous results on a Google Books search; three results on Google Scholar. He has his own entry in the 2017 Historical Dictionary of Nepal published in the USA by the respected academic publishers Rowman & Littlefield. It appears that the subject suffers from a dearth of English-language Internet sources. A Google search for the subject's name in Nepali, on the other hand, (यज्ञबहादुर थापा) returns 27,000+ results. The members of the (European)
Red Army Faction have their own articles; I'd suggest that the subject has a similar level of notability within Nepal (I stress it's not my intention to draw a parallel between the aims/ideology/methods of the subject and Baader-Meinhof members).
Bad-patches (
talk)
20:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Airkeeper makes a sound case. I realize that being an English speaking encyclopedia that political events occurring outside of USA/Europe/English speaking countries may seem less notable. In other words, “all politics is local”, but I think we should resist this urge. And he did receive notable coverage in his country in major newspapers. Unfortunately, I have noticed that in countries where there are close ties to the West (Philippines, Korea, etc.), there is a greater tendency to favor notability in terms of press coverage. The same may apply to Wikipedia.
Dean Esmay (
talk)
21:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - I've expanded the article a bit. I think it passes 1E, given multiple events in his life getting coverage: Thapa's involvement in the Biratnagar bombing early in 1974, his arrest in a state of revolt later that year, his execution in 1978, and his being declared martyr in 2016. The article passes V and NOR. NPOV is very tough in an article like this, but the current state of the article seems acceptable.
Smmurphy(
Talk)16:45, 21 April 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 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.
Appears to be an essay with a particular POV. Even if the subject is encyclopedic, this essay concentrates on one country. Also contains unsourced statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice (I have removed any that were BLP issues).
Black Kite (talk)11:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
KeepEnvironmental impact of meat production is general and does not include specifics of any industry (pig, cattle, etc.) - the article needs a rewrite and I think it should be templated. The title is
WP:NPOV and the subject is notable, this has also been a major issue in China in recent years documented by
WP:RS like Reuters, The Economist, The Guardian - I don't think AfD is a substitute for editing and improving an article that currently has problems.
Seraphim System(
talk)18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:DINC; NPOV problems are not a valid reason for deletion. Many, many reliable sources on the environmental impact of pig farming specifically exist, discussing regions worldwide, including:
Eriksson, Ingrid Strid; Elmquist, Helena; Stern, Susanne; Nybrant, Thomas (2004).
"Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production"(PDF). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 10 (2): 143–154.
FWIW, here in Canada, it's a big deal, especially in Quebec and New Brunswick. A petition to the Government of Canada resulted in about hog production resulted in these responses form three federal ministries, archived as
Environmental impacts of intensive hog operations, New Brunswick. The response from Environment Canada does acknowledge that there are specific issues to the hog industry, above and beyond livestock in general. The petition also makes mention of
Bacon, The Film, a documentary film on "the social and environmental impacts of this proliferation of huge hog operations." The latter would be considered an additional reliable source, as the issues related to the hog industry in Canada would pertain in the U.S. as well. Now, I get that this is an article on "Environmental impacts of pig farming" in the United States and that's fine, at least for now. "...Concentrat[ing] on one country" is an argument for expansion, not deletion. Keep.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete in its present form, but try to add content and salvage. The article has an axe to grind and is not NPOV. The article would have to be expanded to be encyclopedic. Not sure if original author would be willing to do this. Highly doubtful that the author would be willing to revamp the article. The article is a case where pro-pig farm arguments are intentionally left out. For example, the economic loss to the pig farmers if pig farms were shut down or radically had to change the way they operated. I personally would not want to live next to a pig farm as I heard the stench can be very strong.
Dean Esmay (
talk)
21:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The topic certainly looks to be notable, and is actually a suitable topic for Wikipedia. There is sufficient content to stand alone and not be merged elsewhere. Sure there are problems with balance in the article. They can be indicated by a tag, and are not due to POV pushing. This sort of problem should be fixed by editing, and not by deletion.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
23:44, 16 April 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.
Speedy delete per nom. I'm not sure the removals of the speedy tag were allowed but let's deal with it here. Now someone has come along and started vandalizing the article with disparaging and ridiculous comments, and I find myself utterly unmoved to correct it.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: Tagged for speedy deletion - I can't see the point in puttung this through a whole AfD, speedy is supposed to be to stop AfD backlogs.
TheMagikCow (
T) (
C)
18:20, 14 April 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.
Delete - Managed Memory Computing seems to be a proprietary technology used by
ElegantJ BI, a business intelligence tool, also at AdD. I think neither meets
WP:GNG as I can not find coverage of either of them in independent reliable sources.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
18:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The capital letters made me think this might be the name of a company, but it is just the usual attempt to make some marketing term sound more grandiose by using capital letters. The company also up for deletion is
ElegantJ BI, edited by the same single-purpose accounts.
W Nowicki (
talk)
20:30, 21 April 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 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 only delete comments were before StAnselm's and E.M. Gregory's improvements and despite two relistings, there were no more sound delete !votes (only such !vote seems to have misread the references). SoWhy20:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
keep -- InterVarsity is an important Evangelical Christian Press, one that does not publish rubbish. If this were being presented before any books were published, I would probably be voting to delete. Evangelicals tend to ignore the Early Fathers, so that a book from that viewpoint on one of them is itself important.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The books are widely held, including by non-religious university libraries.
[60] I take that to indicate he may be an influential scholar in the field. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DGG (
talk •
contribs)
02:02, 24 April 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.
Fails
WP:ARTIST. The references in the article are one of two: not independent of the subject; are directly written from organizations, which fail
WP:SOURCE. The subject lacks significant coverage from third-party
reliable sources, and simply does not appear notable.
ℯxplicit02:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep This article subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. She has gotten these coverages as an artist as well as an activist. For these reasons she passes
WP:GNG which most of the time surpasses WP:ARTIST.
Antonioatrylia (
talk)
09:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Antonioatrylia: I see that you've done some work and have replaced some references, but the underlying problems of Neda Moridpou failing to be the main subject of various, significant coverage from sources independent of her are still vastly left in tact. As of
this revision, this is what the sources offer: 1) The most legitimate reference in the article, this does talk about Moridpour. The article is about her art exhibit with S.A. Bachman. That's pretty much it. 2) Written by an organization which "provides each funded project with up to $50,000 in direct funding and career development service"
[61], although the disclaimer in the provided sources does read: "Although these projects were not ultimately funded by Creative Capital". Fails
WP:SOURCE regardless. 3) Co-written by Moridpour, and is therefore not an independent source. 4) Written by Moridpour and falsely attributed to Sarah Moawad (I can't find the surname 'Moawad' anywhere in the article). 5) She is not mentioned in the source. 6) I don't have access to this source. However, if its purpose is solely to show that her work is included here, this isn't significant coverage. 7) Written by the college where she is an alumni, and not independent. 8) Written by the festival organization, where her work was shown; not entirely independent. So, even now, Moridpour herself has not been subject to significant coverage from sources independent from her to establish her notability.
ℯxplicit11:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your hard work in digging up these sources but they seem to give only
WP:BLP1E. Tyros are rarely notable; more substantial career achivement is needed.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
02:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC).reply
@
Biwom: I assessed the LA Times article above in my response to Antonioatrylia.
OC Weekly mentions her in passing. What does the third source entail? Finally, the awbw.org source is from an organization that displays her work, which also fails
WP:SOURCE. As
WP:GNG reads: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. It additionally reads: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. The topic here is Neda Moridpour, but say very little about her directly, and more about the exhibitions where her work, along with that of others, is displayed. The article contains several references to make the subject look notable, but it really comes across as
WP:REFBOMB.
ℯxplicit00:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Biwom: My comment was in regards to the website you linked. As I do not speak the language, the only bit I understood was the English between 3:45–4:16. Is this a language you understand? If so, can briefly summarize the report and clarify if Neda Moridpour is talked about in detail, or if it's just the exhibit?
ℯxplicit01:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Explicit, thanks for pinging me! The subject's work is reviewed in the LA Times, OC Weekly and Entertainment Close Up. A person is not an insignificant artist if they're reviewed in the LA Times and I feel the other reviews help add to her significance. Also, REFBOMB doesn't apply if what's added to the article are reliable, independent sources showing that her work is being reviewed, or that she is in the media. Thanks!
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
18:57, 22 April 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.
Weak Keep - I've seen Humans. Me watching it doesn't make her notable, but her have a recurring role would IMHO. Would still like to see more in-depth pieces about her to expand the page, but I feel she meets the criteria. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
01:03, 6 April 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.
Article about a minor film festival, referenced entirely to deadlinks on the personal website of its own executive director rather than to
reliable source coverage of the festival in media. An event like this is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists; it must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear
WP:GNG and
WP:ORGDEPTH, but even on a
ProQuest search I can't find enough coverage of it to clear that bar.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. Local coverage exists, at least, and includes a recent, and decently substantive Hamilton Spectator article reporting that in 11 years this has grown from "26 submissions on DVD and VHS — mostly from [the founder's] friends" to "150 feature-length movies, documentaries and short films whittled down from 700 submissions"
[62], as well as things of varying substance like
[63][64][65][66][67]. And a namedrop at MLB.com, of all places.
[68] One thing I noted while looking for sources is that they have a lot of different festivals in Hamilton. And of course the case for notability would be more solid if someone could identify some substantive coverage in national media (or even just in Toronto). --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
15:33, 6 April 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.
For academic departments, usually we only make articles for the top 3 or 4 in the world--15th in the country is not notable-. Of the 14 references,13 are from themselves. DGG (
talk )
04:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: I don't think there needs to be such numerical thresholds as "top 3 or 4". I count 3 refs not from themselves; yes, they are only mentions in passing. Then again, departments are rarely the kind of things that are prominently featured for themselves; they are background information for the prominent people and industries which they get off the ground. In that respect, I think this department has been quite successful, and that the article provides somewhat useful context connecting notable people, companies, and events. Conversely, I see absolutely no harm in keeping it. I admit having trouble pointing to a specific piece of policy that would mandate that it be kept, though. —
Gamall Wednesday Ida (
t ·
c)
15:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I am going to have to say that if, as per Gamell Wednesday, departments are rarely the kind of things that are prominently featured, but are just background information, then departments rarely are notable (and they don't
WP:INHERIT notability from their prominent alumni and faculty). If the only 3 non-self refs for this one only mention the department in passing, then that points to it not being notable.
Agricolae (
talk)
03:38, 20 April 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.
I have concerns whether the sources are sufficient to have the subject meet
WP:NBIO; deprodded by
User:Boleyn (creator) so we are here. He got a few paragraphs on himself in
[69], and a bit more coverage as he was featured in an episode of reality show
The Secret Millionaire[70], but is this sufficient? To me it is still on the low side of required in-depth coverage by multiple independent sources. At best, I can see his bio merged to the reality show page, which could have a list of episodes and its heroes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets
WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Article now has sources from 3 national, reliable publications and 3 local, reliable publications. As I stated on the article's talk page where I tried to start a discussion yesterday with
Piotrus about this, this would not be a candidate for deletion even if he was non-notable, we should always look for
WP:ATD. If non-notable, it would be a choice of merge to his company's article (
CeX (company)) or (less likely) to the Channel 4 programme, The Secret Millionaire, where he had a whole episode on him and his philanthropy.
Boleyn (
talk)
06:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I still disagree. You don't list which sources are which. I hope you don't count
[71] in your "national, reliable publications".
This is half-based on quotes from the subject. Nope, I don't see much quality coverage - this is not a subject fit for an encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Which is which, do you mean which are local and which national? The Croydon Guardian, Tottenham Independent and East London Lines are local, and all had full articles on Dudani (two of them had several articles on him actually, I just used one from each as references as the others didn't include much new information in terms of making an encyclopaedia article). The Telegraph, Radio Times and The Guardian are national, reliable publications. The Guardian is a national broadsheet and reliable; the article is based on interviews so yes, it uses quotes from the subjects of the article, but that isn't a concern. The Telegraph is also reliable, though you're right that as it is an announcement in the Telegraph, it is essentially a primary source so doesn't really count towards notability. The Radio Times is a national publication which reviews TV and radio shows, only those that are most of interest. That still leaves 2 national, reliable publications and 3 local newspapers. There was also a lot of coverage in tech publications that I wasn't sure were reliable or not.
Boleyn (
talk)
08:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Heavy reliance on interviews is a concern, per
WP:INTERVIEW. Review of a TV show or episode does not mean the person who appeared in said episode is notable. Etc. I am not impressed by the sources; you as the creator who used them have a different opinion. Let's see if anyone else joins our discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep There are multiple, reliable sources on this man. I'm not sure he meets the criteria for inclusion except those laid out at BASIC and GNG, but the coverage here is sufficient for inclusion in this encyclopaedia. I also fail to understand why this was not a merge proposal; I disagree that any of the pages on the 'Secret Millionaire' would have been suitable, but his company's page would have been, were he non-notable. However, I am satisfied that the sources are of an acceptable standard: not outstanding, but certainly over the bar.
MartinJones (
talk)
17:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- not every CEO / founder is notable, and in this case, the accomplishments do not warrant an encyclopedia article. Sourcing is thing, to the point that the article does not make a particular claim to notability; closer to A7 than to being a notable subject.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
18:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
K.e.coffman, why did you vote delete rather than merge/redirect to company as an
WP:ATD? Even if you think the sources aren't enough (I'd have to disagree strongly with that), then he is surely a valid search item for someone who has heard of him, through his work as CEO/founder of a notable company or his episode in a notable show. This article geets several hundred views a month.
Boleyn (
talk)
06:49, 23 April 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.
There are numerous case cites to this legal decision, however, beyond that, there doesn't appear to be coverage outside of case law to establish that this court case meets GNG.
DarjeelingTea (
talk)
15:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm not sufficiently conversant with UK law to assess the importance of this case, but for those who are and who want to take a look, there is a page with information on it
here. For those wishing to research further, the cite appears to be Lewis v. Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 (UK).
TJRC (
talk)
22:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There has been nil participation since the last two relists.The participants have just commented but not !voted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades Godric08:17, 14 April 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.
Keep— All the information contained in the article is taken from reputable sources providing coverage on an international, national and local level. I have relied on established publications observing and analyzing the aluminium industry, widely circulated English news outlets, major Asian English-language dailies, Chinese news articles, as well as official government publications in Chinese. The article cites multiple independent sources. They are not merely trivial coverage, since they do not simply report meetings, phone numbers, routine notices, etc., as specified in
WP:CORPDEPTH. Below is a run-down on the sources I used:
AluWatch is a major new aluminium industry watchdog consisting of individuals, NGOs, and business seeking to reduce the impact of climate change. It compiles a yearly set of key figures about the most important players in the market, and I used its East Hope figures.
http://www.aluwatch.org/key-figures/
China.org is the Chinese government’s official news website, which means that the information provided needs to be utilized critically. However, no other news site has provided such an in-depth report of the Liu brothers and their respective enterprises, including East Hope, in English.
http://www.china.org.cn/video/2008-10/27/content_16672447.htm
2011 USGS Mineral Yearbook: a primary resource for anything related to minerals, there is barely any other publicly available report with such a range of information on activities of individual companies that would normally be ignored in other publications.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/myb1-2011-alumi.pdf
Platts: one of the most influential news providers, and market data analyst of natural resource markets. Its Metals Daily series is always the go-to publication for up to date, detailed observations on developments in the industry or individual companies. The same is true for Antaike’s Alumina & Aluminum Monthly, though with a narrower focus on aluminium. Because of East Hope’s prolific activities, the series often features concise articles on the company. The same applies to Antaike’s publications.
http://www.antaike.com/uploadfiles/20120619/2012061915421737061.pdf
Aluminium Insider is a leading news platform specialized in the aluminium industry, supported by possibly the largest metals news analyst, Metal Bulletin. In a similar vein, Asian Metal stands out because of its interviews with people in the industry and relevant companies, such as in this case, where they interviewed an East Hope manager.
http://aluminiuminsider.com/chinas-east-hope-group-to-invest-us1-5-bn-in-inner-mongolia/
Xinhua is the Chinese government’s official press agency, so a critical mind is required, but is generally trustworthy when it comes to reporting government announcements and policy shifts, such as the one quoted in this Xinhua article. Although this article didn’t mention East Hope by name, it still provided relevant information in the context of East Hope’s business.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-06/16/c_135442680.htm
China Daily is one of the largest dailies, but with a somewhat broader reporting scope as Xinhua and with a more prominent opinion section. Unlike Xinhua, China Daily reports more often on Chinese companies, including East Hope, which is the focus of the article cited.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/interface/toutiaonew/1020961/2017-04-05/cd_28805896.html
163/NetEase is a widely read Chinese daily online paper. With the Chinese public becoming increasingly outspoken on the state of the environment, papers like these have become increasingly important in reporting on pollution accurately. Again, East Hope is the focus here.
http://henan.163.com/16/1216/14/C8DPC1F302270ILI.html
As this list shows, these sources have a broad reach across both English and Chinese-speaking audiences. I therefore do not follow the reasoning that the notoriety requirements are not satisfied. On the contrary, East Hope, no less because of the controversies surrounding its activities, is clearly very much a part of the public discourse in the context of Chinese metal manufacturers.
Most of the above was on the article's talk page while it was still a draft. Directory/list entries, mentions, routine coverage, and primary sources do not show notability. My breakdown of those sources:
Standard directory citation commonly used throughout Wikipedia articles on companies.
Standard directory citation commonly used throughout Wikipedia articles on companies.
Establishes important context that reflects the importance of the company.
East Hope is clearly mentioned, and the reference provides important context on the company, as it establishes the link between its business undertakings and one of China’s richest individuals.
The article is crucial in establishing the family connections between East Hope’s founder and the other large companies run by his siblings, while helping to place the company into the broader socio-economic context of 1980’s China as well.
It still contains crucial information whose inclusion into the article is required, because it clarifies the scale of East Hope’s production and, therefore, provides a means of comparison against its competitors.
This is highly read and authoritative, so the fact that East Hope is included in the brief means that a large audience will be informed on East Hope’s actions.
Covers a major investment of the company, one of its biggest in recent years, making it clearly important information broader general interest.
Interview provided info that established the scale of East Hope’s activities. However, I re-wrote the sentence to clarify where the information came from.
This article is crucial for understanding the controversy surrounding East Hope’s actions. In tune with Wikpedia’s standards, I wanted to provide a citable source on the government’s policy to clearly show what the controversy is.
East Hope is the subject of the title and most of the public concern of illegal med use is directed against East Hope, seeing that it is a major animal feed provider.
See above, plus it has the full list included.
It is a pretty important mention due to it being the largest planned addition of capacity.
Seeing that these are primary government documents detailing the number and scale of East Hope’s infractions, this is vital information. Given that these docs cover major breaches of law, excluding them would mean a breach of Wikipedia’s rules on neutrality. Also,
WP:CORPDEPTH does not mention that government documents are inadequate.
The cited article deals exclusively with an accident at one of East Hope’s plants. This is primary coverage of the firm’s activities.
Just because something is or can be used as a reference for something, does not mean that it can be used to establish notability. Based on the above, you do not understand the difference. —
JJMC89 (
T·C)
00:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I cannot judge the depth of coverage in Chinese sources, but it seems a sufficiently large company that it is likely to be notable. Given the
WP:Cultural bias is sourcing, I think we should accept it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DGG (
talk •
contribs)
22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I can't read through chinese sources either but I had spent some time figuring out notability on the article when it was at afc. I gave it the go through when I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources. I believe that
WP:CORPDEPTH should not be valid here as a criteria for deletion. If still in doubt, we could request translation of chinese sources (as machine translation isn't reliable).
Yashovardhan (
talk)
10:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The first report discusses the establishment and the projects of the company in detail, and if it were an routine reporting, it would only contain the paragraph four. The second one does have some personal opinions which should be treated as primary sources, but it also includes detailed analysis on the company's history and goals. Also, whether there's an corresponding entry on zhwiki is
irrelevant. --
Antigng (
talk)
04:27, 21 April 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.
fails WP:GNG. 3 gnews hits. 2 of them merely refer to the museum at end of article as other museums worth visiting
nothing in gbooks, gscholar. museums are not inherently notable. nothing in bbc.co.uk either. Those arguing keep must provide evidence of indepth coverage.
LibStar (
talk)
02:16, 6 April 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.
No evidence of notability. Only sources are databases; no independent coverage from reliable sources establishing notability.
JTtheOG (
talk)
03:11, 6 April 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.
KeepKeep or merge; if kept, rename to
privilege of the floor of the United States Senate). It's a stub and does need expansion, but the "privilege of the floor" of the Senate has a long history and adequate discussion in sources, e.g.:
Redirect per BD2412. This article gives no real information about what the content of the rule is. It would be better if the article
Standing Rules of the United States Senate summarized the content of the rules rather than just listing their titles. If there are rules that require full articles to describe their content and implications, those can be broken out separately later. But this article consists at present of only two sentences of uninformative prose. --
Metropolitan90(talk)20:23, 14 April 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.
Thanks for your guidance and support, I'm still working on the text and retouching part for this page (
Wiki-en:Song Weilong (actor/model)), definitely going to find some noticeable evidences for his career and the upcoming works (TV series, movies, covers of fashion magazines etc.).
Actually, I'd like to see this page on the first site of Google Search for "Song Weilong", because the Chinese Google Search results and the Chinese Wikipedia page (
Wiki-zh:宋威龙) both leads to this actor/model person, not the speed skater person (宋伟龙), just lack of translation work.
Besides, the Chinese Wiki page for the skater Song Weilong (宋伟龙) is not even created (
Search 宋伟龙 in Chinese Wiki), so in the first place I was considering whether to substitute the pages, and set the model as the main page, plus one disambiguation page, but the system said the skater page has an upper level. The Fact is, that the younger is more famous than the skater for now in China.
An other fact is, according to the Baidu Baike page
[75], the skater already changed his name to Song Jinhan (宋金翰), and retired from his career, started a personal life as modified car company owner or technician [source:
https://kknews.cc/sports/xz6y5q.html date: 2016-05-06 publisher: Ice World Sport]. Thus, I would glad to update his page as well if needed.
In addition, the actor's Sina Weibo account has almost 2 Million followers
Weibo Homepage, and the Google image search results of "Song Weilong" are also mainly the pics of the model, not the skater
Google Images.
UpdateBoleyn, how to determine if the debates end and whether the discussion is completed? Thank you. Technically I don't know how to remove the AfD Message, I'm not sure if I could.
The essential problem is, the Google result looks messy and very confusing since a long time, because the Wiki page leads directly to the speed skater person, and the right sidebar of Google shows the information of the skater (profession, height, age), but with the pictures of the model
screenshot of Google page, which come out from Google image search engine.
Basically everything on the Google page beside this very first Wiki linkage, are about the model, not the skater.
For the current status, I don't think it's a final result or best solution for this problem, I still suggest that we separate the name into to two terms, if can not put the model on the dominant position for now, then just create a redirection page of "Song Weilong" to the "Song Weilong (disambiguation)", so everybody searched the word on Wiki can check the both pages, and not get confused with the other.
For example, redirect the search of "Song Weilong" to disambiguation page for the two people
- Song Weilong (speed skater)
- Song Weilong (actor/model)
And it also has a very big influence on Google search engine result. This is why at this moment people can only view the skater's Wiki in Google search result, that is already a serious mistake.
If we don't add the assumption of (skater) behind the name, it will be very confusing. People kept asking me why Google shows the model person is 27 years old, which is not, he is 18.
And the skater has changed his last name to Song Jinhan, not Song Weilong anymore, so far I learned from internet news pages.
It could be a permanent misleading page of the Google-Wiki system. In the long-term, the model just started his career late 2015 and has more than six upcoming works, on the other hand, Song Jinhan is retired from skating on national team. Therefore, I wish you can reconsider it and make further suggestions. Best regards.
Otherwise, we can use
This page is about Chinese short track speed skaters. For Chinese male television actors, see
Song Weilong (actor/model).
After one week of discussion, an admin will count the results of votes for deletion and for keeping and make a final decision. Once this happened, the deletion tag will be removed from the article or the article will still be deleted. How something "looks" on a Google search is not a primary concern, if at all. WP is an encyclopaedia and not a marketing or search engine optimization tool! With regards to the two individuals with the same name, I'm not convinced that the skater changed his name. A Baidu profile is not sufficient evidence. I don't think "kknews" or any blog is sufficiently reliable. On the contrary, the Chinese Olympic Committee
reports about him and
lists him under Song Weilong, as he will be listed on medal and participant tables in western media. Therefore, this can only be solved by referencing the disambiguation at the top of each article.
Jake Brockman (
talk)
07:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)reply
CommentSokkwo, don't worry about page titles for now, one thing at a time. If this survives this discussion, you can go to
WP:RM and editors will help you establish what should be done with the page titles. Best wishes,
Boleyn (
talk)
07:51, 1 April 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.
Possible hoax. Looked at this about 8 times. Tried to find all the papers. Can't identify Politika187 site. Cant find it at all. All there is, is the Twitter page. Originating editor need to come in and provide additional references. Fails
WP:GNGscope_creep (
talk)
22:22, 30 March 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 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.
Delete. Kiev is certainly a large and prominent enough city that its city councillors would clear
WP:NPOL #2 if they were sourced properly, but it's not a position that exempts him from having to pass
WP:GNG for it. This is referenced almost entirely to
primary sources and
YouTube videos rather than to
reliable source coverage in media — and, for added bonus, it's written like somebody tried (badly) to convert his
résumé into prose rather than like an actual encyclopedia article. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR database on which every local politician is entitled to an article just because he exists; reliable source coverage must be present to support an article.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:56, 14 April 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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. She seems to fail
WP:CREATIVE. No reviews of her work as a poet are presented. As a translator she won a very minor Polish prize "NAGRODA PRACY ORGANICZNEJ IM. MARII KONOPNICKIEJ", about which I cannot find much information (
[76]); it also does not have any page on Polish Wikipedia (which is much more inclusive, and which one would expect to have articles about all significant awards in Poland - not that this is an argument here, just another minor red flag). The only hope to save this is if someone can dig reviews of her poetry (or other awards) in Chinese, but as far as English (and Polish) sources go, I am afraid she is not shown to be notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:36, 28 March 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.
Keep This a Cuban cultural initiative in Malaysia. It is similar to Canada house in London, but a lot less notable and famous. I did find several decent refs and added them. The organization is real, the refs and notability are real but not extremely strong. I am not sure how it hurts Wikipedia to keep the article. It might actually provide a minimal service to readers. If kept it should be renamed to Casa Cuba (Malacca) or (Malaysia) as there are other Casa Cubas (e.g. I saw refs for one in Tampa).
198.58.162.200 (
talk)
06:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete When people argue to keep it "it is a lot less notable" than other institutions, this means it is not notable and does not pass our notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Google " "Casa Cuba" Malaysia -wikipedia" yields several hits, including an Arab Today article and a The Star article from 2011 and 2016. Article has been expanded during this AFD, and could be expanded more from sources, but
wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Renaming the article to add a disambiguating phrase "(Malaysia)" or otherwise may be appropriate, but "Keep" decision is compatible. Renaming can be done by any editor after AFD closes, or put to a Requested Move at the Talk page of the article. --
doncram19:33, 5 April 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.
Redirect to
Live action role-playing game - The article is complete
original research that tries to explain a topic that fails
WP:NEO. It goes on to be confusing as the start is almost like it's a video game and moves on to explain more about a Live action role-playing game, hence why it should not be merged but just a redirect. -
Pmedema (
talk)
03:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete or at the very least, Redirect to
LARP. Searches bring up nearly nothing, and the few things that do come up are not from reliable sources. Most of them are nothing but announcements of upcoming events, and many of them seem to be using the term synonymous to regular LARPing. The article was created well over a decade ago, and the fact that no sources have really been created in that time span leads me to believe that this was nothing more than a
WP:NEOLOGISM that never became a thing.
64.183.45.226 (
talk)
18:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- no point in preserving article history as the page consists entirely of unsourced original research. Once deleted, the name can be redirected at editorial discretion.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
02:34, 15 April 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.
Keep - per sources above. Especially the NBC one, which is probably one of the most mainstream reliable sources in existence, and is very long and dedicated entirely to the subject.
Sergecross73msg me03:02, 15 April 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 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.
Non-notable songwriter. The content I've checked so far mainly fails verification and I am unable to find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources as would be required to meet
WP:NMUSIC or
WP:BIO.
SmartSE (
talk)
12:51, 29 March 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.
Discussed briefly at
WT:PHYS - concerns are that it is too broad and the term too ambiguous. Basically, almost every experiment in particle physics would be on this list. This would be better served as a category (or a slight modification of existing ones).
Primefac (
talk)
16:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, it's too broad. To respond to Andrew D's point, entire books are written about tiny subsets of all scattering experiments. An analogy would be if someone proposed "list of historical people". One could also say truthfully that "entire books are written about such people", for example any history book. That fact doesn't address the complaint that the list is too broad. --
Steve (
talk)
00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
"Too broad" is not an issue for either policy or practise. For example, we already have
List of experiments, which is more general. We also have plenty of other very general list names including
list of people;
list of books;
list of places; &c. Such large lists are typically structured as a hierarchy and so that would be a sensible approach for experiments too. If scattering experiments are divided into different classes then we can continue the hierarchy as needed. Lists are quite flexible in their construction and that's why, per
WP:CLN, they have many advantages over categories.
Andrew D. (
talk)
09:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
You made a telling error by omitting the s in
lists of people,
lists of books,
lists of places. All three of these are lists of lists, which is appropriate for extraordinarily broad categories. I would not be opposed to a list of lists of scattering experiments, if we already had a bunch of appropriate sub-lists like "list of resonant x-ray scattering experiments", "list of spin-polarized heavy ion scattering experiments", etc. etc. As for
list of experiments, I think it's a terrible page and I would support deleting that too. We shouldn't refrain from deleting one bad page just because there are other equally bad pages out there. --
Steve (
talk)
12:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - In many cases, I think lists better serve our readers than categories and this could be one such case. The breadth of types of scattering experiments is such that the
scattering and
scattering theory pages do not give much coverage to individual experiments. Providing an annotated list of experiments would give readers a different view with a different kind of specificity than the broader articles (yes, this is a version of ILIKEIT, but it is also an explanation of why I think the list is encyclopedic). I also agree that listing in this way is not OR, as there are RS as Andrew D points out that give similar lists.
Smmurphy(
Talk)15:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak keep – It looks a little better when split between specific experiments and general categories thereof, but I wouldn't be heartbroken to see it go.
XOR'easter (
talk)
20:27, 9 April 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.
No evidence of any notability. All the references are the TV company's own web-site. No evidence that this mish-mash has any intrinsic value let alone notability. Fails
WP:GNG by a mile. The compilation of such a list is original research as there is no evidence that the title is in any sense notable VelellaVelella Talk 22:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not a particularly notable subject, and the sources being used are nothing but the episodes of the series itself, and as mentioned, the information here is already included in its entirely in the main
Studio C article, making this an unnecessary
WP:FORK.
64.183.45.226 (
talk)
19:14, 19 April 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 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.
Comment: That doesnt apply to members, in that case every single member of any band/group in the world could have its own article, the person needs to be individually notable (i.e. have notable solo work) outside of group, number #2 on that criteria makes Red Velvet notable, and not all their members.
Snowflake91 (
talk)
13:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: This is not a reason to keep, why does it matter if she has a stub article with a picture on other Wikipedias, where inclusion standards vary from country to country? She fails all 12 points at
WP:MUSICBIO, so totally not relevant reason to keep, you didnt provide a source for a claim "Clearly notable as an individual performer and celebrity", she has no individual songs, she has not been casted as an actress, and everytime you're gonna search her name on google it will be red-velvet related stuff. Look at
Talk:Myoui Mina,
Talk:Im Nayeon, and
Talk:Momo Hirai, those members are just like Yeri with no solo works (and they are currently much more popular in Korea), and the articles were easily merged into their group's article. And all Spice Girls members are clearly notable independently from the group with their solo musical releases / television and film appearances, so the argument is very poor.
Snowflake91 (
talk)
09:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Since
WP:MUSICBIO has been mentioned, it should be noted that the guideline it expresses is almost a side issue in this case. While subject is well known as a member of a singing group, she is also a bona fide international celebrity whose image has appeared on magazine covers and entertainment sections of newspapers in the manner of other international celebrities such as
Paris Hilton or
the Kardashian sisters who have become "famous for being famous", without even possessing subject's performing talents. She has hosted a TV show, appears without other members of Red Velvet on talk and variety programs and has extended entries in ten Wikipedias, including those from the world's major languages (all with photos and infobox), with a majority of the articles also including a discography and career details. Of course,
WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS, but we are not serving Wikipedia users in a helpful manner if a celebrity who has carved out an individual presence in the entertainment industry is redirected to a mention in a group article.
—Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)02:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The reason why there are articles on other wikipedias is because of
WP:Fancruft, the fans feels an urge to create a stub article just because they can, and again inclusion standards for notability differs here, on English Wikipedia, then on Korean, Vietnamese, Indonesian etc. wikis. The only solo work she has is co-hosting a TV show for 6 months, but only that is not enough to pass notability criterias. And please dont compare Hilton or Kardashian with Yeri, they easily pass general
WP:GN since there are "billions" of news reports about them, while Yeri is pretty much never mentioned as a solo member anywhere. Just google "Kim Yeri" and choose "news", the only results you get is some yellow tabloid news like
This and
This, not to mention that both websites are listed as unreliable per
Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources.
Snowflake91 (
talk)
09:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
At this point some relevant questions may be warranted regarding this nomination. Since
Red Velvet (band) has five members, why was the nomination not structured as a multiple redirect for all five? An examination of the articles for the other four members of Red Velvet —
Irene (singer),
Seulgi (singer),
Wendy (singer) and
Joy (singer) — confirms that there are no proposed deletion or redirect tags on any of their articles. Is there a waiting period to discover if this nomination succeeds before proceeding with one-by-one nominations of the remaining four members? Is there a contention that this member of Red Velvet is the sole non-notable member of the group and is therefore undeserving of an individual English Wikipedia entry in the manner of the other four members? Since the group has only five members, a
WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS argument regarding the other four members would seem to be too broad to encompass the seemingly random choice of this group member for nomination.
—Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)19:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
All other four members are notable (Irene and Joy passes acting notability for having a lead role in a TV drama/series, while Wendy and Seulgi have solo musical releases which charted on
Gaon Chart).
Snowflake91 (
talk)
19:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Accordingly, the answer to a key question above, "Is there a contention that this member of Red Velvet is the sole non-notable member of the group and is therefore undeserving of an individual English Wikipedia entry in the manner of the other four members?" is supposed to be accepted as "Yes". Nine brother/sister Wikipedias contend that she is sufficiently notable to warrant an individual entry, but English Wikipedia, which has higher standards than Russian, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese or other Wikipedias, would insist that Red Velvet is composed of four notable and one non-notable member. Whether such insistence is based solely on
WP:MUSICBIO or if other standards of notability, such as celebrity on an international scale, should also be taken into consideration, may be left to decide by other contributors to this discussion.
—Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)20:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I forgot mentioning redirect, if the afd passes, it NEEDS to be redirected and NOT deleted, I copyedited the page and added more refs, so when she gets notable enough, we can simply restore the content instead of creating the whole page from scratch.
Snowflake91 (
talk)
22:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Red Velvet (band); deletion just creates a baitlink in red and we will be doing this again in six months. I also fail to see why someone didn't just boldly redirect this in the first place instead of the AfD, but maybe they did...?
Montanabw(talk)08:17, 16 April 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.
Non notable topic about artifacts in a fantasy series. There are no independent, reliable sources and the article is written like an opinion essay.
Ciridae (
talk)
09:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - My goodness, it just goes on and on and on. Encyclopedia should not be a repository of fan material, reliable sources do not discuss the details of this fictional world.
ValarianB (
talk)
12:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Books of Swords. This is just a whole lot of plot-only
WP:CRUFT with no non-primary sources supporting any of the information. Searches also bring up no reliable sources discussing the swords either, as only fan sites and fan wikis mention them. Merging is unnecessary, as the swords are already mentioned in the book series main article, and this amount of unsourced cruft would not improve that article in any way if merged into it.
64.183.45.226 (
talk)
18:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge Some possible RS'es:
[78],
[79],
[80],
[81],
[82], but I'm finding the commentary doesn't really focus on the swords themselves in any way that would require (or benefit from) an article separate from the series'.
Jclemens (
talk)
04:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't really see the benefit of a Merge in this case, as none of those sources really say anything about the swords themselves that isn't already included in the main
Books of Swords article.
64.183.45.226 (
talk)
16:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge, but in summarized form. I agree that there's no need for this level of detail on Wikipedia, but the current version of the
Books of Swords article doesn't list the individual swords either. Replacing the current redirect to this page with a list of each sword and a 1-2 sentence description of its powers, or a table with powers and drawbacks should be sufficient. --
Bobson (
talk)
17:02, 19 April 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.
Comment: this is a band, not a company, so the notability standard it has to clear is
WP:NMUSIC, not
WP:NORG — and at least in theory, they do have a nominal pass of NMUSIC #8 for having garnered a
Polaris Music Prize nomination. Granted, that can still be not enough for an article if they prove entirely unsourceable besides nominal confirmation of that fact itself — but I'm withholding judgement as of yet because nominator clearly measured the topic against the wrong notability standard, so the sources will have to be reviewed a second time since NMUSIC is a different test.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete It is not so simple as to whether this is a band or a company, it appears. They seem to be both a record label/studio and a group of affiliated artists that the label/studio hosts. If they were clearly one or the other, then there would not be enough under the applicable SNG's to consider keeping. As it is, however, I think we have to consider them under both
WP:NCOMPANYandWP:NMUSIC. Using that standard, I still don't believe that there is enough significant coverage or that the prongs of NMUSIC are satisfied, with the possible exception of #5.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)18:31, 19 April 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. Doing our
own analysis of satellite imagery to determine the status of the project doesn't make for the strongest of arguments, but there's clearly no consensus for deletion here. – Juliancolton |
Talk01:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. No reliable sources yet provided even state that the bridge is planned. There is lots of politically funded material on the web, but that is all, and we might think of blacklisting at least one of the references given. This bridge may well happen, but it
may not.
Andrewa (
talk)
19:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Not a strong keep, but this bridge is clearly under construction and will be significantly notable. The article just needs some better sources, possibly Chinese-language if necessary. --
NoGhost (
talk)
21:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The most info I could find is
[83], but not a RS. If you assume it is accurate (note it was created recently in 2017), it says nothing about construction - it's all forward looking. At least the nearby
Jinanqiao Dam is real. Can't find anything on the Huali expressway that it's supposed to carry either. Also note that it is listed in
Bridges and tunnels across the Yangtze River without a source where it says it is opening in 2018, another indication it isn't happening as planned as the source above says opening in 2021.
WP:TOOSOON.
MB05:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. It is definitely notable and from google imagery, it is definitely under construction. I fixed inconsistencies that were from when it is was Taku Bridge.
ShakyIsles (
talk)
04:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. ShakyIsles' mention of Google satellite view confirmation that it is under construction is significant. Discussion above can be interpreted to mean it was once planned for 2021 but is advanced to 2018. Wikipedia needs to try to keep up with major infrastructure in China. --
doncram02:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The delete arguments centered about it not being clearly under construction; since it is per Google satellite view, they should be disregarded.
LuizdeO (
talk)
23:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep and expand to the scope of
zh:丽攀高速公路. This bridge is part of a partially complete highway; the highway does not have an article on the English Wikipedia. Judging by the (Chinese-language) sources on the Chinese Wikipedia article, there should be
sufficient coverage.
feminist15:36, 21 April 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 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.
Keep' - Delete the content at
SBS Transit, Add {{mainarticle|SBS Transit (Trains)}} to SBS transit and try to source this article (I'd imagine there's tons of Malay, Mandarin and Tamil sources on the subject). –
Davey2010Talk14:19, 6 April 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.
Delete: An article on a recent new publishing firm, where the provided references are start-up coverage, including what is visible of the paywalled item. The coverage falls short of
WP:CORPDEPTH and the bronze award for cover design of one of their first books does not imply notability for the firm.
AllyD (
talk)
12:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Small publisher of literary novels that "launched" in February 2017 with a book , linked in article, that did indeed get reviewed. Also, yes, it is probably PROMO by publisher or author, but it is also reliably, albeit sparsely, sourced, and is clearly being taken seriously by the industry.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
17:24, 21 April 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.
Improperly sourced article about a minor local award of little to no wider interest. This is referenced almost entirely to the award's own
primary source website about itself, some of the winning artists' own primary source websites about themselves, and non-notable
blogs — and the only two things here that actually qualify as
reliable sources, the Barrie Examiner and Sudbury Living, are coverage of individual musicians in the recipients list rather than coverage of the awards per se. There's simply not the depth of coverage being shown to get this over
WP:GNG — and the notability claim being made on the talk page in response to a prior prod attempt, that they're notable because there are some artists who won a TIMA early in their careers and then later went on to become notable somebodies with Wikipedia articles, is a transparent failure of
notability is not inherited. High schools could claim notability for their own internal student achievement awards if "somebody who won this once eventually became famous" were a valid notability claim in and of itself.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:55, 6 April 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
General Notability Guideline is not met by this film director/producer etc. There are a huge amount of false positives, it appears to be a common name, but the sources about this person do not exceed the types seen in the article - i.e. passing mentions of his work, next to nothing about him.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
22:11, 30 March 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 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.
Band with no strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC and no strong
reliable sourcing to support it. They released three EPs before breaking up but no full-length albums, and the only references cited in the article are to a directory and a
blog, not reliable sources. While this cherrypicks quotes from EP reviews in an advertorial manner, those aren't sourced at all. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they existed; passage of a specific NMUSIC criterion must be reliably sourced for an article to become earned.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:43, 6 April 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.
Non notable web personality with only one decent source, no indepth coverage. Being nominated for the teen choice awards is not enough for notability.
GuzzyG (
talk)
01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: Just wanted to drop a note that this is part of a student assignment with Wiki Ed, so if all else fails I would like to have this sent to the student's userspace so that they can work on improving it and having a copy for grading. We will try to work on it during the AfD, of course.
Shalor (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
12:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect to student draftspace for class Article subject is not notable. Fails
WP:GNG. As an editor stated above, this is basically a one source article, but just does not cross threshold of notability.
Antonioatrylia (
talk)
12:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Move to userspace; not notable yet, but the student shouldn't have their work deleted outright if it was part of their class grade (trout to the instructor for approving such a superficial subject, though).
Montanabw(talk)08:14, 16 April 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.
Poorly sourced
WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC and no strong
reliable sourcing to support it. The only notability claim even being attempted here is that she's won awards at the
Toronto Independent Music Awards and the Northern Ontario Music and Film Awards, neither of which are major enough to satisfy NMUSIC #8 -- but take those claims out, and literally all that's left here is "she exists". And apart from two pieces of purely local media coverage in her own hometown -- which would be fine if the rest of the sourcing around them were more solid, but cannot carry
WP:GNG by themselves as the only valid sources in the article -- this is otherwise parked entirely on
primary sources that cannot carry notability at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but nothing here now is enough.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:39, 6 April 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 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.
No indication of notability, and appears to be largely comprised of
original research and trivial information. A search for sources shows little from RS on this specific group/publication, and much on homosexuals in leftist movements not specific to this organization. The WordsmithTalk to me19:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
It's difficult to find sources on "Gay Left" (the organisation/publication) rather than "gay left" (leftist politics amongst LGB people), but there are a few hits.
This article is on the general term "gay left", but the section on Gay Marxism has a few paragraphs specifically on the Gay Left collective. I don't have access to
this chapter, but it looks like it might be promising. The article Interrante, Joseph (1978). "Gay Left". Radical History Review. 19. is a review of the journal. There's also
this introduction to the journal, but it's at best arguable that it is independent enough to count towards the GNG. Nonetheless, I think there might be just enough to keep this as notable.
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk)
17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Given this publication was in existence before the internet it will always be harder to find sources. However those found above are certainly looking promising.
AusLondonder (
talk)
22:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Thinly sourced and lacks reliable independent secondary sourcing, fails to meet the simplest of WP standards to establish notability.
Cllgbksr (
talk)
14:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I found a detailed book review in JSTOR about the Gay Left Collective, the book is Gay Men and Left in Post-War Britain - as the publication of a notable group, and for its historical and social significance, I think the subject is notable and could be expanded by someone with a special interest.
Seraphim System(
talk)18:42, 15 April 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.
An unremarkable YouTube channel; sources are tabloid-like and do not meet
WP:CORPDEPTH. Part of a walled-garden which also includes equally nn
Justin Stuart &
Andrew Scites; both are currently at AfD. Please see:
Nom's comment -- the articles referenced above (which were created by the "Keep" voter at this AfD) have been recently deleted, along with
ThatWasEpic. Please see:
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 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 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 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.
Delete: Notability is not temporary, even if the project itself is dead was the previous argument. Unfortunately there is a lack of
independent sources to suggest this claim. We can't
WP:IGNOREWP:GNG as keeping this will in no way improve Wikipedia or help the average reader. Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious extended encyclopedia apparently, I'd like to see Encyclopædia Britannica include this article in their latest edtion :).
Nicnote •
ask me a question •
contributions19:53, 17 April 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 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.
Sources are only local news, does not seem to have received the breadth of coverage necessary to make it notable. Creator had a COI and is now blocked from editing for sockpuppeting.
KDS4444 (
talk)
03:17, 14 April 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.
None of the references included here come from appropriate sources to verify a notability claim. It looks like she was mentioned in a US News & World Report article
here but I was not able to review the actual article to see the extent of coverage. Other than this, Google Books is a dead end, Google news turns up a single
trivial mention and nothing else, am not seeing enough to make a notability argument here.
KDS4444 (
talk)
03:14, 14 April 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.
Delete. They supposedly have two albums, which is one criteria of
WP:BAND, provided they're on a real label. But they're not: Amazon has one, The Drift, but it is on the Jiggerypipery label. Discogs.com has not heard of them. So, not looking good. There is
this review, but it's from some obscure site, and its the same one that was used to rescue them back in 2006. And that's it; I can't find anything else beyond passing mentions. They have 752 GHits, down from 1,450 GHits in 2006... ouch.
Simon Crowe was in the band, and he has an article, if that matters, which it really doesn't. There's nothing there. They do have a MySpace page.
Herostratus (
talk)
07:31, 14 April 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.
Delete no indepdent sources about him to show he passes GNG. Merely writting works is not enough to pass either the author or academic criteria, and there is no indepcation the works are impactful enough for him to pass either of those criteria.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The additions do not show indepdent coverage of Beckeld in reliable sources. They merely show he exists and writes and his works are available for purchase, this is not enough to show he is notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Sources are independent and reliable. They are. Happy Easter dear John.
Natacha Berling
I challenge you to name even one source here that is from an indepdent, reliable source that provides indepth coverage of Beckeld. I will give one example. One source is a report that Beckeld is going to give a lecture on a subject. Generally what amounts to ads disguised as news for a lecture do not show notability. Beyond this, it is published in Madison Patch, part of Patch.com, a "local and hyper local" news platform that does not meet the requirements of a reliable source as far as I can tell. This is bascially a PR piece for an upcoming lecture in an extremely local publication. This is not the stuff notability is made of. Nor are listings of his works in directories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
To answer your comment about the lecture, I did choose this humble reference among others to illustrate his volunteering experience in Namibia. I start to wonder what kind of interests you pursue in insisting on deleting this page even though there are clear evidences of the relevance of this page here. His notability is demonstrated in the various references. I could have added more, I do not think it is necessary. His work is very good and smart for what I read, and I do believe he deserves this page. I disagree with your opinion but I do respect it. Peace. Administrators will decide then. All best.
Natacha Berling
Delete. The only one of his three supposed books that is even listed by Worldcat is his Ph.D. dissertation, writing a Ph.D. dissertation does not make one notable, and there seems little else here. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
06:29, 20 April 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 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.
Non-notable primary school. Prod was redirected to school district, as per customary practice, but redirect was reverted as well. So here we are.
Onel5969TT me01:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect A completely unsourced article about an elementary school. Not only does the school appear not to be notable, the article does not even make a credible claim of its significance. The school clearly exists
http://tfes.nbed.nb.ca/ so the original redirect to the school district was the correct action and it should be restored.
Meters (
talk)
04:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - yes that is the consensus, that elementary schools, unlike secondary schools, are not notable simply by existing. Each elementary school must individually pass
WP:GNG, which this one clearly doesn't.
Onel5969TT me02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep with the addition of two news articles and a picture, the wiki now meets
WP:N guidelines, and the prior votes should be voided, or at least updated.
Spem Reduxit (
talk)
01:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
CommentTerry Fox is notable. A school is not notable because it is named for him. Adding a picture of Terry Fox to the article does nothing to address the school's lack of notability. The two sources added to the article do nothing to show notability:
Passing mention of the school in an article about the lack of required annual asbestos inspections since asbestos mitigation in 12 schools in 2004. The only mention of the school is: "There is no asbestos in the following schools: ... Terry Fox Elementary School ..." I have no objection to adding the material to the article, but it does not contribute to notability.
Terry Fox's brother visited nine schools in New Brunswick to tell Terry's story. One of the schools was Terry Fox Elementary School. This does not contribute to the school's notability.
Meters (
talk)
03:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
onel5969 and
Knox490: Would a redirect to the school district be a acceptable outcome for you? That is the usual procedure as this non notable institution may at some point be searched on Wikipedia. If you're agreeable to that, it will be easier for the closer to assess a consensus and avoid relisting. Thanks.
John from Idegon (
talk)
21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
That was my assumption of what you were trying to do. Unless there is a specific argument raised against a redirect in an AFD I figure any Delete !votes will likely be happy with reasonable redirect. Certainly I am if a good redirect is raised after I !vote delete.
Meters (
talk)
23:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I want to make some comments about a few concerning comments above:
The fact it is primary is not a reason to delete or to keep an article on a school, per the recent schooloutcomes RFC. (Yes, that's the other implication regarding SCHOOLOUTCOMES.)
No topics are presumed notable simply by existing, whether schools or otherwise, unless reliable, secondary sourcing (that is not regional in nature--ref
WP:NORG) can be found to indicate that topic's notability.
The RfC only dealt with the topic of the presumed notability of secondary schools. It did not touch how we should deal with pre-secondary educational institutions. The argument for redirect is that we have for over a decade redirected these schools as a matter of course. This is because the people who tend to be searching for these schools tend to be children, which causes two issues: First, we want to avoid the recreation of these articles via a redlink. Yes, they could do it anyway, but a redirect drastically cuts the chances of an 8 year old doing it. Second, its useful for 8 year olds to be redirected to their hometown or their school board. They are looking for something, so we give them something that is useful for the reader.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
18:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what is concerning Izno. If it was my comment about the school existing and hence deserving a redirect perhaps I was unclear. I simply meant that since it exists but is non-notable it is a viable redirect. If it were a hoax I would !vote Delete. Not sure what I would do with a non-notable former school, but that's not germane here. The only argument for keeping or deleting based on nothing but existence was by the article creator (I have now tagged it). I see no problem with the notability discussion.
Meters (
talk)
18:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The comment re "primary" was due to the nom's statement primary school; the few per-nom !votes, your elementary school reference in your !vote, subsequently John's "per Meters and longstanding practice", Spem's
WP:POINTy comment, and One's response to such. I see the conclusion of the RFC as commenting only on secondary schools now and that the previous (and current) guidance re primary schools in SCHOOLOUTCOMES (not that it should be cited--maybe that should simply be removed due to NORG/GNG) was that they already needed to meet the bar w.r.t. GNG/NORG. Consider me educated.
The comment re "existence" was due to
One's followup to Spem (that is the consensus, that elementary schools, unlike secondary schools, are not notable simply by existing), which, post-RFC is incorrect--you did not appear to pick that up Meters.
The comment re "redirect" was really just a "I don't see a need to delete since we routine merge/redirect unnotable topics to greater-relevant topics" but didn't word it like so. So don't worry about that. --
Izno (
talk)
23:37, 20 April 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 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 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.
Weak Keep - as written, this is indeed close to
WP:DICDEF. However military stockpiles are significant in operational planning, and in terms of on-going maintenance tend to be challenging where compared to civilian stockpiles (explosive ordinance needs to be kept in separate bunker well apart to avoid a chain explosion of the whole stockpile from a single accident, theft is quite a large concern). An decent encyclopedic entry on military stockpiles could be written.
Icewhiz (
talk)
11:34, 14 April 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 subject of this article does not appear to be the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken
WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate evidence of such coverage, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should significant coverage be located during the course of this discussion. Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
00:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. He is not an academic in his specialty of metaphysics so he doesn't have that advantage in terms of establishing himself as an author. I went to Amazon and none of his books were reviewed, starred, etc. I did a Google search on this person's name and the second site to come up was a Google sites web page. His social media following is very low too so in the absence of him landing a major publisher, it is going to be hard for him to establish himself as a notable author. He may be a great writer, but right now it does not appear that he is a notable writer in terms of the volume of his book sales.
Knox490 (
talk)
00:30, 14 April 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.
This article is a
content (and possibly POV) fork of
Duchy of Normandy. There is no consistent scholarly distinction between an earlier county of Rouen and a later duchy of Normandy. Some scholars, notably K. F. Werner, have argued for it, but it is hardly consistently employed and others have objected to it (cf. Robert Helmerichs, "Princeps, Comes, Dux Normannorum: Early Rollonid Designators and their Significance", Haskins Society Journal 9 [1997]: 57–77). The article on the Duchy of Normandy can handle the issue of the nature of the grant to Rollo, the theory of K. F. Werner, how the power of the counts/dukes changed, etc. The confusing titulature (and non-titulature) of the Norman rulers is covered at
Duke of Normandy, to which
Count of Rouen redirects. The article
County of Rouen as I found it dated the end of the county to 996 and spent most of its time talking about the 11th century. I excised the material that didn't fit, but my attempts to redirect it to Duchy of Normandy have been resisted.
Srnec (
talk)
00:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect as per nom - there is no scholarly consensus that these were distinct temporal entities and not an evolving style used to refer to the same entity, as with the lords of Pamplona becoming kings of Pamplona becoming kings of Navarre, which we all treat in a single article.
Agricolae (
talk)
01:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect (and protect against reverting) -- When I saw the title, I was expecting an article about a small fief, probably about a much later period.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Duchy of Normandy as per nom. Regarding protection, I think it is unnecessary for now, I am sure the user that resisted will accept any decision taken by the community with consensus. After all there was an urge to AfD if the nominator thought there is such an issue. --
Kostas20142 (
talk)
10:09, 21 April 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 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 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.
Has never played in a fully-professional league or at international level, in this case for a club in the English Premier League or Football League. No significant coverage that would suggest the player is notable outside of the current criteria.
Monty (
talk)
22:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - as per above, and noted in the article, he did play for 25 minutes in a League Cup match between two fully-professional teams.
Nfitz (
talk)
20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - Fair enough, that was an oversight on my part. I don't know how to close this, but it's pretty self-evident that I was mistaken in nominating the article for deletion - and reading it again, I have no idea how I missed that...
Monty (
talk)
00:17, 17 April 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 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.
Despite the egregious comments on the talk page, there is no evidence of notability here. He appears to be a local sports commentator with no evidence of notability. The two refs (one of which is a dead link) are from a local newspaper and the live link he wrote himself . Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 22:10, 14 April 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 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.
Delete Yes the film exists (and congrats to those involved in making it) but there is little info about in the four and a half years since the article was created other than it exists.
MarnetteD|
Talk22:38, 14 April 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. Delete for BLP reasons: the arguments provided by Jytdog and Eppstein are persuasive. The keep voters have a good point in that there are a great number of references--however, it should be noted that Bizapedia and the website for De Balie (a cultural center in Amsterdam) are not reliable sources, and there are two or three more sources that are not journalistic media.
In the end, if the scandal is negative (and her contribution in it negligible), we should probably propose what the article would be like without that section--and the answer is, there's not much. BLP1E is invoked by a number of participants, and many of the delete-voters point out that she doesn't pass PROF and it is TOOSOON. So. In my opinion the BLP concerns are valid, and I have no choice but to delete.
Drmies (
talk)
03:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I am taking the unusual step of renominating this article, immediately after it was closed with "no consensus", so the community can consider the BLP issues here, which was not done in the prior discussion. The article, when it was originally nominated, looked like
this and as the nomination progressed became even more promotional, becoming
this. Around 11 SPA accounts edited the article, as is listed at its Talk page. After cleanup and as of this nomination, it looks like
this.
There is a serious BLP issue here. Her initial notability was completely tied by others and by her in reliable sources, to her role in creating an artificial trachea in a lab run by a prestigious professor at University College London that was implanted into a person with throat cancer in 2011 by a prestigious surgeon, and this was widely hailed in the media, and she went on to found a startup to create artificial organs. Lots of hype and glory and awards and hope for her, especially as a young woman in a STEM field.
But turned out that the surgeon who did the first implantation, did that in 8 more people between 2011 and 2014, and seven of the people died (including that first person), and two had their artificial trachea replaced, and there was scandal driven by TV documentaries and mainstream media, and the surgeon was fired by 2016. And the professor under whom she worked in the artificial organ lab at UCL, was fired in 2016 for a different reason. And the startup was bankrupt by 2013. So - her original claim to N, which she and everyone else hitched her wagon to, has crashed burning all around her. She has apparently moved on and is doing something like health policy now, if
this comment can be believed.
if this article remains in WP, the content must tell the whole story. In my view this is a case of
WP:TOOSOON and the article should not exist. On the other hand, what happened is real and kind of instructive about the risks of biotech and of "glamour" in the world of science and medicine, and everything is well sourced enough. But the community should squarely consider the BLP issues, which it did not do in the just-closed nomination.
Jytdog (
talk)
18:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I still stand by my first assesment that she does not meet the notability guidelines for academics. There is a reason the guidelines are set high, and that is to avoid overly promotional articles that do not tell the whole story.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)reply
DeleteI totally agree that it's a case of
WP:TOOSOON and that she does not meet the notability guidelines for academics, since she is not and probably will never be an academic and not a public person. Also the article has many inaccurate things about her biographical elements, her education, her startup didn't go bankrupt or had any debt (dissolution doesn't equate with bankruptcy), and once again it's another thing to be in the scientific team that invents the prototype of an organ,a new drug, a new algorithm and another to be part of the translational team (that is usually a pharmaceutical company as it happened in this case as well, that obtained the IP rights) with the clinical team which was from another country that conducts the clinical trial. The way this story is presented is misleading to someone out of the science world. I agree that the page should be deleted because in my opinion it is promotional.
Pictex (
talk)
18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC) —
Pictex (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep The was just closed days ago. The discussion has been had already. WP:GNG is there based on extensive sources. Repeatedly calling the article "promotional" is to no effect as it is not a valid deletion reason, unless it is so promotional that content cannot be rescued, and that is certainly not the case here. Nominator proposes lots of theories on her notability that are a synthesis of original research. I have to ask myself, with these kinds of refs, would this be happening if she had a man's name?
198.58.162.200 (
talk)
23:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)reply
It was closed as no consensus, in a discussion where many participants commented before the connection to the Karolinska scandal was clarified. So, now that we understand more clearly what her supposed notability was founded on, it seems reasonable to me to have another discussion. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete because there's no credible claim of significance {{db-person}} and there's pretence of importance. The case of how the surgeon handled the patient has nothing to do with the invention itself, and it's shouldn't be reported as if it was her fault. If only all scientists were presented with how many patients died when pharmas conducted clinical trials.. Also why is it assumed that her award had been won about this when her startup was producing devices and she works at Nasa or in policy? I find the way it's presented intentional and sexist, but on the same time she needs to do so much more to be seen as a recognised individual worthy of a wiki page at this age.
SteCID (
talk)
19:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC) —
SteCID (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
NB: there is no discussion of any "invention" that Antoniadou made in any RS. The answer to the "why is it assumed...." thing is that it is not an assumption -- it is what the awards and interviews discuss .
Jytdog (
talk)
19:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Off to a good start (perhaps) but now
WP:Too soon for
WP:Prof and not enough in-depth material for
WP:GNG. The rest is
WP:BLP1E. Credit to the nominator for the investigation, which casts a light on the matter very different to the one in the original article.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
07:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC).reply
Delete per
WP:NPF. It's a borderline case — there's enough material about the subject that one could easily argue for a keep based on
WP:GNG, but it's not completely clear because much of this material appears promotional and not truly independent. But if we use this material as the basis for keeping the article, I think we must explain what happened subsequently — the deaths of the implanted patients, destruction of the careers of the higher-level people involved in the scandal, and the failure of her own company that was based on this same line of work. Based on the principle of avoiding harm to subjects in borderline BLP cases, I think we're better off deleting the article. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Sure,
Jytdog. My perspective is that if we have reliable sources for the negative aspects of her biography, then it should be added to the biography. I don't think it needs to be deleted.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: Per Megalibrarygirl. This individual passes GNG based upon the significant coverage in neutral, third-party sources. I favor adding additional sources to the article and expanding it appropriately.
Montanabw(talk)02:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Others have explained the situation exhaustively, I do not need to repeat what has been more eloquently stated elsewhere. Also, you do not help your own position by arguing with every single post. We all know what you think; we simply disagree. Also, speaking only for myself, it seems unlikely that anyone's argument will change your mind, so why spend more bandwidth
beating the horse?
Montanabw(talk)23:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Most of my comments here have been simply asking people to comment explicitly on BLP. You continue to not read but to talk anyway.
Jytdog (
talk)
00:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: I have pondered and returned to this article numerous times, giving it considerable thought. I still believe she passes GNG and Prof is irrelevant as secondary criteria. As with any BLP, "including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back"... Based on policy, then, there is far too much detail given about other people and their actions, which is problematic. It might belong in a biography of Macchiarini, but his actions and sanctions do not belong in a biography of Antoniadou. While factual, it should be removed to talk page, IMO. Three or four sentences would suffice. "AT UCL Antoniadou worked in Alexander Seifalian's laboratory, which focused on bioengineering and scaffolds. While she worked in that lab, Seifalian was approached to create an artificial trachea; Antoniadou and a colleague worked on the project. When a doctor at another institution implanted the trachea, it garnered wide media attention and Antoniadou founded an NGO organization, Transplants Without Donors, which intended to use tissue engineering to develop artificial organs. Later the patient died, further implantations showed the technology was not yet viable, and the NGO organization was dissolved." Pared back, factual and not focused on someone else's actions.
SusunW (
talk)
14:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
User:SusunW 2 notes. The startup was a for-profit, not a nonprofit which i assume is what you mean by "NGO". Also we don't know why it went bankrupt. Most startups die because they fail to raise enough money to keep going, and in
the Nature interview she says that raising money is their biggest challenge. So that is probably what happened. (if it is, the reason why they couldn't raise money, could be any number of things)
Jytdog (
talk)
03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
NGO is a non-governmental organization, they raise funds from private donations, not government funded sources. All organizations secure operational funds from some source. Doesn't mean that they are profit driven. The Nature piece doesn't make any claim that it is profit driven, only that they were seeking funds to forward development of products. Doesn't change the rationale for paring down the information. But, since the nature of the organization is unclear, I modified the text above.
SusunW (
talk)
04:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't know where the notion that her startup (which is what she and everybody else called it) was a nonprofit. Startups are generally for-profits, and every ref cited in the article talks about it like it was a normal startup that participated in pitch events to investors, was seeking investment, etc. (for example, the
forbes blur explicilty says they were seeking
angel investors).
Jytdog (
talk)
19:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The nominator accepts that the subject meets gng, but then makes the case that because of events that have happened since the references were created, that the notability has been diminished. Notability
is not temporary, so even if her company has gone out of business (at least in it's original home state), even if patients died and a surgeon is discredited, if it was notable then it is still notable today.
Jacona (
talk)
18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
User:JaconaFrere No, you have distorted the reason for the nomination. The reason people paid mind to her was really one thing - her connection to that artifical trachea and she started trying to build a career off that (the hope and hype business). There is a real
WP:BLP1E thing going on here. And on top of that, that one thing has been discredited - beyond that, evolved into a horrible thing. That she really had nothing to do with. Deal with the actual facts here please.
Jytdog (
talk)
00:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, let's deal with actual facts. What did reliable sources do? While I see that you
Don't like it, she was noted and discussed significantly by several reliable sources, as you have acknowledged. Deal with the actual notability here, please, not your opinion that it is "a horrible thing". Not your
opinion about whether she had to do with it, but did the
reliable sources cover it. They did.
Jacona (
talk)
22:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
As I noted in the nomination, I would understand a vote to !keep - her story is instructive. There is no "not liking" anything here; you have just now misrepresented me for a second time, leaving the first misrepresentation still unaddressed and have not addressed the BLP issues. There is nothing more to say here.
Jytdog (
talk)
22:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
While the nom holds that their reasoning has been misrepresented, that is certainly not my intention. It appears that the nomination is not questioning whether the subject has received significant coverage by reliable sources, but still wants it deleted. In my opinion, that certainly seems to fall in the realm of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, things happened after her recognition, but
WP:Notability is not temporary.
Jacona (
talk)
17:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
!votes that rely on misrepresenting others (third time now) instead of making their own arguments are generally ignored by closers.
Jytdog (
talk)
19:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
As far as addressing the BLP issues, they are irrelevant, the sources cover the information. You say it became a "horrible thing", but wikipedia is
WP:NOTCENSORED, and the thing, horrible or not, is sourced.
Jacona (
talk)
01:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for giving your own thoughts on the BLP issues. That is what was needed. As I noted in the nomination, I think keeping is not unreasonable but the BLP issues should be considered directly.
Jytdog (
talk)
02:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think anyone has provided any evidence of bankruptcy, just "Involuntary dissolution", which is what the state does when you don't pay your registration fee.
Bankruptcy is a legal process through which a company discharges its debt on court-provided terms (usually by not paying some or all of that debt). Many companies go bankrupt without being dissolved, and many companies get dissolved without going bankrupt. I've seen no evidence that this company had any debt, much less that it had its debt rescheduled. The alleged bankruptcy is mentioned as part of the noms discussion on BLP issues, but there doesn't appear to have been any bankruptcy.
Yes the content in our article says that the company is in involuntary dissolution. From the perspective of general discussion of the topic, everyday people understand "bankruptcy" to mean the same thing. Which is how I was talking here and at the article talk page. Not a big deal.
Jytdog (
talk)
19:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I can't speak to everyday people understanding involuntary dissolution as being the same as bankruptcy, but if they do, it's similar to mixing "died" and "executed". There's a very important distinction.
Jacona (
talk)
15:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment After reading the discussions here and on the talk page, I have adapted the suggestion from @
SusunW:, adding dates where available to give a better sense of time course and Antoniadou's involvement. I felt it was warranted to specifically address the investigations (briefly) and include the information that the ULC scientists were not considered to have acted inappropriately, rather the surgeon was. I've also removed the interlink to "bankruptcy" (which appeared on the text "involuntary dissolution").
Mary Mark Ockerbloom (
talk)
03:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Which I have reverted most of. Those edits were counter-factual and POV. The story is not pretty but it is what it is. If you think it is unwise to have a NPOV article about this person then please !vote delete. But obscuring what happened is not an option.
Jytdog (
talk)
03:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
... Almost all of which changes appear to have been reverted within minutes. I would appreciate it someone else would review them and decide whether they were of use. They did not contradict the cited facts; they specifically noted that there were conflicts and investigations undertaken, and they were not biased or inaccurate in doing so; they did however summarize extensive information which is not appropriate to the focus of this page.
Mary Mark Ockerbloom (
talk)
03:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
They absolutely did contradict the facts. They were dishonest at worst or sloppy at best. There is no evidence her company was a nonprofit - in fact all the evidence is that it was a for profit. And every one of the nine implants failed. Not "some". The artificial trachea thing was a complete failure. Soft peddling that is not acceptable. It wasn't her fault, but it was her launchpad.
Jytdog (
talk)
03:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Mary Mark Ockerbloom, I disagree with Jytdog's characterization of the changes. Neither the number of implants nor detailed information on other people's actions and or failures have anything to do with a biography of her. Policy dictates that the amount of detail be reduced, so I am unclear on why that would be reverted.
SusunW (
talk)
05:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
As previously pointed out,
Jytdog you seem to confuse non-profit and NGO. Which is one reason why I linked to NGO in the edits you reverted. Linking (once) to the name of the doctor involved would be appropriate. People could go there or to the sources for the more detailed information. Including the dates is important for establishing who was responsible for what. An extensive discussion of the case is not appropriate here. Quoting above The case of how the surgeon handled the patient has nothing to do with the invention itself, and it shouldn't be reported as if it was her fault. Referring to the investigations should be sufficient for this article.
Mary Mark Ockerbloom (
talk)
11:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Not the place for this discussion. NGO is not what we commonly call startup companies in WP or in the RW, and the changes violated NPOV up the wazoo. And there was no invention.
Jytdog (
talk)
11:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I actually wanted to !vote "keep" but the sad fact is that this person was not specifically the inventor of a successful technology, nor even a credited inventor of a non-successful technology. Nor is there a source crediting her with specific research on that unsuccessful technology, and we manage to run this BLP without naming the other person involved. Going on "aid missions" is something a huge number of people do, and is not something notable here, nor are the other minor facts sufficient to assert notability as such. Really, I want more articles on women in Wikipedia, but this is not a successful choice.
Collect (
talk)
19:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I vote delete because this person has not contributed enough in science or another field to have her biography listed here. I agree with
Mary Mark Ockerbloom on the fact that her startup was producing bioreactor devices and not trachea transplants or any surgeries of any sort. I don't agree with the inventor debate, as a masters student she worked on the prototype, because of course Professors don't even enter labs, but other than that she left for the USA as you already mention on the next paragraph (2010), while other teams got involved in the experimental surgery years later. UCL had nothing to do with the other 9 transplants either, it was completely different university teams and different tracheal prototypes used under that surgeon. I also agree with [[User: SusunW|SusunW] that there is more info on what other people done as if it is her fault. Overall she is too young to have a bio and wiki should have higher standards on who they include.
Tzsagan (
talk)
07:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Several of the sources demonstrate considerable international notability. Academic qualifications and/or status are not an issue here.--
Ipigott (
talk)
08:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Hi
User:Jytdog. I, on your nudge, have had a deeper investigation and have seen some of your concerns, I have moved my understanding and now lean towards a position similar to User:Collects, so I am striking my keep comment. Thanks for your efforts with this.
Govindaharihari (
talk)
10:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Surely passes GNG. Significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. However, the paragraph about the tracheas needs to be pared way back per
WP:UNDUE. Most of the facts here are about other people. And the article does seem promotional, but that's an argument for additional editing, not deletion. I hasten to add that I think this nom was totally appropriate. I usually decry repeat AfD noms that come so close in time after the original. But the BLP issues here (especially BLP1E and UNDUE) needed to be discussed and weren't covered in the initial AfD. Thank you Jytdog.
David in DC (
talk)
17:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. For these reasons: 1) She has
WP:GNG based on extensive sources, therefore she does not need to pass PROF. 2) As noted above, "AT UCL Antoniadou worked in Alexander Seifalian's laboratory, which focused on bioengineering and scaffolds. While she worked in that lab, Seifalian was approached to create an artificial trachea; Antoniadou and a colleague worked on the project. When a doctor at another institution implanted the trachea, it garnered wide media attention" 3) She posses international notability 4) As note above, she has significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.
Dean Esmay (
talk)
01:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for replying, but if you went and looked for refs you would find that all the RS are already used (you may find more but I doubt it), and you have not spoken to the BLP issues. So be it.
Jytdog (
talk)
05:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The "beauty" of an AFD is the nominator doesn't get to control the outcome nor dictate other editors' assessments ... no matter how many times s/he types the same comments over and over again.
Hmlarson (
talk)
02:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment, "all the RS are already used", the article presently has 16 references, as a subject can meet
WP:GNG with just 2 or 3
RS, it would be helpful if the nominator or 1 of the "deleters" informed us which ones are not RS or useable for notability, thanks.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
11:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Why does WP have a BLP policy and take it so seriously? We have it, to protect living people. It says "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.". So if you read the story of this person's life, her career was launched by her involvement in the project of her lab head and this surgeon, which generated a ton of press. (all of the awards she won and every source about her, talks about that work). The surgeon killed 7 people and his work had to be undone on the other two; her lab head turned out to be corrupt. She has (apparently) left the practice of science behind altogether now and is starting over... but there are no RS about that. So.. I said
WP:TOOSOON; others have cited BLP1E, see the note below, and see David Eppstein's !vote above. Sure we ~could~ keep this, but a clueful !vote will at least take the BLP issues into account. (and no, we cannot soft peddle what actually happened, if we keep the article - that would be an NPOV violation)
Jytdog (
talk)
10:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Reducing the content as per policy is not soft peddling, as you have asserted. It is also a POV to insist on keeping all the minute details about other people in the article. The company dissolved in 2013; 4 years have passed. Those things that happened to others have not destroyed her life or career. The actions of others have not stopped her continuing her career, as she is still actively participating on the world stage in various capacities.
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4].
SusunW (
talk)
14:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Oh she got a job with
International Marine Contractors Association! Good for her! As noted she is out of science/regenerative medicine. Left that train wreck behind. I never said that anything stopped her career (it would be very hard to stop a go-getter like this person) - what I have said, and said repeatedly, is that her initial launch and trajectory has crashed and burned. Of course she is starting over and she may go on to do important things. We don't know if she will or not yet. Hence my TOOSOON vote. But if this stays, the full picture of what happened needs to stay and the community will not allow what happened to be buried in phony bullshit. If she goes on to achieve great things, having overcome this initial adversity will only be to her credit.
Jytdog (
talk) 22:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC) (note - i just re-read and realized that this may come across as sarcastic. It wasn't. It is hard to relaunch, and it is great that she has found a job and is restarting.
Jytdog (
talk)
16:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC))reply
Cruelty. The subject has had her career and reputation destroyed by the actions of others. I think it is wrong to use Wikipedia to pillory her misfortune as that, in effect, is what is being done here:
WP:Do no harm. I would like to see this AfD debate redacted as well per
WP:BLP policy.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC).reply
Comment- Hi all, I'm a former student of Eleni from Greece, I wanted to say that this is a very unfair article of her because she has 5 degrees and is a person of poor background that won more than 20 scholarships to be able to go to the university. Also Eleni is known in Greece because she is the first Greek person to ever enter the NASA academy and to be an astronaut instructor, few people know about her medical research more people know about her space research and her philanthropic work at the elderly houses here in Greece. She was very helpful and kind as a teacher too and helped us to apply to universities abroad. I'm sorry I don't know much about wikipedia and it's rules, I just wanted to add this comment. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
LefterisP (
talk •
contribs)
17:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) —
LefterisP (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep The subject is notable per sources. BLP issues or NPOV issues, if there are any, do not indicate an article should be deleted; they indicate an article should be cleaned up so I don't see the need for discussion of BLP issues in the RfD context. If a subject is WP: notable deletion is not an option. Discussion on the clean up needed, if any, belongs on the article talk page not here.(
Littleolive oil (
talk)
00:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC))reply
Delete -- insufficiently notable, and thus BLP considerations take precedence. Especially given the SPA editing, better off deleted.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
00:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete With respect to the BLP issues, the article uses verifiable sources and, in contrast to its previous incarnations, has moved substantially toward a NPOV. It is certainly not an attack page. The subject's notability, however, seems to me questionable. It is true that the basis of that notability is interesting, as it made a complete metamorphosis from "Oh Yeah!" science to "Oh No!" pseudoscience, and in both manifestations it received a fair amount of press. A former association with a team of quacks, however, is something less than a notable achievement. Lastly, I know many people who spend their entire lives doing good works. It makes them significant, and typically wonderful, but not notable at the level of an encyclopedia.
JoJo Anthrax (
talk)
16:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Clarification: I think there is confusion here as to what designates notability per Wikipedia. "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Per the reliable independent sources this subject is notable. Borderline notable is also notable assuming that is the case. What does not matter is the opinion of any editor here as to what is significant, or that the subject experienced failure; if that was published in a RS this is exactly what is notable. We aren't here to determine whether there is science or pseudoscience here. And we can't conflate significance with notability. Our test for notability is the sources. Are the sources reliable, are there enough of them, and what is enough? BLP issues, notability issues, and significance have been conflated with a dressing of opinion on the scientific aspects of a career. We have to clarify and delineate and edit out what does not matter at this point in an article's construction. RS. That's what we need and we have them. (
Littleolive oil (
talk)
16:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC))reply
You are not speaking to the weakness of the sources, their restriction to being based on one small set of events in her life, nor to the actual BLP issues here. There is no pseudoscience under discussion so I don't know why you are mentioning that.
Jytdog (
talk)
16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"There is no pseudoscience under discussion...". Per Jobas "A former association with a team of quacks, however, is something less than a notable achievement." The subject has won numerous awards sourced. We can argue I suppose as to the significance of those awards. And as I said above BLP is not a criteria for deletion so I don't see a need to discuss it. If the discussion is BLP fine but BLP issues, as long as the sources are there, and I believe they are, and so do you apparently, "and everything is well sourced enough" does not point to deletion. These issues are being muddled together here and that is a concern.(
Littleolive oil (
talk)
17:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC))reply
Hm.
WP:DELETION does speak to BLP somewhat but more importantly BLP itself does speak to whether articles should exist or not. You are not dealing with what BLP says about that. I agree that some people have gone a bit far in characterizing the surgeon's malpractice; people have gone too far as well characterizing what the subject actually has done in her life thus far. It is hard to steer the middle and see what she did do, what happened around that, and where this young woman is in her life.
Jytdog (
talk)
17:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Could you reference what you are referring to when you say, "BLP itself does speak to whether articles should exist or not." I don't see such reference.(
Littleolive oil (
talk)
18:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC))reply
The whole section
Presumption in favor of privacy covers various aspects of how we consider the well-being of the subject above rote application of "there is a source for it so of course we say it" or "there are plenty of sources so of course there should be an article". The issues are hard with this person because all the hype and awards (which are not great sources) focus on stuff she did that fell to pieces. Earlier versions of this article didn't tell the whole story so were warped and fake; with the article telling the whole story we end up with all this WEIGHT on an aborted beginning of a career that has barely begun. Which is why I propose (and am not insisting, but propose) that we delete per TOOSOON. I could see that we would decide to keep it, but I find it ... unfortunate that so few "keep" !voters are really thinking through the BLP issues and the presumption in favor of privacy. A kneejerk "there are plenty of sources so keep" !vote does the subject and the spirit of the community consensus that generated and maintains BLP as a policy, a real disservice.
Jytdog (
talk)
18:37, 21 April 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 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.
Keep and definitely shouldn't be bundled. This is an article with 2 reliable references showing the person represented their country internationally - and not Andorra or Monaco, but a nation of more than 20 million people. Without being able to search in Chinese, I cannot say there are not more sources. This was also moved to the mainspace by
Beatley only 2 hours before AfD; more sources may take time, but what we hae is enough.
Boleyn (
talk)
06:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Nom Com I suggest reading the AN/I discussion YMblanter linked above. If you want the article kept, userfy it now, mass deletion to the tune of some 75% is about to take place, I don't know when.
L3X1(distant write)14:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
keep meets NATHLETE. afd is not a quality improvement process; if you have a quarrel with NSPORTS, and want to assert the supremacy of GNG, then change the policy. the mass deletion of articles that wery well meet notibility policy is proof of the moral sewer that prevails here.
Beatley (
talk)
16:45, 25 April 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.
Article contrary to Wikipedia's TOU, falling foul of
WP:PAID. GNG is not met, my own searches turned up nothing more than the usual interviews, "advertorials" and corporate puffery.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
20:58, 14 April 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.
Less than one step away from a hoax. No notability. Just an invention that got tweeted about. Fails utterly to meet
WP:GNG. Should be speedily deleted if there is a suitable category VelellaVelella Talk 20:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
As explained in the articles and also the Legitimacy page in the references on the Kekistan website, this as legitimate country as places like Liberland, Sealand, Hutt River, and other places that are listed on Wikipedia. It has been endorsed by Russia, and it has a constitution, a government, a flag and a coat of arms. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kevinthomas1864 (
talk •
contribs)
21:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Has received recognition from the
Russian Embassy to the UK, and has legal documents, such as a
constitution on their
website. They also have received more international recognition and notability than most micronations ~ not a hoax or a troll. They have the ability to be contacted and enter diplomatic relations, this can be done through their
social media. It appears a lot of effort has been put into creating their
legal basis, something that a simple 'hoax' or 'troll' could. KEEP & LET EXPANDUrshankov (
talk)
21:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - there are notable micronations, but this is not one of them. A hashtag in a tweet from an embassy ≠ official recognition by that government. If there is any "international recognition and notability" please show where that is, because it's not included in the article nor is it anywhere to be found through Internet searches. --bonadeacontributionstalk21:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete Guys, guys. I don't know if I'm more embarrassed that this wasn't CSD'd or that we're wasting time discussing this. There couldn't be a better example of a hoax. "kek" is a well known meme-ing term. What's next to it? "Dat boi island?" We're getting trolled fellas, and having a "flag" and "constitution" is about as credible as "Donald Drumpf".
Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk22:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Kek is also featured throughout Ancient Egyptian Ogdoad cosmogony, as can be seen here. This micronation also appears to be based on the geographic history of the origins of the Egyptian mythical creature. Rejecting the basis that a nation can be founded upon these fundamental principles would mean that we would have no nations to this day, as every single one has originated from a deity of some kind. I'm sure if this micronation kept it's traditional name of 'The Principality of Jonesia' you would have no issue with such? I am aware that this has become part of some 'meme' culture, but this micronation seems incredibly serious, and is far more functional than most of those in the list.
Urshankov (
talk)
22:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Exemplo347: If you're honestly trying to throw a petty insult because someone has done something you disagree with, you need to become more mature and realise people don't actually follow your little ideals. Due to such inflammatory and ridiculous behaviour, I would like to see your prior comment made invalid - as I'm sure if you read the rules you would understand that this is a discussion thread and is no place for personal attacks.
Urshankov (
talk)
22:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
From comments such as
Exemplo347 moaning about 4chan, and
Drewmutt saying "Donald Drumpf", it is clear that you are showing bias against this actual country simply because of your political beliefs, and trying to delete articles that do not reflect your political ideology. The threat to block
Urshankov is out of order. It is meant to be a fair balanced encyclopedia. This is a real country, that has been granted recognition by Russia and features in Buzzfeed. It has more credibility than the other micronations Wikipedia lists. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kevinthomas1864 (
talk •
contribs)
22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
KEEP & LET EXPAND Wikipedia has pages for other micronations such as Sealand, Hutt River etc.., all of which have received less international recognition and are less organised than this one. If Wikipedia has pages for these micro-nations, this micro-nation should definitely be allowed to have its own page.
MeekoMeeko (
talk)
22:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC) —
MeekoMeeko (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Seconded.
Abusing multiple accounts can get you banned from Wikipedia, particularly when you do it during Article for Deletion discussions.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
22:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Stop accusing people of making multiple account and actually engage in a reasonable, well argued, fact-based discussion as to why Kekistan should not be accepted into the community of nations despite satisfying the required criteria for a nation more successfully than any other micro-nation on this entire website.
MeekoMeeko (
talk)
22:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Exemplo347 that's a bit low, suggesting everyone who disagrees with you is the same person - so is everyone posting to delete this page the same person? Ok, Exemplo347, Hyperbolick, Velella, Bonadea, Drewmutt are the same person and should be barred from Wikipedia for trying to delete articles that don't satisfy their Democrat party political agenda.
KEEP & LET EXPAND Kekistan has a constitution, land, international recognition and a citizenry willing to give their lives for the nation if need be. Hardly any other nation on earth can claim to have such a stature of statehood. Long Live Kekistan and LONG LIVE THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE! SHADILAY!
Kekistani Nationalist (
talk)
22:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
L3X1: IHello, may I ask why you have opened an investigation against me, although there is no evidence of your claims I am willing to be IP checked and such, just to prove that this is not true, and is infact, a false allegation.
Urshankov (
talk)
22:51, 14 April 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 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. While the deletes outnumber the keeps by a small margin, there doesn't seem to be a strong enough consensus to justify any definitive action with this article. Both sides have compelling arguments. Additionally, the incident happened very recently, and new information is still coming out about it. This article was created on the day of the incident, and the AfD was started 8 hours after the article was created (which is discouraged by
WP:RAPID for this very reason). There will be a better opportunity for a stronger consensus to emerge after the dust settles. If there are still concerns about the article, I'd suggest renominating in a month or two.
‑Scottywong| squeal _23:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
keep this is a terror attack receiving significant coverage in international media- bbc nyt, reutets, cnn, etc etc. Also local. Seeing the 2017 st petersburg metro bombing has an entry, there is reason to treat this terror event differently. The article itself is well sourced and well written. Probably both the article and the afd should've waited a few days.
Icewhiz (
talk)
21:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note, as I said on the article's talk page, that many editors who work on Israel-related articles on are observing the Passover holiday, which continues through Wednesday, and are not editing at present. As are many Israeli journalists. I suggested there that we should wait to hold this discussion until the country returns from holiday.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
21:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep as per usual. by this I mean that it has become normal to keep articles about terrorist attacks because they generate substantive international coverage, as is the case here.( cf.
2017 Paris machete attack,
2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers, etc.) Nom gives a
WP:CRYSTAL argument for deletion, but, Note that in fact terrorist attacks tend to be revisited and referenced going forward, in this case, it is likely to be part of the growing attention being paid to
suicide by soldier, in which, as Shin Bet is suggesting here, an already suicidal perp commits a terrorist attack in order to achieve a socially approved, even lauded, death. Note also, as I have argued before at AFD, that it is far easier to create articles on these incidents soon after they occur - and sources are available without access to paywalled archives - rather than to hope that someone goes back years later to create an article when an incident like the
1980 Antwerp summer camp attack or the
1996 Paris Métro bombing comes back into the news.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
22:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Stick a knife in this one, it's done. I think it's time we reevaluate the notability of terrorist attacks in general, since this is one AFD too many for such articles.
Cyrus the Penner (
talk)
01:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The article fails
WP:NOTNEWS and, by definition,
WP:LASTING, but those policies are dead and never applied anyway. I'll note three things. First, there is already a page
List_of_violent_incidents_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_2017, which deals with violent incidents of all kinds. Of those, only some incidents are given wide coverage and people create articles on them, but that situation is so normal that it's not even worth talking about. Second: the motives of the attacker are not totally clear; he seems to be mentally unstable and had a history of sexual abuse. Lastly, technically the creator of this page shouldn't be creating pages at all in this area, since they don't meet
WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. The latter is not too important; I'm sure someone else would have created the page if not for them.
Kingsindian♝♚11:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Just imagine how stupid would it be to actually have this attack as a stand-alone article in a written encyclopedia. This attack hasn't yet generated any significant outcome. It is only that a foreign resident was killed, so obviously some British newspapers and other international sources would care. I also don't see a reason for this incident to be recorded on the rail's article, especially not in more than one sentence. The community should start having a consensus to start articles on recent terror attacks rather than having a consensus to remove them, we always have someone starting an article and then thanks to democracy, which is not the way of Wikipedia, we end up with countless articles about incidents that usually generate news reports because the media likes to support terrorism by popularizing it and enjoy ad revenue. The only reason for this article and other simmilar articles to exist is that there is "major news coverege" on that matter, but that's not enough to justify a Wikipedia article.
If we look at the article we have and remove the section headlines, it really looks like no other than a news article:
News article in Wikipedia
The attack occurred at about 1:00 pm April 14, 2017, as a knife-welding man stabbed a 23 years old British tourist. An off-duty police officer riding the light rail pulled an emergency brake and tackled the perpetrator, who was then arrested.
According to Israel's domestic security service, Shin Bet, the attacker was known to the authorities and this may have been a “suicide by soldier,” a phenomenon seen in other incidents in the last 18 months, "in which a Palestinian suffering from mental health or personal issues has chosen to carry out an attack as a way out of his problems."
Stabbing attacks were rare in Israel in 2017, although there was a spate of them in the fall of 2015 and early 2016. The attack took place as crowds of pilgrims form around Israel and the world gathered in the center of Jerusalem ot celebrate Good Friday.[5]
The attacker was Gamil Tamimi (57), a Palestinian Arab from the Ras al-Amud neighborhood of East Jerusalem who was known to security services had recently been released from a mental health facility where he was treated for attempted suicide.
In 2011 Tamimi was convicted of molesting his daughter.
Hannah Bladon, a 21-year-old student in Israel on an exchange program from the University of Birmingham was killed in the attack.
Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Radical Islamic terrorism is striking world capitals. Regretfully, terrorism struck today in Israel's capital – Jerusalem."
Israeli President Reuven Rivlin said “The bitter news of the young woman’s death in a terror attack in Jerusalem fills me with deep sorrow.”
Mark Regev Israeli ambassador to the UK, said: “My thoughts are with the family and friends of UK student Hannah Bladon, who was murdered in a senseless act of terror in Jerusalem today."
Per
WP:LASTING, this article is also too early, though I strongly believe it won't have any significant impact with encyclopedic value in the future. The attack didn't generate any big controversy, there isn't a big, complicated story here, there was no real response, millitary, legal or whatever, that followed this attack, only shock and grief.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)12:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that some news media have now responded to your comment [;-)] by ginning up a controversy around the fact that perp is entitled to a monthly stipend paid by the
Palestinian Authority from a budget subsidized by British taxpayers.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
14:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment no comment on whether the event is notable or not, but per
E.M.Gregory's comment I think the discussion should be put on hold until more experienced editors from Israel get to comment on the issue.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
12:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Content decisions can and should be determined by consensus of all editors, not a special group of editors.-
MrX13:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. This will be, as usual, voted in. The policies are clear, and it is in violation of them all, and none cited here have any other function than to give the impression this has something to do with policy. The only principle governing these articles is that any act of lethal violence undertaken by a Palestinian against a non-Palestinian has encyclopedic value. It's a form of politics on Wikipedia that survives by inattention to the clear evidence of our guidelines. Shrike for example
reverts out this as non violent from thelist, an episode widely reported as causing a sick Palestinian child's death by deliberate medical neglect because they could not extort from him information about his neighbours (
here,
here,
herehere,
here,
here,
here etc.) The incident is widely reported. This cannot even be listed as as form of extortionate violence leading to a death. One could, as is being done in this article, compose an article on the case and hope it would not be deleted. No. Responsible editors refrain from that because, however tragic, indeed evil, the incident may have been, it fails wiki criteria for notability, as does most of the daily thuggery in that area, which is best left to lists.
Nishidani (
talk)
20:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Isn't there a list this can go on? There doesn't seem to be enough to say about it to warrant an independent page, and I don't forsee significant additions being made to the content in the future. There is the same problem in some articles about terror attacks in Turkey where there isn't enough to say to meet notability guidelines, just a one-day news event. Fortunately Wikiproject Israel has a couple of pretty comprehensive lists this data could be added to. The category Kurdistan Workers' Party attacks has 6 articles. Palestinian terrorism has 169 pages and an additional 7 subcategories. Agree, "The only principle governing these articles is that any act of lethal violence undertaken by a Palestinian against a non-Palestinian has encyclopedic value"
Seraphim System(
talk)13:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Response I don't think a one day news event constitutes sources to support notability. If in the future this attack is studied in further secondary sources, and becomes significant in terrorism studies for any number of reasons editors have listed above (including policy changes, military action, or some other widely covered social significance like the gay pride stabbing) - then it could be added. Maybe it's too soon, but not every stabbing in every city in every country of the world meets notability guidelines only because it was covered briefly in news sources.
Seraphim System(
talk)14:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Deletion arguments based on the assertion that this article is sourced to "a one day news event" have been obviated by events in the days since the attack, including perp's mental status exam, widely covered public memorials at sporting events in Britain, and a developing controversy regarding British taxpayer subsidy of monthly stipend paid to this and other terrorism-motivated attackers by the Palestinian Authority.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
14:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that news coverage is ongoing, and will undoubtedly continue through the trial; it always does. Today's headline: Palestinian awaits mental evaluation after stabbing, killing British woman,[5]..
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
17:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Don't be ridiculous. You specialize in these silly articles, that can be summed up in any one of our numerous lists in 3-4 lines. I like many other editors could make several articles a month on similar things occurring to Palestinians - for every Israeli killed by this violence, several Palestinians are shot in very dubious circumstances, many in violation of Israel's obligations as a belligerent occupant of their land - but there is a general agreement among several of us that we should not imitate the POV pushing bad practice being used to promote unilaterally an Israel-the-victim-of-Palestinian terrorism mentality on Wikipedia. As long as drifting editors unfamiliar with this state of defiance of clear protocols continue to lazily vote instead of examining the merits, this crap will stay in, and consolidate wiki's repute for its
WP:systemic bias in the I/P area.
Nishidani (
talk)
17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Meaning everything should have an article on Wikipedia. If you are familiar with policy (
WP:AGF), you should be familiar with
WP:NOTNEWS. Not one remark by those promoting this 'stuff' seriously addresses that issue, and the detailed policy guidelines regarding what is of long-term encyclopedic interest, and what is just a blip in a news cycle. Get out of the toxic I/P mental framework of battling to promote a POV, and apply the reasoning used here, and you would get a wiki article on
this,
this,
this,
this,
this,
this, etc.etc. The only reason this is covered is that it is the Middle east conflict and involves an Arab Palestinian. All the other incidents occur in the US, and everywhere else in the world every day, and do not rate as articles. That is what
WP:Systemic bias is all about. It's quite disgraceful, but worse, a deliberate abuse of wiki space to push a POV.
Nishidani (
talk)
19:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
You didn't answer the question. What you are saying is that an attack by a known Arab militant, or a personal suspected of being motivated by ISIS gets coverage (I'm fine with that), therefore any attack by any Arab on a non-Arab must get coverage, even if he's a suicidal psychiatric patient, though we do not give coverage to any of the daily knifings by Americans, Italians (3 every week recently), English 'ordinary people', etc. The conceptual distinction is clear, and wiki excludes the latter.
Nishidani (
talk)
20:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Those who write these articles on Arabs never write articles like
From the perspective of those massacred (these events occur regularly once or twice a month, and have done so for over a decade) such attacks out of the blue are seen as we see the terrorist attacks we make articles on. In this Wikipedia is not global, but angloamericocentric, reflecting its own news and political interests. Anù the selectivity is quite deliberate, to promote a victimized by Arabs mentality
Nishidani (
talk)
20:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Because I do assume good faith, let me refer you once again to
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS - most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion - if you are writing on human shields and looking up citations from 10 years ago as research for your topic, most likely that is appropriate. If your peer-reviewed or specialist secondary sources cite news articles for a particular issue, most likely it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you are posting an article that is entirely about a single news story, which is not covered by any significant scholarship outside news reports, most likely, that is not appropriate.
Seraphim System(
talk)21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The mere existence of sources does not necessitate the creation of an independent article.
WP:Notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.-
MrX21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Per Bolter et al. I bet this one will be going to Deletion review. In the future, for best results, wait until thing has blown over before XFDing it. Easier.
L3X1(distant write)21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - An unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable but, for the most part, it doesn't work the other way around. Experienced editors need to have common sense about notability; independent news coverage immediately after the event does not make this notable. Stabbings happen (sadly) on the regular but they do not become articles. This is what policies are for people, come on.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
23:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete and transwiki to WikiNews per Bolter21's reasoning, without prejudice against creation of a Wikipedia article should
WP:LASTING effects occur. There's really nothing here beyond a summary of the events and the condemnations by various dignitaries. As it is, it's a bit awkward that this was created and nominated on the day of the event, as it's too soon to tell if it will fulfill LASTING, but considering the frequency of terrorist incidents that happen in the Middle East, I'm leaning towards no.
DaßWölf00:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep and institute clear guideline to ban wikiwashing campaigns and that obvious acts of terrorism are always notable, and not covered by the NOT NEWs which is always brought out everytime there is a terrorist attack. There should be an article on the increasing trend to stage terrorist attacks as "routine" crimes by mentally unstable people which appears to be a common and deliberate tactic of clandestine warfare. It is absurd to claim that even if the Israeli government declares an act of terrorism, it should not be covered as an act of terrorism by wikipedia. "unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable " In fact, the opposite should be true, when in Israel, every attack by an arab on a non-Arab is instantly recognized as a terrorist attack, elsewhere in the world, every similar attack when there is no other obvious motive should be recognized as a possible terrorist attack, instead of being instantly deleted as "routine news". Many terrorist sprees such as
Ali Muhammad Brown killing two gay men and a student and the
D. C. sniper attacks started out as "routine" murders with absolutely no evidence suggesting a terrorist motive. Indeed in the case of
Shooting of Robert Godwin, if this was an arab killing a Jews in Israel, there would be no doubt as to motive, yet in the United States, no source suggests any possibility of a political motive when it is always an obvious possibility.
Bachcell (
talk)
13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Bachel just curious how do you conclude this is an "obvious" act of terrorism when even the very article your voting to keep and current news sources state it is a possible act of terror? This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is not a news source: editors tend to assume things that are not verified yet.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
14:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
While we are pontificating on the lacunae of law, how did you arrive at the conclusion that motive is an element of a crime? You must be confusing motive with intent, and there is significant doubt, not only in the United States, but also in Israel, as to how this line of jurisprudence should develop. If you are talking of terrorism as a specific intent crime, it may not be what you were hoping for. While I support discussing current scholarship and legal developments about this on the relevant pages, we need to be sensitive to the BLPCRIME restriction in ongoing criminal cases.
Seraphim System(
talk)19:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't have a crystal ball, but maybe the case will be notable, if there are significant legal developments. The fact pattern seems to be developing in an unusual way. I still think delete is best for now, without prejudice to recreating the article if it satisfies notability in the future.
Seraphim System(
talk)20:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
As stated by multiple sources - e.g.
[6] - shin-bet has stated: “This is another incident of many in which a Palestinian suffering from mental health or personal issues has chosen to carry out an attack as a way out of his problems,”. Just because he had issues (he attacker after calling members of his family which refused contact due to the sexual molestation of family members) - doesn't meeting this wasn't terror (it has been labeled as terror by the relevant authorities) - as such an attack is a way to redeem one-self religiously and socially - and multiple terrorists (both in this wave and in previous waves) had a desire to die - just they decide to die killing out non-Palestinians and not by jumping off a roof or in front of train - this is a statistically significant phenomena, which isn't new - Pedahzur, Ami, Arie Perliger, and Leonard Weinberg. "Altruism and fatalism: The characteristics of Palestinian suicide terrorists." Deviant Behavior 24.4 (2003): 405-423
[7], and is exhbitied in other places as well - e.g. the Charlie Hebdo attackes [
[8]] and the Bataclan attackers had an assortment of personal issues as well -
[9]. The existence of a pre-existing motive to die does not preclude terror - to the contrary, this is a definite characteristic of many of the attackers in many such attacks (by Palestinians and non-Palestinians).
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Continued coverage (including the moment of silence mentioned above) prove the article meats WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING. RamiR08:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: I am strongly against the idea of merging the articles. The other article,
Jerusalem Light Rail, has a different and much broader focus, and doesn't have enough room in it for the information contained in this article.
OtterAM (
talk)
17:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:NOTNEWS, Attacks like this by the IDF happen all the time against Palestinians but never get their own article so why should this? Mention it on
List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017. I agree 100% with
Nishidani that attacks like these against Arabs never get the level of attention that attack perpetrated by Arabs get. Not saying this was intentional bad faith by the creator of the article but it's just how the world works. Perhaps, the issue lies more in that people aren't wiling to make an article where Arabs are the victim rather than the other way around. Consistency is all I ask for.
Kamalthebest (
talk)
00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that today's headlines "Palestinian who stabbed British woman to death ruled fit for trial"[11], makes it clear that far from being the single news cycle event asserted by multiple editors above, coverage will continue as perp is tried and sentenced.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Good grief. Every crime leads to a scheduled trial, ergo, every crime must have a wiki article because the time gap between the event and the court trial makes it a 'durable' reality! Jeezus.
Nishidani (
talk)
08:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Shrike, you mentioned
WP:DIVERSE above, and are repeating yourself after I asked you to actually read that policy. I'll plug it down here to ensure you do.
'Similarly, where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ..."), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability (see
Wikipedia:Bombardment).
Wikipedia:Bombardment Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that a subject is notable if there are multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This suggests that an article bristling with sources should be safe. However, not all sources are equally valuable. A source may be reliable, but only cover a subject in a trivial manner, and if a subject is covered only by trivial mentions then it may not be notable no matter how many of them there are (see WP:BASIC).
For example, single events may be given bursts of news coverage in hundreds of newspapers around the world, prompting hundreds of news articles published on a single day. From the next day, not a single news source can be found. Even if coverage continues for a period of time, local interests are not always viewed as encyclopedic.Nishidani (
talk)
10:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
If there are ongoing diverse reliable sources - it should be in wikipedia. Just like
Murder of Carol Cole (single victim, by stabbing) is for instance. We should not judge why the international (and local) media ascribe significance to Jihad inspired murders (particularly of young white women - even more so when the killing is on
Good Friday in Jerusalem) - it is clear that they do, hence there is a place for an article. Those complaining about the coverage, should complain to NYT
[12], WP
[13], BBC
[14], the Guardian
[15], Haaretz
[16], thousands+ article (hard to asses GNEWSHITS when they are over 100,000 supposed top-line (which is incorrect and includes potentially links to from other places) etc etc - it is not our place to judge why others consider this noteworthy, but to assess the noteworthiness ascribed to the incident by others.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
'it is not our place to judge why others consider this noteworthy'.
Actually it is our job to judge why editors think this kind of event. but not similar incidents occurring to Palestinians or Arabs, is noteworthy. It's PR for one party in a conflict, obviously. For several years, every day an incident like this arises, I have seen two or three editors, usually the same folks jump on it, write it up as an article, and then defend it at the inevitable AfDs. That these articles are written within hours of the event, before anyone knows if it may pass durability-over-time evidence, is prima facie evidence that policy is being systematically ignored, in order to get wiki space for another murderous Arab incident. Many get deleted by consensus for all the reasons given above. Quite a few slip through because many passing editors have no knowledge of this practice in the I/P area. It's a simple game. Incident+victim+death or trial of attacker, reactions: you can bloat that into a page, or sum it up in 4/5 lines. There is no POV pushing in the deletionist approach. The only neutral way to handle this is a chronological list, summarizing every incident of violence by whichever party, as has been done.
Nishidani (
talk)
09:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTADVOCATE Your argument, that Israel/Palestinian - related articles must be judged by different standards than articles about other parts of the world is against policy. Palestinians don't get their own special rules. And we are not here to Right Great Wrongs.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
10:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
non-Palestinian terrorist attacks also get created same day - e.g. -
2017 Fresno shootings which was created within hours of the event, and several others (e.g. -
2016 Magnanville stabbing). These get created - because there is wide coverage in reliable sources of the events, with the usually reasonable expectation that the coverage will be continuing.
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
They get created because
WP:NOTNEWS is dead, and has been for a long time. If you look at
2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, it is entirely sourced to contemporary news reports in December 2015. There was a catchy phrase which was in the news at the time. Apart from that, there was a brief bit of news coverage in mid 2016 when the attacker was sentenced. That's basically it. Otherwise, the incident has no
lasting impact. The same will be true of this event. But I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that these pages will continue to get created because a significant portion of the userbase wants these "breaking news" articles, and it is a significant driver of traffic and volunteers. It's fun to create a page which gets to the top of the Google search results immediately.
Kingsindian♝♚13:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
There has, in fact, been ongoing coverage, cf :"Leytonstone Tube attack: Isil-inspired knifeman jailed for life after targeting strangers at Underground station "[17]. Plus brief discussions in at least 2 books
[18] ,
[19], although the attack occurred just over a year ago.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, I can do a Google search as well. Apparently, it's hard to read what I wrote: Apart from that, there was a brief bit of news coverage in mid 2016 when the attacker was sentenced. None of the mentions in the books you cited are of any significance: they don't discuss the attack in any sort of detail (only a sentence or two). That does not count as "ongoing coverage". This is because the attack has had no lasting effect, just as I said. Your numbers are also wrong: the typical pageviews are about 500 a month, except for some spikes around mid 2016, and one during the recent Parliament attack. Look at the daily chart
here: the typical daily pageviews are less than 20 a day. I don't know if readers find them "useful", and I am rather ambivalent about the whole matter, but Wikipedia should stop pretending that
WP:NOTNEWS is policy, because it clearly is not.
Kingsindian♝♚14:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Just out of curiosity, Offhand, how many of the articles you have written on this topic have been deleted after AfDs? Quite a few, from memory.
Nishidani (
talk)
20:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Nishidani: you seem to have an extremely poor memory. But I am happy to
WP:AGF and point out to you that if you want to know this sort of thing, you can look at my editing record - or that of any editor - and find a list of all articles that I have created, with a notation of those that have been deleted. I trust that you will report back here on the number of articles in "this topic" that you find. By the way, how do you define "this topic"? I/P? Terrorism? Crime? After making that assertion, I do feel that you owe us an accurate report on how many articles I have created and how many have been deleted, on "this topic." And at what point in my editing career they were deleted? Also on how you iVoted and who nominated the articles for deletion.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I just checked and I have created 359 articles since joining Wikipedia two years ago. I don't know how exactly many have been deleted partly because I find it convenient to live edit, and a few times I have deleted by blanking tha page of an article I began to create and thought better of (these showup as a deletions). he most recent deletion that shows up in a search is
Basket of deplorables, an article I created only to see it deleted but which was soon recreated by another editor despite which it shows up as a deleted article, as do some other articles such as
Kate Prusack (one of several candidate spouse articles that I created during last year's presidential campaign, but that was merged - not deleted, and
Nebraska Book Award, which I created for the purpose of redirecting to
Nebraska Center for the Book, but which shows up as deleted on the list of articles I have created.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
A procedural question. This seems to be quite a partisan issue, with opinions more-or-less strictly down partisan lines. I was wondering, is there a procedure for getting more comments on this AfD from the general Wikipedia community outside these two sides?
OtterAM (
talk)
20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
That is a good point, and perhaps should be acted on. I insist however that this is not simply a partisan divide. It is true the same people make the same quick articles on incidents of Palestinian terrorism. It is also true that editors here systematically refuse to exploit hundreds of incidents where Palestinians are shot (dead or wounded) by Israeli 'policing actions'. To give one example of dozens, when a grocer Salem Shammaly, was shot dead in front of a video camera, and the
clip went viral, and the incident widely reported, neither I nor others who have objected to this article rushed to exploit it. Using E.M. Gregory's methods, to do so would have been easy to cite
the New York Times,
Sydney Morning Herald,
Daily Mail,
Mirror July 22 2014 The Mirror,
The Guardian,
Vice News,
Al Jazeera,
New Zealand Herald,
Unispal,
Newsweek, and even its durability 3 years later in books, i.e.Marouf Hasian Jr.
Israel's Military Operations in Gaza: Telegenic Lawfare and Warfare Routledge, 2016 p.16, or other venues, such as
Testimony of Eran Efrati that Golani soldiers shot the lad. or
Max Blumenthalon Transcript a year later. 'We' don't do this kind of article except when coverage is massive and continued over time. E.M. Gregory starts these articles instantaneously using breaking news. The AfDs may look partisan, but there is a neat divide between the rule-ignoring behavior of those who exploit incidents where Palestinians are culpable of violence, in order to write articles, and the rule-observant behavior of editors who do not write week by week articles of Israeli killings of Palestinian civilians. In short the procedural question requires some administrative oversight on what the fuck do the policies cited for and against actually mean, since numerous editors read them selectively, or cites them without reading them, or construe them in ways antithetical to what other editors take them to mean. I don't think the Shammaly incident merits inclusion, like hundreds of other similar cases, often on video. Stuff like this fails
WP:NOTNEWS, however tragic or shocking, but can qualify for a list.
Nishidani (
talk)
21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Giving as an example the death of young man in the midst of a hot warzone during a very active war is quite different from the homocide of a peaceful woman not in a active warzone, who was clearly targeted (NOT collateral damage, but actual target) while having nothing to do with the conflict. In addition there are allegations that this particulsr viral video is faked / staged.
Icewhiz (
talk)
21:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
It occurred during a ceasefire, arranged between the parties. Efrat interviewed the soldiers present when the sniper fired. The video was not faked. The 23 minutes of coverage was handed over to the mainstream newspapers, such as the NYTs, and nothing ever came of the 'allegation' a word always employed exclusively to incidents of filming where it would appear an innocent has been killed by the IDF.
Nishidani (
talk)
07:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
short ceasefires are frequently broken - especially when you are talking about a very hot spot which the site of a major battle -
Battle of Shuja'iyya. The clip itself went viral for about 2 days. Later mentions were very scant - so there was no reason to investigate beyond the short newscycle (
[21]). The killing of young men (of fighting age) is not terribly significant in a warzone in which some 2000+ died - and if it significant for a video of the death itself (which by itself shows little besides the death) - hard to say this is significant. In contrast incidents such as -
2014 Gaza war beach bombing incidents which involved children, filming, and continued coverage beyond a 2-3 day news cycle (and minor coverage by Efrat - which isn't exactly RS) - do have articles.
Icewhiz (
talk)
07:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Even if you did have an article regarding the clip, the subject probably would have to be the clip - as a viral video, and not the shooting of Shammaly (both of these, and together, don't meet notability IMHO. The viral video had a lifespan of less than 3 days, and Shammaly or the killing of Shammaly even less). Some of the coverage didn't even mention Shammaly by name
[22].
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) The direct answer to your question,
OtterAM, is that AfD discussions are advertised quite widely. Every one is listed centrally (in
Category:AfD debates and in a subpage of
WP:AFD), and most are also advertised to various interest groups. This AfD, for example, has been listed among the deletion discussions related to Israel, crime, terrorism, the UK, and events. If you can think of another list that may be appropriate to notify, please feel free, but please read
WP:CANVASS first and be neutral in your invitation. —
Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk21:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - additional coverage from 19-20th April -
[23][24] fund raising campaign for Bladon family,
[25] coverage of warning sent to Bladon of a "killer on the loose" by a friend - after Bladon had been stabbed - and other comments by flatmates (exchange students) in Jerusalem,
[26] stabber mentally fit for trial,
[27] Coverage in a weekly Hungarian paper.
Icewhiz (
talk)
07:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
May I suggest that some of the participants on this page give it a rest? I count about 18 comments from E.M.Gregory, 13 comments from Nishidani and 10 comments from Icewhiz. I think you have all made your points pretty well. From my experience, I can say with a pretty high probability that you're all wasting your breath anyway.
Kingsindian♝♚08:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Meets
WP:NCRIME per; media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources and
WP:Notability per; "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Just some of the many different available sources;
CNN,
ABC News which also links to multiple other sources including
BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, etc, etc. Many many Israli sources including
Times of Israel. All of these have provided more than a simple one paragraph repeat of every other source. There's also more minor mentions like this one in the
WashingtonPost. To put this a little further, there's a requirement for reliability which should be self-evidently met, but, look at the sources for yourself. Sources are both secondary and independent of the subject. Now, this gives it presumed notability which is not the same as notability as some would be quick to point out. Because of that, it makes sense to address some of the arguments for deleting the article presented above. Argument 1
WP:SUSTAINED; That is something of a
WP:CRYSTALBALL assumption, but, a credible one. I think it'll last a little bit longer than your "run of the mill" attack given that a British exchange student is the victim and thus forces international coverage. There might be some greater implications than a random stabbing attack on a local would. The same reasoning applies to
WP:PERSISTENCE as well. Argument 2 - "likely fails
WP:EVENT + + +"; from the guideline itself This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Same crystalballing being applied as the first argument. But, again, the argument to keep is crystalballing in the opposite direction. Argument 3 -
WP:GEOSCOPE; obviously does not apply given international coverage due to death of British student. This is not local news, its gone international. Argument 4 -
WP:NOTNEWS; ... editors are encouraged ... and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. There's no guideline or policy on what constitutes "significant", but, there are a couple of essays on it that really don't do anything to help (e.g.
WP:SIGNIFICANT and
WP:CCSI). I think
WP:DIVERSE applies here and that it suffices to establish significance per; Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable which of course if this is being reported in Israeli, US, British, Australian and even German sources is more than enough to meet "diverse". These sources aren't just word for word repeats of each other either, but, they do cover the same general gist of what has happened. Argument 5 - An unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable but, for the most part, it doesn't work the other way around. That is a
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument of Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. In this case, that is not a credible argument for deleting. Lastly I'll tackle
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS; again, this does not apply. It has nothing to do with; routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Other than that there are quite a few more delete arguments which are "per somebody else". It makes greater sense to me to look at the
WP:MURDEROF essay (even though it's a bit more than just a murder) which links to a variety of guidelines and policies most of which have been mentioned here but only one which I think needs close inspection; "Persistence". I think the strongest argument for delete is
WP:PERSISTENCE specifically because; Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. To extend this back to "Murder of", persistence is met if at least some of the following happens; Some factors that may lead to a murder being notable include a large volume of coverage beyond the local area of its occurrence and continuing for a lengthy period of time thereafter, a highly publicized investigation or trial, an article about the case in a magazine long after the case has been closed, coverage on a TV series, a movie or documentary being made about the case, a new forensic technique being used to solve the crime, a law being passed as a result of the crime, or other lasting effects. I've emphasized one point which has already been met. The trial is already being lightly publicized; fit to stand for trial. Whether or not the trial itself gets any attention is a matter for when the trial comes along. It's still in the news cycle and may or may not be as notable in a week, month, or year from now. My feeling on this is that while it won't be a huge deal it already is more than a minor local affair. I think because of this, the article merits inclusion on the encyclopaedia. Side-issue; There is a lot of, to be honest, useless nonsense written above that is entirely distracting from the issue. I have to endorse Kingsidian's comment about "giving it a rest".
Mr rnddude (
talk)
11:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Despite the extensive argument above, this is news. That it gained coverage is no surprise (though a "lightly publicized trail" isn't much), but that this coverage makes it an encyclopedic article, I dispute that.
Drmies (
talk)
16:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Yeah, sorry about that. I am not good at condensing an argument into something short and solid. I always find things to add and expand till eventually it's a solid mass of words arguing part for and part against my position. Well, if it was informative in any way than that's good enough for me.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
No need to apologize. I respect people who actually do some work round here by actually examining the details, though I disagree with your conclusions. I would note that no article has been done (rightly so, it's not politically sexy enough) on
this incident, which I noted while catching up on the backlog. If you examine it, it is identical to the incident in this article up for deletion or otherwise. It received a few news reports in Israel and Palestinian sources, not abroad. The difference is that the incident treated in this article we are discussing affected a foreign woman. The motivation appears to be otherwise identical, an attempt to get killed by killing someone. I agree with
Drmies. Both deserve registration in a few lines in the appropriate list, but fail our criteria for durability.
Nishidani (
talk)
20:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV. This article is used by some of the more vocal defenders / editors of the article to further an agenda. Notice edits like
this from last hour, re-adding "terrorism" wherever possible (including the navbox for "Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2010s", even though this was highly uncertain as a terrorist attack, and not against an Israeli, adding categories like
Category:Mass stabbings (as explained multiple times, there was no "mass" stabbing here) and
Category:Palestinian terrorism (which seems to be the main reason why this article was created and must be kept separately at all costs). This is a minor incident, probably not an actual terrorist attack but simply a deranged, deluded murder, which gets hyped up to further a political agenda. We shouldn't play along with such games. If it has real, lasting repercussions beyond one very sad death and one trial, it is time to revisit this. Until then, this shouldn't be on enwiki.
Fram (
talk)
14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that if User:Fram had read the article he would have seen that perp has already undergone psychiatric examination and been judged competent to stand trial.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Please both keep your insulting remarks to yourself. Cyrus the Penner, you are the one claiming on the article talk page "Agreed. Mainstream media hasn't exactly been reliable these days, so there should be some reliance on editors' good faith to share more accurate information that is being neglected. ", so I don't think I have to take any lessons from you in how wikipedia should deal with this kind of subject. I'll take my advice from neutral readers and editors, not from partisans like you two.
Fram (
talk)
08:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Jerusalem Light Rail for now. Saw this article referenced on AN/I. At this time I think the attack fails
WP:PERSISTENCE and
WP:NOTNEWS. If at some point in the future there are additional attributes that make it worth an article, then it can be revisited.
Coretheapple (
talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Changing to keep on the basis of
this Daily Mail article and others that I had not seen when evaluating this article originally. That pushes it into "keep" territory in my opinion due to the political repercussions in Britain from the payment.
Coretheapple (
talk)
13:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I oppose such a merge for 2 reasons. 1.) as I have argued with school shootings, merging places
WP:UNDUE emphasis on a single foul incident in an article about a major institution, and 2.)it is not done with attacks on trains/trams in cities worldwide and attacks in Jerusalem should be judged by the same standards we apply to attacks in other cities.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
In that case I would delete, again, without prejudice to the facts ultimately justifying an article. At this point it seems clearly not to be more than a news event, a terror incident in which there were not mass casualties.
Coretheapple (
talk) 19:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Striking out as I've changed my !vote to keep.
Coretheapple (
talk)
13:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Disagree. There may have been few casualties in this event, but these kinds of events (no matter what the casualty count is) always find their way back into the news cycle, always whenever a new terror attack occurs and
WP:RS brings up previous attacks as a sort of comparison. That on its own implies long-term notability.
Cyrus the Penner (
talk)
22:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Coretheapple: I read the Daily Mail article, and I don't see any political repercussions. Firstly, it cites Palwatch, which is a worthless source. Secondly, even as the Palwatch head says, there is absolutely nothing new in the practice; it is routine. Thirdly, if the UK government actually stops aid to the Palestinian Authority or something, that would meet the criterion of political repercussions. Right now, it's just the Mail bloviating about how UK taxpayer money is funding terrorism (big surprise that the Mail would take this line /sarcasm). Any supposed political repercussions are just
WP:CRYSTAL, in my opinion.
Kingsindian♝♚14:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Perhaps, but then there is
2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers which was a nonfatal assault and notable enough for an article, and
2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers, ditto. I read the news every day and I don't even recall those two. Yeah, I know, "other stuff exists," but this shows how we handle such things. And of course, the Taylor Force indicent,
2016 Tel Aviv stabbings. So I think keeping the article would be consistent with this practice, especially given the payment and all that entails. The world will not end with either outcome of this discussion and really wish people would get a grip.
Coretheapple (
talk)
15:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per NOTNEWS. Run of the mill terror incident in which one person was killed with a primitive weapon without tangential social impact. Lionized here, as is often the case, because it is an example of Palestinian-on-Israeli violence.
Carrite (
talk)
19:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Coretheapple and Carrite set up standards "run of the mill" and "not mass casualties," but because of the 28 articles listed in
Stabbing as a terrorist tactic, only the
2014 Kunming attack seems to have had mass casualties - indeed many of the listed attacks had no casualties except perp - this appears to be a case of editors arbitrarily applying a standard to attacks in Jerusalem that are not applied to attacks elsewhere.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
21:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:NOTNEWS is a dead letter because
WikiNews has flopped. To see a fresh example of this, compare
our coverage of the recent Paris shooting with
theirs – a bare single sentence. Our core principles of
WP:NPOV,
WP:V and
WP:OR work better than theirs when it comes to digesting the world's news. Such cases are certainly notable and notability does not expire. Our other policies such as
WP:PRESERVE and
WP:CENSOR then apply.
Andrew D. (
talk)
21:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I disagree with this reasoning. Are we going to create articles on events such as
this or
this (both comfortably pass
WP:GNG criteria)? Wikipedia and Wikinews are fundamentally different projects, and it's not up to one to pick up the slack of the other.
DaßWölf00:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note Continuing on-going coverage from 20th-22nd April -
[29] Coverage of salary killer will receive from the Palestinian Authority due to his act of "resistence",
[30] - another moment of silence by UK football team.
[31] - British hotel turning down screening of a film honoring a Palestinian terrorists following Blandon's murder in a Palestinian terror attack.
[32] - Coverage of the Palestinian Authority's attempt to glorify a convicted Palestinian terrorist in London in the wake of the murder of Blandon.
Icewhiz (
talk)
19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep- It clearly meets
WP:N/CA and
WP:GNG - in my experiance,
wp:not news is almost never followed here (unless there is a clash with the projects bias) and so needs reviewing, the project is so big now that it is impossible to stop editors reporting what is in the immediate press, the position is there are multiple
wp:rs so I can republish it here.
Govindaharihari (
talk)
19:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
due to
WP:SIGCOV. Why do news outlets cover terror attacks more than other murders? Perhaps the general public is more concerned with people who are out to kill them to make a point (as issue also with insane mass murderers) - and less concerned with people who have a specific motive to kill a particular person (due to a dispute) or are attempting to commit robbery (usually death avoidable if you fork over your cash). In any event - the terrorist stabbing in Jerusalem, as other terrorist attacks elsewhere, has received very wide coverage - leading to
WP:SIGCOV and meeting
WP:CRIME. Two UK football clubs have decided to honor the victim with a moment of silence - not done for any random murder victim.
Icewhiz (
talk)
11:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"The terrorist attack... The terrorist attack..." you remind us breathlessly, yet it seems every reliable source points to him having mental health and suicide issues. "...psychiatric examiners judged him mentally fit to stand trial." You say "People who are out to kill them to make a point." Yet there's zero evidence of him having any kind of "point". It could still be a notable
Insanity defense attack, however.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
There was coverage of the San Francisco stabbing in LA Times, People magazine, the Guardian, the Independent, Seattle Times, etc. for more than a month. But I doubt that anybody here (including myself) believes the San Francisco stabbing should have its own article.
Jrheller1 (
talk)
20:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The only reason this tragic but run-of-the-mill news item has an article is because of where it occurred and the ethnicity of the perpetrator. The bludgeoning of dissenting opinions by some editors here (which I note is amongst the reasons for one of them gaining themselves a topic ban) does not reflect well on the motivations for this article existing.
Black Kite (talk)13:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The reason why one incident garners attention and another does not is irrelevant to judging notability, we follow sources, published articles are the metric by which we gauge notability of recent crimes. In this case, coverage has been intense, international, and ongoing. Today's headlines include "Why a UK woman's murder in Israel should boil your blood and make you rethink foreign aid"[33], & "British Taxpayers to Pay Hannah Bladon’s Killer a Monthly Salary"[34].
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for deletion.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
14:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The Daily Mail will use any excuse to print something xenophobic. Otherwise, the incident has largely disappeared from the British national press. It's not a IDONTLIKEIT issue, it's a matter of NOTNEWS - there's nothing here that distinguishes this from hundreds or even thousands of similar incidents - except, as I said, where it happened, which is why it's got an article in the first place.
Black Kite (talk)17:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete and Redirect to
List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017 (or Merge, I guess, but it looks to be covered there already) - Doesn't look to be lasting significance such that it demands a stand-alone article. The Daily Mailarticle, which is mentioned above to point to lasting significance, in addition to being our only quasi-"official" unreliable source, is demonstrating unreliability here. To read the story, you would think that the Palestinian Authority looked at this case and said "yes, this guy -- let's give this guy a reward", when in fact it's just a routine gripe about UK foreign aid and a controversial policy of the Palestinian Authority. "...Tamimi or his family qualify for a 'salary' from the PA, according to Itamar Marcus, spokesman for the Israeli monitoring group Palestinian Media Watch. 'According to PA law, everyone who is imprisoned for 'resisting the occupation' receives a PA salary,' he said." In other words, it's a bit of advocacy that could be run as a boilerplate and has nothing to do with developments in this particular example. No objection to this being recreated down the road if it receives lasting coverage, of course. — Rhododendritestalk \\
14:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:RAPID is not a temporary shield from standard policies and guidelines, as it is most often invoked to be when linked at AfD. Don't rush to delete articles and don't rush to create articles (often, there's only an opportunity for
WP:RAPID to be argued at AfD when someone has ignored the rest of the page that section is taken from). Sometimes it makes sense to delete, sometimes it makes sense not to create. Unfortunately (but not actually unfortunate, of course) there's no long process like this for creating an article, weighing arguments about whether someone is creating something too early. There's nothing preventing those who wish to create the article from also revisiting in 6 months or a year. Certainly not opposed to userfying to make that easier. — Rhododendritestalk \\
15:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
They are all mass or multiple stabbings, not similar to a psychiatric patient suddenly turning on a woman next to him and stabbing her, and apologizing to the family (and no doubt contradicting himself). Jerusalem has nothing to do with it: his ethnicity is the reason this has been made into an article.
Nishidani (
talk)
16:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I again suggest to you that you read the links before making grand, sweeping and inaccurate assertions. Although the main point is that coverage suffices to support an article.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
16:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I was inclined to agree with Nishidani until I noticed that there are non-fatal stabbings in Europe that resulted in Wikipedia articles. I might add that the ones I checked were not subject to deletion discussions like this one, which leads me to believe that POV issues perhaps exist on both sides. (surprise surprise)
Coretheapple (
talk)
16:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I've never disguised my POV in this area, Core. But it would be extremely easy for me to write up, on E.M.Gregory's principles, a hundred short articles of Palestinians killed without justification (according to
Human Rights Watch,
B'tselem,
Amnesty International, and other reputable NGOs) so that, by links, and cats, one could cram Wikipedia with that POV. I've done only one article like this,
Zion Square assault, and began it 12 days after the incident, when it was apparent that the incident was assuming a notable dimension in global newspaper accounts. Whatever influence I have has been expended repeatedly in reminding editors identified as being sympathetic to Palestinians as well, not to imitate this execrable practice. Even
User:Sepsis II whose editing partisanship worried me at times, waited 17 days before starting
Beitunia killings, though I had been mulling the propriety of doing it myself since it was an egregious example of IDF murder, but was more conservative in thinking of the appropriate time to write up the material.
Nishidani (
talk)
19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
No. Life's too brief. There's far too much serious encyclopedic work to be done on the passing away of thousands of peoples and their distinctive cultures to allow oneself to play games on stacking this place with quickie one-off articles that can be summed up in a few lines. I refuse to be sucked into imitating erratic or negative behavior just to 'get even'. It takes the same amount of time to write an article on an extinct Aboriginal people as to write one on some single event of modern terrorism, and it is indicative of our times that we get the horn over, treat as spectacular, single events of violence, while your average American, Canadian, South American or Australian can't even recall the names of whole ethnic groups wiped out or rendered extinct by land-grabbing attrition, usually on the land their suburbs and farms are built on. Statistically it is far more dangerous to get into your car and go driving than to walk the streets of cities, like Paris, afflicted by incidents of terrorism. France wiped out a third of the population of Algeria in 40 years; Italy was the first country, in 1911, to douse poison gas on a native population in Libya wiping out whole tribes (a practice endorsed by Churchill in 1925: the British used it in Iraq in 1919) but no one remembers that 'stuff'. But they will tend to think, thanks to Wikipedia's activism on behalf of tabloids, that several incidents each year 'demonstrate' the undying enmity of the 'Arabs' against 'white' civilization. We must focus on, as one editor said here, the 'truth' of their religious hatred.
Nishidani (
talk)
07:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I ask you to at least consider whether this article is being judged by different standards - I would say that this question would only be relevant if those also went to AfD and the same editors opined in a clearly different way. I've only gone through the first two on the list, which do not look to have gone to AfD, and which likely should go to AfD. Neither the Munich nor Reutlingen articles contain any indication of lasting coverage whatsoever. Brief mentions in lists, the obvious update upon sentencing, and that's it. All of the citations otherwise come from within a week of the event. Perhaps the reason it's easier to form an opinion on this one is that there is an obvious merge target (though there may be for the others, too -- I haven't looked yet). If you think that I have different standards or that another editor exhibits different standards for evaluating notability, it may be worth bringing up, but as this stands, it's a textbook
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Responding to the direction of this sub-thread since E.M.Greegory's initial question, I don't know why fatal/non-fatal, multiple/single distinctions matter in terms of evaluating notability, aside from to say that they are indications of the only thing that actually matters -- that the events receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject over a period of time. — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Meets notability criteria, has sufficient references, potential to develop more fully exists. I do not see the argument to delete, except an ideological one - which should not be the basis for deletion.
Ifnord (
talk)
17:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment There is a high standard for
WP:NCRIME because it must meet
WP:RS requirements including
WP:NEWSORGS - since this article has liberally cited multiple sources for a single article (which should be treated as one source) - a careful examination of the sources may prove that this article does not have sufficient references. I have cleaned out the obvious ones, but there may be more.
Seraphim System(
talk)22:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Given the regrettable frequency with which this kind of terrorist attack occurs in Israel, I don't think it is useful to have a separate article on every single such event. I think it is better to have an article on this kind of event as a category, which can list individual events such as this one. While there will inevitably be enough media coverage to build an article on every single such event, it is somewhat akin to having an article on every single murder, which isn't really encyclopaedic. Terrorist attacks generally stand out from your average murder due to their rarity and their individual impact on the public consciousness – the sad fact is that this sort of terrorist attack has become common enough in Israel that I don't think that is true any more for these attacks individually, although it is of course still true of the terroristic pattern of which they form a part, so have an article on the pattern/category instead of the instances.
SJK (
talk)
06:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
User:SJK and others who make this argument fail to respond to the question that I raise above, a question that has caused at least one editor to change his iVote from Delete to Keep: Since it is the case that in instances where ongoing, widespread, in-depth sources exist, terrorist attacks (including terrorism-related attacks in which no one or no one except perp was killed,) and stabbing attacks (including not only stabbing attacks in which perp is under treatment for mental instability and high-profile stabbing attacks that prove to be free of ideological motivation) are kept, even in countries like France, Germany, Belgium, the U.S. and Australia where such attacks can be described as "common," (
Category:Stabbing attacks) in iVoting to delete this article are editors inadvertently treating events in the Jewish differently from Wikipedia's treatment of events in other countries?
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
18:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
E.M.Gregory: I think a number of articles in that category probably need to be deleted and/or merged. If you want to AFD some of them I'd probably support you. (For example, I don't think
2017 Queanbeyan stabbing attacks is an event of lasting significance and probably should be merged into
List of terrorist incidents in Australia.) So, no, I don't think I personally am applying a different standard to Israel-related articles than to those about other countries. (I'm not going to speculate on the motivations of other !voters because speculating about the motivations of other people is rarely helpful.)
SJK (
talk)
20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just a minor point: despite repeated attempts by editors to insert cats stating that this 'occurred in Israel', it took place in territory where Israel is technically in international law a 'belligerent occupying power'. This does not exculpate murderers, of course, nor mitigate the gravity of the crime.
Nishidani (
talk)
06:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Especially since despite East Jerusalem being distinct from the rest of the west bank (in being annexed), the stabbing occurred in
West Jerusalem held since 1948 - in "IDF square Jerusalem"
[35] - which as-per google-maps
[36] is very close to the pre-1967 border - but definitely on the pre-war Israeli side and not even in a
no-man's land (the "green line" isn't really a line, but two parallel lines in many places).
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
If you guys cite Wikipedia articles to challenge what I say, at least read them. 'Israel's claim of sovereignty over West Jerusalem is considered to be stronger than its claim over East Jerusalem'.
West Jerusalem. A claim of sovereignty means it is contested. In international law, whatever the de facto situation, it remains a
corpus separatum. This is really basic knowledge, that all editors should be familiar with in the I/P area
Nishidani (
talk)
13:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
While
corpus separatum is relevant to west Jerusalem (and likewise - eastern Jerusalem vs. any Palestinian claim) - this is a rather dead in the water claim. Israel, regardless of this claim, is definitely not a 'belligerent occupying power' (in contrast to the 1967 areas) - as no such international body was ever founded. The corpus claim is fairly similar in strength (though marginally stronger) in relation to any 1948 area outside of the
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - of which there is quite a bit. Had your original statement had been about Eastern Jerusalem - it would have had some basis (even though less than areas over which israel didn't asset sovereignty)
Icewhiz (
talk)
14:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
If you cannot use sources, please desist from opinionizing. Allenby Square came under Israeli control in 1967.
Allenby Square did not form part of Israel 1949-1967. It was taken in the Six days War.
Unlike yourself, I provided a source. Google maps on idf square jerusalem clearly show the railway outside of the no man's land.
Icewhiz (
talk)
19:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
And if map reading is not enough as per PRIMARY, see the secondary geo-location (map widget on the right of the page) as per
B'Tselem -.[1] You may be confused as the Allenby monument (to the south and east of the rail-line - in a small park between the road/rail and the wall of the old city) - is in no-man's land (which, should be noted, is a different status than what is east of the no-man's land. Belligerent occupation of no-man's land isn't a strong claim). The light rail line does cross the green line - but that is farther down the line
[37] - around
ammunition hill it is clearly across (before - it does go into no-man's land - but that is after IDF square). I'm not sure if b'tselem's geo-location is 100% accurate in terms of pin-pointing the exact spot on the line where this happend, but as the rail line itself is to the north and west of the no-man's land strip in this zone (from a bit after the damascus gate stop (which in no-man's land, but not across the no-man's land strip)) - it really isn't an issue. To summarize - the attacker boarded in the
Damascus Gate station (which is to the north-west of the gate itself) which is no-man's land, on a westward bound train crossing across the western side of no-man's land after approx. 200m, and from that spot onward the rail (including the spot given in various sources as IDF square) is west of the no-man's land strip.
B'Tselem supports this reading (as evidences by their geo-location)- and this is an anti-occupation movement.
Note ongoing British news coverage as new issue emerges in this case."May urged to secure pledge from PA over Bladon murder",
The Jewish Chronicle, Lee Harpin (news article), 25 April 2017.
[38] The story deals with a request by the
Labour Friends of Israel asking Theresa May to insure that no British Foreign Aid funds go as a Palestinian Authority monthly stipend to the attacker who killed British citizen Hannah Bladon.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:31, 26 April 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.
Delete. Short, promotional CV (resumé) of a person who fails notability criteria. The article makes no credible claims to importance or significance.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
09:53, 15 April 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.
Unreferenced article that fails to assert notability of the subject. The only external source is a generic link to hum.tv, which does not seem to show this program. The only other source that I could find was a single article that mentions the program in one paragraph.
[39] That's not enough to satisfy
WP:GNG.
AussieLegend (
✉)
20:25, 14 April 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.
Delete. There are claims here that could get him a Wikipedia article if it were significantly better sourced than this, but as written this article is based far too strongly on
primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and not nearly enough to
reliable source coverage about him.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:55, 16 April 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.
Delete - coverage is mostly local in nature and/or just a passing mention. typical stuff for a minor-party candidate. nothing notable.
Glendoremus (
talk)
05:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Unsuccessful candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates — if you cannot show and properly source that she already cleared another notability criterion for another reason, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed notable because election per se. But this is based almost entirely on
primary sources, but for a small smattering of purely local and
WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage of the depth and breadth that every unelected candidate for any office could always show — so nothing here demonstrates preexisting notability for other things, and nothing here shows her candidacies to be more notable than the norm.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:06, 16 April 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.
Wholly unreferenced biography. Previous PROD immediately removed by author with no improvement. No evidence of any notability - just another YouTube contributor. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 19:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - fails the
WP:GNG. Seems to be a long novelization of a bunch of non-notable drama related to a bunch of youtubers. Sourced entirely be unreliable sources, most of them first party accounts YouTube videos.
Sergecross73msg me15:36, 21 April 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 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 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.
Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:BASIC. The last AfD was over six years ago when his unsuccessful campaign for elected office was going on, but Wikipedia standards have tightened and the subject has not done anything that would make him notable under our current standards.
Kurykh (
talk)
19:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete A promotional article on an entirely non-notable candidate for office whose main claims to fame seems to be that his cousins hold elected office and he is a member of the "Turlock Irrigation District Board"
AusLondonder (
talk)
23:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. In 2010 there was still some support (albeit wobbly support, as note the fact that the first discussion closed no consensus rather than as a clear keep) for the notion that unelected candidates in US congressional elections were notable enough for articles on that basis in and of itself. But that's since been much more cleanly discounted, so that non-winning candidates for political office are considered notable only if (a) they can be shown and properly sourced as having already cleared a notability criterion for some other reason before running as candidates, or (b) there's a
WP:GNG slamdunk because the campaign coverage exploded into something resembling the firestorm that swallowed
Christine O'Donnell. Neither of those conditions has been satisfied here, however; the strongest claim of notability is serving on a local infrastructure board, which is not an NPOL pass, and the referencing is a mix of
primary sources, purely
routine local coverage of the type that any candidate for any office could always show, and a glancing namecheck of his existence in a source that isn't about him. This is nowhere close to what it takes to make a candidate notable because candidate.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:15, 16 April 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.
Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:BASIC. Online sources all relate to his unsuccessful bid for Congress last year and his current campaign for the same office in 2018 (which is insufficient to demonstrate notability).
Kurykh (
talk)
19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018#District 49 or delete. Non-winning candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles because candidate, in and of itself — to get him into Wikipedia, you would need to show and
reliably source that either (a) he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself, or (b) the campaign coverage exploded wildly out of proportion to the volume that every candidate in any election could always show (e.g.
Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those things is being demonstrated here at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
You forgot the word "inherently," JPL... Losing candidates CAN be notable if there is sufficient auxiliary material to pass GNG.
Carrite (
talk)
19:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect per longstanding precedent that run of the mill losing candidates for high office, even those of major parties, even those who almost won, are presumed non-notable unless sufficient additional sourcing beyond that generated by the campaign itself can be provided. I don't like this consensus, we're supposed to be the sum of human knowledge blah blah blah, but I recognize it.
Carrite (
talk)
19:14, 21 April 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 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 article is about a volleyball player who was on her national team (India) but never played at the Olympics, nor at the Worold Championship, which is the highest level of competition in her sport. This, she fails
WP:NSPORT. The sources merely confirm that she exists, and do not describe her in any detail. Thus, she fails
WP:GNG as well.
Ymblanter (
talk)
19:25, 14 April 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.
Delete. Advertorially toned BLP of a musician who has yet to release even his debut recording, and is not yet the subject of enough
reliable source coverage even to meet
WP:NMUSIC #1 (which is basically just "meets
WP:GNG", and is thus the easiest criterion for a musician to pass.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when actually accomplishes something that would get him over an NMUSIC criterion — charting, getting airplay on
CBC Radio 2, garnering a
Polaris Music Prize or
Juno Award nomination, etc. — but Wikipedia is not a free publicity database, and musicians are not automatically entitled to have EPK-type profiles on here just because they exist. And for added bonus, the article was created by a user named "Maisonnette Music": see "labels" field in the infobox, and insert
conflict of interest here. I'm definitely intrigued by the Tom Waits and Leonard Cohen comparisons, and will certainly take the opportunity to check him out if and when the album is up somewhere I can stream it, but it takes more than "he exists" to get a musician into Wikipedia.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:22, 16 April 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 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 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.
Declined prod. Fails
Wikipedia:Notability (events); no enduring significance or in-depth news coverage. Sources are limited to "police blotter/breaking news" type copy; there are, for instance, no feature stories or analyses, wider reactions, etc. There were just two arrests and no deaths or injuries. As an alternative, we could merge into
West Oaks Mall (Ocoee, Florida).
Neutralitytalk17:24, 14 April 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.
Delete no substantial coverage in reliable sources, does not meet notability guidelines. Page was tagged by me as possibly not notable a year ago and nothing has been located in that time.
FuriouslySerene (
talk)
20:17, 14 April 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.
Unnecessary disambiguation page for just two people. Per
WP:TWODABS, all we really need here is a hatnote from the undisambiguated title to the disambiguated one -- we don't need a third disambiguation page on top of that.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I apologise for causing confusion and have struck out my silly error (
Bearcat,
Oculi,
bojo1498). This is clearly unnecessary, as demonstrated in the link given above. It is best for a reader who ends up as the main page to see a hatnote to the other article, rather than click on a disambiguation page and click again to the article. I can see no benefits to going round the houses.
MartinJones (
talk)
19:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete – I disagree with Bearcat and agree with MartinJones. I created this but am perfectly happy to learn that 2 people do not justify a dab page.
Oculi (
talk)
18:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Clarification It would appear that both other commenters support getting rid of the DAB. I'm not certain why
Oculi said they disagreed with
MartinJones but disagreed with
bearcat when they said they agree with Bearcat (while confusingly voting keep). Hopefully these editors can clarify their positions.
bojo |
talk19:06, 14 April 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.
Weak Delete Not sure that just being noticed by a single group with an interest in the subject should not count as notability. But the lack of RS in general (I am not finding any that I think count as RS) makes this a dubious inclusion.
Slatersteven (
talk)
09:55, 17 April 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 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 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.
I can see no evidence of notability here. Most of the refs are niche publications in the advertising industry just noting its existence. The BBC ref is simply about the UK Budget and not about Brass. The rest are just recording the facts about the nativity of Brass and its cost cutting. Nothing there to indicate notability. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTHVelellaVelella Talk 16:18, 14 April 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 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.
I thought initially if "side boob" had it's own page, this may be notable enough for it's own wp page. Then I clicked on "side boob" on the page and it was a redirect to "Cleavage." If side boob isn't relevant enough for it's own page, I don't think we can make the jump to side butt having its own page.
ComatmebroUser talk:Comatmebro00:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
keep, anyone who follows social trend in tabloids will notice that this is an increasing trend among celebrities. As such believe that since fashion trends are interesting we should cover it. Since the trend is also relatively recent I predict we will start seeing more high quality sources beginning to cover this as well as reliable publishers. We already several analogous articles such as
Buttock cleavage. As a sidenote, even if sources do not use the term it would still be notable since we are currently living in a climate of increased controversy surround clothing and appropriate attire, plus the aticlecould also be expanded beyond the current focus on fashion towards a focus on the specific anatomy of that region, which currently lacks a corresponding article. As such, why would important social discourse (or for that matter missing anatomical pages) remain blank on the world largest encyclopedia?
Wishhunniezulliej (
talk)
10:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Gossip magazines/columns/tabloids are not
reliable sources and so don't contribute to the subject's notability. That looks to be all we have here, along with a listicle on the Cosmo website. Fails
WP:GNG/
WP:NEO. I don't think there's enough to merge into
buttocks, where it would be
WP:UNDUE weight to include (i.e. there is a ton of reliable source coverage of the subject 'buttocks', and almost nothing about this). If it's not in that article, it doesn't make sense to redirect. Maybe it will be notable in the future, but it doesn't look to be now. — Rhododendritestalk \\
23:24, 16 April 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: one final relisting to try to get some opinions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG (
talk )
15:17, 14 April 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.
Keep. The article is a bit of a mess, but that's not a reason for deleting. Ayers was a high school football coach for 34 years, but high school football coaches rarely satisfy notability standards. Ayers was also an assistant coach (freshman coach and then administrative assistant to the head coach) for the
Georgia Bulldogs football team from 1964 to 1981. (In an embarrassing chapter, he was arrested for scalping tickets several months after retiring. See
here.) Assistant coaches do not get a pass under
WP:NCOLLATH and are judged under the standards of
WP:GNG. Here, there has been some significant coverage of Ayers in independent, reliable sources, e.g., (1)
here, and (2)
here; (3)
here; and (4)
here; (5)
here; (6)
here; and (7)
here. See also (8)
here; (9)
here; (10)
here; (11)
here; and (12)
here.
Cbl62 (
talk)
02:59, 16 April 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.
Advertorially toned
WP:BLP of a record producer, with no strong
reliable source coverage to carry his notability per
WP:NMUSIC. The only sources here are a glancing namecheck of his existence in the very last paragraph of a Billboard article about something else, and a profile in a music directory which contains no actual content to
verify anything claimed in this article -- literally all it confirms is his name. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to an article just because passage of an NMUSIC criterion is claimed -- he gets one when the claim of notability is verified by enough reliable source coverage to clear
WP:GNG. Also
conflict of interest, as the creator's username was "Riprock22" and the subject's production moniker is Riprock.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - As
Bearcat identifies, whilst there are claims made in the article which may meet
WP:NMUSIC, there is minimal coverage in the sources which I can find to support these claims. As it stands, unless someone else can come up with some better sources than I can, it does not meet
WP:NMUSIC,
WP:ANYBIO or
WP:GNG. --
Jack Frost (
talk)
23:23, 14 April 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.
Advertorially toned
WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC and no strong
reliable source coverage to support it. The strongest things here are winning or being nominated for music awards that are not "major" enough to satisfy NMUSIC #8, and charting on a digital radio service's non-
IFPI-certified single-network
bad chart. And except for a single deadlink of one CD review in a magazine, the referencing here is entirely to
primary sources,
blogs and simple directories that cannot assist notability at all. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists; reliable source coverage must support a notability claim that satisfies NMUSIC for an article to become earned.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:04, 6 April 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.
This article fails to demonstrate the notability of Jambatan Kedua Sdn Bhd. Its only reference is the company's official web site, whereas notability for Wikipedia requires coverage in independent reliable sources.
Eddie Blick (
talk)
23:46, 6 April 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 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 only sources cited are some articles he's written, his social media pages, and a press release saying he'd been hired. No reliable sources to back up why this person is notable.
Werónika (
talk)
04:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notability should be demonstrated, not simply remarked upon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kurykh (
talk)
02:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, for the reasons given by the nominator. Wikipedia isn't a directory of magazine journalists. Admittedly Bush is featured in a few paragraphs of
an article in The Guardian but, as far as coverage goes about him, I can't see anything else. Failes
WP:GNG.
P.S. I'm wondering whether the 3 !votes above are by the same person, particularly the almost identical phrasing and formatting!
Sionk (
talk)
16:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Well I only voted once. Quetzal1964 14:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (
talk)
Keep, The work of Quetzal1964 this afternoon demonstrates that should Stephen Bush's article be deleted, it will probably need to be recreated in the not too distant future.
Philip Cross (
talk)
17:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Not sure how Quetzal's additions have improved anything. One source is from Bush's employer, The Spectator. The other is cited to Bush's own cookery article. Neither are independent.
Sionk (
talk)
19:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Actually, Bush is employed by the New Statesman, a left of centre political weekly, The Spectator is a right of centre political magazine which I don't think he has worked for. Quetzal1964 19:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm my own person. I think
Philip Cross might have hit the nail on the head in saying it'll be recreated: while Wikipedia isn't a directory of magazine journalists, he's "special correspondant" for the New Statesman, the main left of centre weekly in the UK and seems to write circa 7-10 articles weekly for the online (link:
http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/stephen_bush) and 1-2 articles for the press edition; hosts the podcast, and for a UK political journalist has a large-ish following on Twitter: in UK political journalism, he's relatively the same prominence in the UK as
Helen Lewis (journalist) and is either going to go the way of
Mehdi Hasan or
Laurie Penny or fade into obscurity. He's not a
WP:BIO1E type thing: just several very moderately notable ones in a niche area.
Da-rb (
talk)
22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
That's what journalists do for their job, they write news/opinion articles. It's not a qualifying crieria for
WP:GNG. There seem to be lots of soothsayers here, predicting this journalist is going to be notable in the future. But it clearly implies he isn't at the moment.
Sionk (
talk)
00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep because he is notable, not in the same league as Mr Hitchens but still is reasonably well known in the UK as a political journalist who is likely to have a long career. In any case there are now enough independent sources cited to establish notability (BBC, The Guardian, Huffington Post, The Spectator) so does meet notability guidelines. Quetzal1964 14:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Also: naiveity on my part: as this is the first one of these I've been involved in. This as been relisted a few times now, and is probably under the wrong category now (Author related, rather than journalism related). When does this get decided upon?
Da-rb (
talk)
10:48, 25 April 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.
Keep- His PILs had generated a storm of debates in India(As a resident of India I say this).The persons may not be notable himself but his actions certainly are notable as they have affected the Indian education system
WIZRADICAL (
talk)
10:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Winning awards should not be criteria of notability. Nobel laureate Kailash Satyarthi never won any padma award but straight away won Nobel peace price . I feel this page should not be deleted or merged with any other page. Some people prefer to speak though their work and you should recognise the same . He is also a writer with various published articles [2][3][4] Thanks
Shibanihk (
talk)
11:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep There are more articles which supports his work [1][2][3][4] Some PILs or RTIs are either filed by the name of individuals or in name of non profit but lets accept that small grassroot organizations have very limited resource it is ultimately the work of founder only and also they do not get engaged in any paid news or self glorification.
Shibanihk (
talk) 11:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)You only get one !vote.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
17:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I hope you read it carefully, articles are about his contribution towards the foundation & selfless work for the society :-
Ref 1: " Rahul decided to start the Uday Foundation in honour of his son to provide quality healthcare for the underprivileged, especially the children."
"Rahul says that it is always tough trying to strike a balance in life, especially when one has a sick child at home, but says that the family of four (they have a daughter as well) is well up for the challenges. Once again, he comes back to empathy. “We must sensitise our society better. "
Ref 2: story of "his" son who was born with birth defects and inspired him to start this foundation"
Ref3: Rahul Verma, of the Uday Foundation for Congenital Defects and Rare Blood Groups, which exposed the AIIMS deaths after a request under freedom of information laws, said: “If you are rich in this country you go to a private doctor. You certainly don’t put your child up to be experimented on.”
Ref4: Rahul Verma, a Delhi-based activist and founder of non-governmental organisation Uday Foundation for Congenital Defects, had filed the RTI with National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO).
Also please check these links about "his" article as writer [1][2]Shibanihk (
talk)
18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is no notability except with respect to the foundation. One article is sufficient. Two articles for relatively minor figures of this sort normally indicates an attempt to get as many articles as possible, otherwise known as promotionalism . We shuld not be encouraging it. There is a type of publication that does include accouts about people which are designed for emotional impact--tabloids, but we're NOT TABLOID. DGG (
talk )
02:07, 24 April 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.
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason.
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.
Delete - Also should be noted that this article had previously been a draft at
Draft:Luv Israni, but was deleted about 4 days ago as abandoned.
बहिर्जी नाईक was not the account that created the draft, yet both versions contain ridiculous language about the subjecting having "a keen eye for directing"
[47][48] (only admins will be able to see the deleted article). I suspect paid editing here, or COI, given that the creator of this article also took a stab at an article on
Megha Israni, again with promotional language and insufficient establishment of notability. As for Luv, even running his name through the
Indian newspaper custom search I don't find sufficient articles to warrant a unique article. I see
this, which is a passing mention and
this, another passing mention, and
this, which is an interview (and thus insufficient for notability as
WP:PRIMARY). The guy probably has lots of credits and may be well-known in the industry, but there is a lack of substantive independent coverage. Even the article creator had trouble finding references as noted in the
contested speedy-deletion nomination. So I think delete, since I don't see where we could intuitively redirect.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
15:40, 14 April 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.
Comment - I've nosed about Google some and I'm still undecided. I had trouble finding any news articles focused predominantly on him, although he is regularly mentioned in impressive contexts. He gets very nice coverage in
three paragraphs in this article, which is a start at the least. But if good reviews of his work come out, or if enough citations can be gathered per
WP:ACADEMIC, I might lean towards keep. ACADEMIC doesn't need the same type of coverage as GNG, so that allows some leeway in interpretation of sources.
Yvarta (
talk)
02:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)reply
We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement.. By Hughett, Amanda. Journal of African American History, Jan 01, 2016; Vol. 101, No. 1/2, p. 201-204
Umoja, Akinyele Omowale We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement New York: New York University Press 351 pp., $40.00, ... By Gritter, Elizabeth. History: Reviews of New Books, Jan 01, 2016; Vol. 44, No. 1, p. 5
FREEDOM AND FIREPOWER. By Morgan Ward, Jason. Reviews in American History, Jun 01, 2014; Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 341-345. A review of the book "We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom ... mor
We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement. By Briley, Ron;McCutcheon, Camille. Journal of American Culture, Jun 01, 2014; Vol. 37, No. 2, p. 267-268
Akinyele Omowale Umoja. We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement. By Strain, Christopher. American Historical Review, Feb 01, 2014; Vol. 119, No. 1, p. 207-208
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.
Non-notable shop which existed for four years. This is actually not really about
David Ruff's workshop at all; about one paragraph, it seems, is actually about the shop- the rest is about Ruff, his works, his friends, and the works they illustrated. Notability, of course, is
not inherited; and there are
insufficient sources to suggest that the shop has any independent notabilty. There is little coverage with either
WP:DEPTH or
WP:PERSISTENCE, most of the mentions being passing. A possible option, of course, is redirect / merge to David Ruff. —
O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.12:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge into article about David Ruff. I agree--this is actually about Ruff, not the print shop. In fact it's actually a better article than the original about him. Print Workshop isn't notable enough to stand on it's own.
Glendoremus (
talk)
19:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
David Ruff; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. I don't see a reason to merge, as the article is largely an unreferenced essay and lists one source. The rest appears to be original research.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
02:09, 19 April 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 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.
Comment: there are around 500 MPs per five years in india. The news he has been in, all were just before and after the elections. Each and every contestant has that enough media coverage. Nothing special.
he was never in coverage after that. Did not do anything. Niether notable nor un-notable.
Comment:WP:NPOL, and
WP:POLOUTCOMES states, and I am quoting: "elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable". The key word here is generally. Please use general reasoning/logic
WP:SNOW, instead of being bureaucratic. As of March 2017, there are
4120 members of legislative council, and around ~500 Member of Parliament. That is per five year. Pasha Patel here, is not notable at all except being a member. So the "generally" clause can be, and should be applied here. I always support for keeping articles, secondly of merging (you can see my recent contribution on AfD discussions), but Pasha Patel hasnt done anything notable, neither good stuff nor controversial. Actually, he hasnt done anything at all. —usernamekiran[talk]17:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The elected or appointed membership of a state or national legislature is one of those topics where Wikipedia's explicitly stated and consensus-established goal is to be as complete as possible a reference for all of them. We do not apply special arbitrary standards to determine that some members of the legislature are notable enough for articles while others are not; people want and need information about all members of that legislature. Yes, the article needs more substance and more sourcing than it has right now — but it doesn't require more evidence of basic notability than it already has. And the fact that this is the second time this has been tried this year alone suggests a political agenda that violates
WP:NPOV, not a serious or objective concern for Wikipedia's standards of notability.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:21, 14 April 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.
Keep as a fork from
Environmental policy of the United States#impact and/or Merge all new material into
Environmental policy of the United States and particularly
Environmental policy of the United States#impact. Above it is claimed that all of the material is easy to find in disparate subjects like
environmental health,
Environmental policy,
environmental law,
environmental protection, etc., but I do not see the work that the student has done when I go to those subjects: This student is writing on the relationship between the policy and the impact, which is different than simply describing the policy (current, past and proposed), describing the technical procedures required to follow the policy (and what that might cost), or simply describing the health impacts alone as in
environmental health. If the material exists it is in scattered about in numerous disparate places and not particularly well organized to make it easy to find. The closest is
Environmental policy of the United States#impact which is very weak in comparison to the student's work. I would hope the student(s) can help us improve the organization and structure of our environmental articles so the relevant material on this subject is easy to find. As an example of how poor some of our existing articles are on this subject compared to the student's work, one need only look at
Environmental_protection#United_States (under the strange category "Social Democracy"). Or look at
Environmental_health#Concerns and explain how one is brought to the right topics summarizing impacts and policy related to "
Toxic chemical exposure whether in
consumer products, housing, workplaces, air, water or soil" or look at
United_States_environmental_law. This article has material assembled together we do not have. Keep and improve. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
12:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as fundamentally unsuited to being a Wikipedia article, largely per nom. Some of the content is good, but those parts are already covered in other articles mentioned above. The WordsmithTalk to me14:33, 21 April 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. "Keeps" easily outnumber "deletes", but given the developing agreement at
this related RfC, as well as the more longstanding
WP:NOTINHERETED, having published numerous notable works is not sufficient to cement a publisher as independently notability. As such, I can find no consensus for either keeping or deleting. – Juliancolton |
Talk18:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I did follow
WP:BEFORE (which I said in my nomination). What links of those show notability? Hits prove nothing. Also,
WP:CORP is the relevant thing here so how does the article pass that guideline?
SL93 (
talk)
21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep has published many significant works from notable authors. The fact is that the coverage seems to be biased toward the works, rather than the publishing house.
Jclemens (
talk)
02:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: So basically people think that
WP:IAR should be used I guess. The history of the business link is a primary source from the company. I see how authors can be notable for their works per
WP:AUTHOR, but I think that the publishing company getting that notability is a stretch.
SL93 (
talk)
02:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Even if that is the case, one source is not enough to show notability and no guideline based reasons for keeping were put forth. I hope that an AFD closer would have sense to relist this AFD until guideline based reasons are given.
SL93 (
talk)
12:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Multiple sources aren't strictly indicated by
WP:N, rather it notes, "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." I've added a couple sources, but those aren't strictly independent, as they are published by Eerdmen's, a publishing house which frequently collaborates with Paternoster. Do you think the article passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR? Do you think the page is better suited to be a sub-topic in another article (which one)? My answers are "yes" and "no" respectively; and I feel my previous comments and this one are based on guidelines and policies.
Smmurphy(
Talk)14:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
If you look at
WP:N again, you will see statements like "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Note the s.
SL93 (
talk)
14:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
It seems we are talking past each other and I'm sorry to have pushed the discussion off-topic, feel free to follow up on my talk page. Best,
Smmurphy(
Talk)18:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep notability of a publisher can be validated by publishing multiple, significant books, just as notability of an author can be validated by publishing multiple, significant books.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
12:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
This is the case with
WP:AUTHOR, I am arguing by analogy. A similar analogy would apply to an identified architect or artist about whom virtually nothing is know except that a number of notable buildings or objects are the work of a particular, named individual. (not infrequent with material from ancient or medieval times).
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
17:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that the article has now been sourced. This is not to say that it is perfect, merely that we can close this discussion and move on.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
19:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not closing the discussion. The sources are not independent of the subject. As for The Irish Times, I'm doubtful about it being significant coverage (per your obvious bias) and I can't see it.
SL93 (
talk)
19:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sufficient sources have now been identified to establish the notability of, and to verify substantial content about, this significant Christian publisher. This article provides significant, verifiable encyclopedic content which improves our coverage of the subject of Christian publishing; can't see how deletion would be a benefit. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
20:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Don't invent standards. Nowhere is it written that "the majority" of sources have to be independent. Editors have sourced this to 2 independent sources:
The Irish Times and the librarians at
John Rylands Library. Take a deep breath and ask yourself why you are so intent on deleting a reputable publishing house that started putting out well-regarded books during the reign of Edward VIII.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
21:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Since you are the only one with access to The Irish Times source, can you tell me how many sentences or paragraphs cover the company? No matter the outcome of this AfD, my RFC is still needed because the keeps were originally about it being notable just because it publishes notable works which isn't said anywhere and is likely inventing standards.
SL93 (
talk)
21:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Just the sentence I quoted a snippet from, but it suffices. Paywalls area a problem, though many editors have access to news archives.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
22:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: Happily, I do have access to the Irish Times, and I am at a loss to figure how anyone claiming familiarity with the provisions of the GNG could possibly claim that this casual one-sentence namedrop meets the requirements for "significant coverage," since it most bloody explicitly does not. I am likewise at a loss as to how anyone could think that
WP:AUTHOR applies to a publishing house. Publishing houses are not authors, and I wonder what other entities E.M.Gregory would care to unilaterally rewrite (or invent wholecloth) extant notability criteria to cover where notable books are concerned. The shipping companies? The bookstores that sell them? Banks that handle the financing?
As far as E.M.Gregory's question uptopic, I'd like to turn that around: why are you so intent on keeping this article that you're willing to rewrite or ignore the criteria upon which we make such decisions? SL93 is exactly right: AfD is not the proper venue to legislate notability criteria, and we must determine the notability of subjects based on the criteria that are in place. If you want to change those criteria, the appropriate talk pages are where you do it.
Ravenswing 10:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This is a significant evangelical Christian press. The criterion is verifiable, not verified. There should be no difficulty in finding plenty of reviews of books they have published in the Christian press.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: I can't find any independent sources. IMHO, many keep !votes here are along the lines of well all publishers of lots of books are notable. This is an argument that should be thrown out, as a violation of
WP:NOTINHERITED. I have seen the comments about the irish times, and it seems there is a lack of
WP:SIGCOV, further, online I can't find anything independant, with sigcov.
TheMagikCow (
T) (
C)
14:55, 22 April 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 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.
Maldives is 99%+ Islamic country and follows the Hijri calendar. That calendar has no Bihuroz. I checked google scholar, google books and major scholarly resources behind paywalls. I can't find a single reliable source that mentions "Bihuroz". This article is original research.Ms Sarah Welch (
talk)
14:36, 14 April 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.
Delete - ElegantJ BI seems to use a proprietary technology
Managed Memory Computing, a business intelligence tool and also at AfD, for data analysis. I think neither meets
WP:GNG as I can not find coverage of either of them in independent reliable sources.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
18:45, 16 April 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.
This is not a notable political party. There is no coverage in independent reliable sources that I can find. Outside YouTube, Facebook and occassionally a soap box in Hyde Park, this doesn't seem to have any real substance as an organisation.
Fences&Windows14:12, 14 April 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 Userfy (to
User:Tamsberk/Food Justice). There is broad consensus that this is a POV term/fork, and that at least for now userfication and further development is the best solution. Note also that votestacking has been observed to have taken place in this AfD.
Drmies (
talk)
18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Linking to those pages mentioned (Hunger in US & Food Security) is a valid point and will be considered, however, food justice movement is significant and merits its own page.
Tamsberk (
talk)
23:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not only should this article obviously be deleted, but it is close to being suitable for speedy deletion, as the whole article, from start to finish, is clearly written to promote a point of view. Such use of Wikipedia is unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
23:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete and redirect (with a lowercase "j") Valid search term, article is entirely POV pushing as JamesBWatson states. –
Train2104 (
t •
c)
23:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
What specific sections are pushing a POV? The creators of the page are EXTREMELY open to feedback and making necessary changes; we are new users and act/write in good faith. This topic is extremely valuable especially as a resource for those affected by food injustices to be informed. We welcome edits to the page and look forward to collaborating to improve this article, rather than rushing to deletion.
Tamsberk (
talk)
23:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
"What specific sections are pushing a POV?" How does one even begin to answer a question such as that? The whole article, from start to finish, is clearly written to promote an opinion. To quote just a few of the most glaring examples, "Food justice is the right of all people", "Food assistance programs are important for food justice", and "structurally faulty legislation that disproportionately affects people of color and socioeconomic minorities". None of those can conceivably be viewed as neutral and dispassionate reporting. However, it would be a serious misunderstanding to imagine that all that needs to be done is to remove a few blatantly promotional sentences such as those, because the whole concept of the article is that a particular view of issues relating to food is the "just" one; even the title of the article indicates that. Furthermore, your message here indicates clearly that your purpose is to use Wikipedia for promotion. Consider the phrase "for those affected by food injustices to be informed": you are both asserting the view that the issues in question are "food injustices" and indicating that your aim is to use the article to "inform" people of the views expressed in the article, i.e. to publicise or promote those views. No matter what the merits or demerits of an opinion, Wikipedia's policy is that articles must not express or advocate that opinion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
JamesBWatson" (
talk)
15:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
-Hello, thanks for the feedback. The article is still in progress and we will edit to reflect more POVs and not use biased phrases. Food justice is an important, well-established concept in environmental justice discourse and merits its own page. It is a bit more difficult to write neutrally about social justice related topics; see also the pages food sovereignty and via campesina have some similar points. Feel free to read through our references. They are all reliable and the majority are peer-reviewed. As for the phrase "structurally faulty legislation that disproportionately affects people of color and socioeconomic minorities", I can see how the words "structurally faulty" may be perceived as bias, but there are statistics and peer-reviewed studies that prove environmental and food access issues disproportionately affect minorities. We do not seek to promote a certain viewpoint, but rather to post information on food justice issues publicly in a manner that is easily accessible for those affected. Thanks.
Laejstudent2 (
talk)
19:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The concept of food justice is undeniably intertwined with food injustices, and to ignore that would be a waste of knowledge and only deflate the value and quality of the article. One of the phrases you quoted was pulled out of context; earlier in that sentence it was clearly stated that "one PROPOSED cause of food deserts is structurally faulty legislation...". Some legislation, particularly FDR's New Deal as we noted in this example, has direct and explicit implications that we touch on in the article as possible contributors to food deserts. The team behind this page does find value in your critique and we intend to include more theories on the causes of food justice - related issues. No views are being pushed, much of our data comes from the US government -- we do recognize that this article is mostly focused on the US and encourage others to contribute to the article to help make it more worldly.
Tamsberk (
talk)
01:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. As the above commented or noted food justice is a part of a larger established environmental movement it also refers to much more. It is deeply tied to racial justice and economic justice. It is understood as one way that we can challenge racism and classism in the public sphere. It is not homogenous movement. It refers to many different movements and smaller perspectives. Food justice does not simply refer to a POV; it is a movement and an object of scholarly analysis. Anthropologist, sociologist, scientists, feminist and queer studies scholars have all analysed food justice in their work.
HmEdit (
talk) 15:32, 11 April 2017 (EST) —
HmEdit (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keepor Userfy -- the article, as is, has significant problems, as noted above (
POV; too many inadequate
sources; and,
WP:OR). However, as the authors correctly point out,significant improvement from when I first suggested to Userfy (revised 04:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)). The subject is notable because of coverage in secondary sources. Although we do have just a tiny little section
Food_security#Food_Justice_Movement that the best material could be merged to, ultimately this subject is significant enough that it will need its own article. So it seems a wasted effort to merge and then have to separate again later. Instead, it would be better to get the students to fix the article to comply with our standards. If this was indeed part of a school assignment, we should do outreach to the instructor to explain our sourcing standards and the problem with
WP:OR, not delete the students' hard work. That outreach has occurred. [added 04:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)] --
David Tornheim (
talk)
04:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete or userfy per JamesBWatson. Although the subject may be deserving of an article, this is not the article it deserves. I think
WP:TNT applies here.
StAnselm (
talk)
20:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I made a change to the first sentence of the article citing far better
WP:RS than the
WP:OR that was there previously. With
WP:RS like what I added, I see potential for this article to grow. There is other good
WP:RS in the article that can be found from
Google Scholar search of food justice and possibly some references listed in the journal article of the new lede sentence. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
01:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - The perceived and actual discriminatory policies that it describes and seeks to counter is matched in this article by equal and opposite bias. This is neither balanced nor encyclopaedic and the content should have been incorporated elsewhere. I would rate this as an essay at best with very strong whiffs of
marshalling arguments to fit a preconceived outcome. VelellaVelella Talk 19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Food justice and associated movements are political, so descriptions of such a movement may contain discussion of political opinion. This page is worthwhile and growing. It could use editing, but by no means should not be deleted.
Aaron Whyte Talk 17:00, 14 April 2017 (EST) —
Aaron Whyte (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
What about keeping the article and adding a tag saying "the neutrality of this article is disputed" until it has been more thoroughly edited?
Laejstudent2 (
talk)
22:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, but make POV. Reasons for keep: 1) The is a lot of peer-reviewed literature regarding Food Justice. In short, it is fashionable among academia. 2) As noted above, food justice is a part of a larger established environmental movement 3) As note above, the article has sources such as: Routledge, JSTOR, journals, government sources 4) Google trends shows a steady interest in the concept.
[51] 5) Google shows over 450,00 search results for "food justice".
[52]Dean Esmay (
talk)
Keep, - Food justice work, increasingly and explicitly named as such, has been accelerating in the US since the 1990s, with food justice scholar Sbicca defining is as a movement, or to be specific: “a budding social movement premised on ideologies that critique the structural oppression responsible for many injustices throughout the agrifood system” (Sbicca, (2012, p. 455). [1] The work of food justice activists is as real as any other movements (e.g., environmental justice, Black Lives Matter, Occupy), whether or not scholars and scientists find it (to use a word above) fashionable to document, discuss and analyze that work. However, especially with the rapidly growing reams of scholarly and other written and multi-media documentation of that work (including by academics such as myself and by activists), makes the notion that this entry could or should be deleted rather bizarre. The motivations for suggesting is should be deleted are either uninformed or driven by those holding a "POV" that would wish that "food justice" were not a goal, movement or concept. It is all of those things -a goal, a movement and a concept. Like most Wikipedia entries about current social movements, the content is inherently political, and the movement itself of course "contains" very strong points of view. But describing those views and the movement, as mostly this entry does, does not constitute being "merely" a POV. There is no such thing as a view from nowhere, so in that sense, all entries are a "POV", but one of the beauties of wikipedia, is that assembling and integrating multiple points of view gets us closer to what Sandra Harding calls strong objectivity.
CMPorter (
talk)
17:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC) —
CMPorter (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
^Sbicca, J. (2012). Growing food justice by planting an anti-oppression foundation: opportunities and obstacles for a budding social movement. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(4), 455-466.
userfy There is ~almost~ a Wikipedia article here, but this needs a lot of work improving sources, removing OFFTOPIC/COATRACK content (like the Industrial Agriculture section), and removing SYN and advocacy. Sentences like "Food assistance programs can be important for food justice because they help struggling groups of people get the healthy food that they need to sustain and nourish their bodies" show how this article is an essay, stitching together stuff that the authors believe is relevant and advocating for certain solutions. Wikipedia articles don't participate in real world disputes; WP articles describe them. (see
Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers) That may seem subtle but the quoted sentence is well over the line (and that is one teeny example). The editing community would be pushing back just as hard if the Cato institute sent a team of interns to create a slew of content advocating for libertarianism in WP. We actually just went through something like that and are still cleaning up after it.
Jytdog (
talk)
01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I have revised the sentence you objected to, and I hope
this version addresses your concerns about that sentence. If no source can be found for the sentence ending with the {{citation needed}} tag, we can of course delete it. I leave research of that material to the students for now. Thanks for pointing to the problem so we could fix it. Is there any other material you object to? Perhaps raise it on the talk page of the article? --
David Tornheim (
talk)
05:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
KEEP - This article reflects the academic literature in this field of study. It is a topic of discussion at dozens of national and international conferences. This entry describes the food justice movement and the concepts linked to it. The students can comply with any standards required for a post on wikipedia. —
Ametrine-Ametrine (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding
unsigned comment was added at
19:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) (UTC).reply
Having read in more detail, it's going to be a big job to fix. It seems shot through with POV (for example: TPP is bad, NAFTA good). I would still prefer to keep, but I am not certain that it will get fixed in a reasonable time. All the best: RichFarmbrough,
10:21, 19 April 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 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 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 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.
Another violation of
WP:NOTESSAY from a UC Berkeley class. There is a very little in the article specific to the topic at hand, and a great deal of hand-waving. But the topic itself fails
WP:N.
StAnselm (
talk)
12:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The part of the nomination that I have doubts about -- and the key part for the purposes of any Afd -- is the nominator's statement that "the topic itself fails
WP:N." When I Google "pesticide" and "Central Valley" -- as I assume the nominator has done -- there is news coverage of the impact of pesticides on residents in the area.
Grist (magazine):
"No, that’s not snow: Pesticides coat California’s Central Valley" (2012); The New Republic:
"How Gross Is My Valley: America’s toxic agricultural capital" (2010). The New Republic piece is especially detailed. And then of course there's the citations on the article such as
Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice (MIT Press, 2011), whose abstract indicates that California agriculture is the focus.
Central Valley (California) is "California's single most productive agricultural region and one of the most productive in the world." Wherever you have factory farming on such a vast scale there are going to be issues with pesticides. Here in Canada, there've been many articles and at least one documentary on pesticides and health in tiny Prince Edward Island, for example. Anyway, whatever problems there may be with the article, it is exploring a notable topic, from what I can determine. Keep.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, I intentionally referred to the broader concept of notability rather than
WP:GNG.
WP:NOTESSAY is also part of notability. So, yes - I see some hits, but that would only be enough to mention the Central Valley in the
Pesticide drift (which is very thin - why wasn't that expanded instead?) - not a standalone article.
StAnselm (
talk)
13:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, NOTESSAY is often confused with Notability because of the shortcut
WP:NOT -- it's why we have a hatnote on the policy page to clear that up for people. They're both part of policy but not notability, necessarily. One can write an essay that's unencylopedic on a notable topic.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article itself is an overly broad essay that is already covered by topics such as
pesticide drift or other articles dealing with environmental effects in general. Any sources that do mention that location (including Google mentions above) do not establish a unique
WP:GNG for pesticide issues in this location. In terms of pesticide issue notability, this topic would be equivalent to having an article every time a regional newspaper reports on a flu outbreak and saying that qualifies for a Flu outbreak in X state article. This location would have a long ways to go to warrant its own article.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
14:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep California's Central Valley is likely the most important single agricultural area in the world. See
this Wiki section for just a bit of the evidence for this, and the scale of pesticide use, its proximity to large populations of workers and residents, and the interactions of agriculture with California's
unique approach to toxics regulation All point to super-notability! --
EJustice (
talk)
08:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Recommend Renaming this article to something less technical and more understandable, specifically "Pesticide Regulations in California" which does meet
WP:GNG but can still use most of this article for background. I would be willing to contribute to help expand and clean up some of the POV language in the article (like changing "Trump administration" to EPA, etc.)
Seraphim System(
talk)01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
move and repurpose. The current title is much too narrow for encyclopedic treatment. It results in synthesis of more general materials. We already have an article
Environmental impact of pesticides. However this is big enough already so the article here could be renamed to
Environmental impact of pesticides in California. The section "Burden shared by marginalized communities in the Central Valley" looks to be original research, but that is easily fixed by deleting that section only. The alternative to repurposing to a broader topic would be to delete, but there is some useful material here worth preserving.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
02:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The article title itself doesn't seem to overlap any more with that than pesticide drift, etc., so a redirect really isn't appropriate here.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
14:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment my guess is the topic is broader then appropriate - it would also seem borderline WP:SYNTH except in the specific context where secondary sources establish a relationship between an observed effect of regulation or a regulatory outcome and a policy implementation - for example, there are sources that discuss how the EPA's statistical methods impact regulatory outcomes, but that is graduate school level material - there could be something to add at
California Department of Pesticide Regulation, but I think
Environmental impact of pesticides in California would likely be a better choice.
Seraphim System(
talk)06:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Response: thank you for all of the recommendations. We appreciate the feedback in order to make the page stronger and more relevant. We're willing to comply with several of the requests; the first of which being changing the name of the page. However, this seems difficult to do. Can anyone help with that?
Irenekeller
Generally, it's better not to change an article's name while a deletion discussion is going on. If there consensus is to keep the article under a different name, the person who closes the discussion will probably move it.
StAnselm (
talk)
20:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The current version is not specific to the topic; the earlier version was, but it was a cross between advocacy and a term paper. This has been a perennial problem with some courses in the educational program--what is suitable for a class paper will rarely be suitable for an encyclopedia . A class paper is normally intending to prove a thesis, but we do not do this. DGG (
talk )
02:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I was going to recommend merge to
pesticide drift, as the topic makes a much better sub-heading within the general article, than a standalone article; however, the current format is very much that of arguing a thesis, as pointed out above - using a variety of sources that are all applicable but not specific to the topic, while pulling in bits of information from the firmament at large to bolster a point. Strip that unsuitable structure away, and very little is left here.--Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
10:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete/ take back to the sandbox to turn it into an encyclopedic format. Reads like an opinion piece and not an encyclopedia article right off the "is a cause for concern." and finishing with "What's at stake in California There’s about a half million expectant moms and 2.5 million children under age 4 in California that could be at risk from toxic residues of chlorpyrifos on food"
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Certainly pesticide drife and Central Valley agriculture are important topics. This article, however, has a
WP:SYNTH problem, failing to show that pesticide drift in the Central Valley is an independently notable topic.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
12:42, 26 April 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.
Keep.Yagya Bahadur Thapa was Former military Captain who was given death penalty by the government of Nepal for his armed revolution against Panchayat Government. I provided references as Himalayan Times, one of the leading Nepalese National English daily and Kathmandu Post, another leading Nepalese English daily. Also, there are a dozens of Google Books which has mentioned his name. Yagya Bahadur Thapa has been included in Nepalese curriculums and many govt. gazettes. He is a man of high rank and character. The most important part is you can easily rely on these two independent national English daily which has strict editorial control and guidance policies.
Best Wishes
Airkeeper (
talk) 12:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Yagya Bahadur Thapa was leading revolutionaries in Eastern Hill as per sources and was notable enough for special tribunal decision and further to Supreme Court of Nepal as mentioned in the sources. Those revolution events against Panchayat is a National Discussion Subject that resulted in abolishment of autocratic Panchayat rule in Nepal. He obviously deserves an article in the Wikipedia. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Airkeeper (
talk •
contribs) 12:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
User:onel5969 The revolution events are notable enough in Nepalese context and I described everything in the paragraphs above. That revolution is called Timurbote Incident in Nepal and all these incidents resulted King
Birendra of Nepal to abolish
Panchayat (Nepal). I think we need a Nepali admin to understand the notability of Nepalese topics. Please check the sources and edit it but do not delete the article.
Kind Regards
Airkeeper (
talk)
07:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The subject was a revolutionary leader in Nepal in the 1970s; returns numerous results on a Google Books search; three results on Google Scholar. He has his own entry in the 2017 Historical Dictionary of Nepal published in the USA by the respected academic publishers Rowman & Littlefield. It appears that the subject suffers from a dearth of English-language Internet sources. A Google search for the subject's name in Nepali, on the other hand, (यज्ञबहादुर थापा) returns 27,000+ results. The members of the (European)
Red Army Faction have their own articles; I'd suggest that the subject has a similar level of notability within Nepal (I stress it's not my intention to draw a parallel between the aims/ideology/methods of the subject and Baader-Meinhof members).
Bad-patches (
talk)
20:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Airkeeper makes a sound case. I realize that being an English speaking encyclopedia that political events occurring outside of USA/Europe/English speaking countries may seem less notable. In other words, “all politics is local”, but I think we should resist this urge. And he did receive notable coverage in his country in major newspapers. Unfortunately, I have noticed that in countries where there are close ties to the West (Philippines, Korea, etc.), there is a greater tendency to favor notability in terms of press coverage. The same may apply to Wikipedia.
Dean Esmay (
talk)
21:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - I've expanded the article a bit. I think it passes 1E, given multiple events in his life getting coverage: Thapa's involvement in the Biratnagar bombing early in 1974, his arrest in a state of revolt later that year, his execution in 1978, and his being declared martyr in 2016. The article passes V and NOR. NPOV is very tough in an article like this, but the current state of the article seems acceptable.
Smmurphy(
Talk)16:45, 21 April 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 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.
Appears to be an essay with a particular POV. Even if the subject is encyclopedic, this essay concentrates on one country. Also contains unsourced statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice (I have removed any that were BLP issues).
Black Kite (talk)11:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
KeepEnvironmental impact of meat production is general and does not include specifics of any industry (pig, cattle, etc.) - the article needs a rewrite and I think it should be templated. The title is
WP:NPOV and the subject is notable, this has also been a major issue in China in recent years documented by
WP:RS like Reuters, The Economist, The Guardian - I don't think AfD is a substitute for editing and improving an article that currently has problems.
Seraphim System(
talk)18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:DINC; NPOV problems are not a valid reason for deletion. Many, many reliable sources on the environmental impact of pig farming specifically exist, discussing regions worldwide, including:
Eriksson, Ingrid Strid; Elmquist, Helena; Stern, Susanne; Nybrant, Thomas (2004).
"Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production"(PDF). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 10 (2): 143–154.
FWIW, here in Canada, it's a big deal, especially in Quebec and New Brunswick. A petition to the Government of Canada resulted in about hog production resulted in these responses form three federal ministries, archived as
Environmental impacts of intensive hog operations, New Brunswick. The response from Environment Canada does acknowledge that there are specific issues to the hog industry, above and beyond livestock in general. The petition also makes mention of
Bacon, The Film, a documentary film on "the social and environmental impacts of this proliferation of huge hog operations." The latter would be considered an additional reliable source, as the issues related to the hog industry in Canada would pertain in the U.S. as well. Now, I get that this is an article on "Environmental impacts of pig farming" in the United States and that's fine, at least for now. "...Concentrat[ing] on one country" is an argument for expansion, not deletion. Keep.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete in its present form, but try to add content and salvage. The article has an axe to grind and is not NPOV. The article would have to be expanded to be encyclopedic. Not sure if original author would be willing to do this. Highly doubtful that the author would be willing to revamp the article. The article is a case where pro-pig farm arguments are intentionally left out. For example, the economic loss to the pig farmers if pig farms were shut down or radically had to change the way they operated. I personally would not want to live next to a pig farm as I heard the stench can be very strong.
Dean Esmay (
talk)
21:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The topic certainly looks to be notable, and is actually a suitable topic for Wikipedia. There is sufficient content to stand alone and not be merged elsewhere. Sure there are problems with balance in the article. They can be indicated by a tag, and are not due to POV pushing. This sort of problem should be fixed by editing, and not by deletion.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
23:44, 16 April 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.
Speedy delete per nom. I'm not sure the removals of the speedy tag were allowed but let's deal with it here. Now someone has come along and started vandalizing the article with disparaging and ridiculous comments, and I find myself utterly unmoved to correct it.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: Tagged for speedy deletion - I can't see the point in puttung this through a whole AfD, speedy is supposed to be to stop AfD backlogs.
TheMagikCow (
T) (
C)
18:20, 14 April 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.
Delete - Managed Memory Computing seems to be a proprietary technology used by
ElegantJ BI, a business intelligence tool, also at AdD. I think neither meets
WP:GNG as I can not find coverage of either of them in independent reliable sources.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
18:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The capital letters made me think this might be the name of a company, but it is just the usual attempt to make some marketing term sound more grandiose by using capital letters. The company also up for deletion is
ElegantJ BI, edited by the same single-purpose accounts.
W Nowicki (
talk)
20:30, 21 April 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 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 only delete comments were before StAnselm's and E.M. Gregory's improvements and despite two relistings, there were no more sound delete !votes (only such !vote seems to have misread the references). SoWhy20:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)reply
keep -- InterVarsity is an important Evangelical Christian Press, one that does not publish rubbish. If this were being presented before any books were published, I would probably be voting to delete. Evangelicals tend to ignore the Early Fathers, so that a book from that viewpoint on one of them is itself important.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The books are widely held, including by non-religious university libraries.
[60] I take that to indicate he may be an influential scholar in the field. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DGG (
talk •
contribs)
02:02, 24 April 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.
Fails
WP:ARTIST. The references in the article are one of two: not independent of the subject; are directly written from organizations, which fail
WP:SOURCE. The subject lacks significant coverage from third-party
reliable sources, and simply does not appear notable.
ℯxplicit02:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep This article subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. She has gotten these coverages as an artist as well as an activist. For these reasons she passes
WP:GNG which most of the time surpasses WP:ARTIST.
Antonioatrylia (
talk)
09:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Antonioatrylia: I see that you've done some work and have replaced some references, but the underlying problems of Neda Moridpou failing to be the main subject of various, significant coverage from sources independent of her are still vastly left in tact. As of
this revision, this is what the sources offer: 1) The most legitimate reference in the article, this does talk about Moridpour. The article is about her art exhibit with S.A. Bachman. That's pretty much it. 2) Written by an organization which "provides each funded project with up to $50,000 in direct funding and career development service"
[61], although the disclaimer in the provided sources does read: "Although these projects were not ultimately funded by Creative Capital". Fails
WP:SOURCE regardless. 3) Co-written by Moridpour, and is therefore not an independent source. 4) Written by Moridpour and falsely attributed to Sarah Moawad (I can't find the surname 'Moawad' anywhere in the article). 5) She is not mentioned in the source. 6) I don't have access to this source. However, if its purpose is solely to show that her work is included here, this isn't significant coverage. 7) Written by the college where she is an alumni, and not independent. 8) Written by the festival organization, where her work was shown; not entirely independent. So, even now, Moridpour herself has not been subject to significant coverage from sources independent from her to establish her notability.
ℯxplicit11:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your hard work in digging up these sources but they seem to give only
WP:BLP1E. Tyros are rarely notable; more substantial career achivement is needed.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
02:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC).reply
@
Biwom: I assessed the LA Times article above in my response to Antonioatrylia.
OC Weekly mentions her in passing. What does the third source entail? Finally, the awbw.org source is from an organization that displays her work, which also fails
WP:SOURCE. As
WP:GNG reads: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. It additionally reads: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. The topic here is Neda Moridpour, but say very little about her directly, and more about the exhibitions where her work, along with that of others, is displayed. The article contains several references to make the subject look notable, but it really comes across as
WP:REFBOMB.
ℯxplicit00:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Biwom: My comment was in regards to the website you linked. As I do not speak the language, the only bit I understood was the English between 3:45–4:16. Is this a language you understand? If so, can briefly summarize the report and clarify if Neda Moridpour is talked about in detail, or if it's just the exhibit?
ℯxplicit01:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Explicit, thanks for pinging me! The subject's work is reviewed in the LA Times, OC Weekly and Entertainment Close Up. A person is not an insignificant artist if they're reviewed in the LA Times and I feel the other reviews help add to her significance. Also, REFBOMB doesn't apply if what's added to the article are reliable, independent sources showing that her work is being reviewed, or that she is in the media. Thanks!
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
18:57, 22 April 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.
Weak Keep - I've seen Humans. Me watching it doesn't make her notable, but her have a recurring role would IMHO. Would still like to see more in-depth pieces about her to expand the page, but I feel she meets the criteria. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
01:03, 6 April 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.
Article about a minor film festival, referenced entirely to deadlinks on the personal website of its own executive director rather than to
reliable source coverage of the festival in media. An event like this is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists; it must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear
WP:GNG and
WP:ORGDEPTH, but even on a
ProQuest search I can't find enough coverage of it to clear that bar.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. Local coverage exists, at least, and includes a recent, and decently substantive Hamilton Spectator article reporting that in 11 years this has grown from "26 submissions on DVD and VHS — mostly from [the founder's] friends" to "150 feature-length movies, documentaries and short films whittled down from 700 submissions"
[62], as well as things of varying substance like
[63][64][65][66][67]. And a namedrop at MLB.com, of all places.
[68] One thing I noted while looking for sources is that they have a lot of different festivals in Hamilton. And of course the case for notability would be more solid if someone could identify some substantive coverage in national media (or even just in Toronto). --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
15:33, 6 April 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.
For academic departments, usually we only make articles for the top 3 or 4 in the world--15th in the country is not notable-. Of the 14 references,13 are from themselves. DGG (
talk )
04:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: I don't think there needs to be such numerical thresholds as "top 3 or 4". I count 3 refs not from themselves; yes, they are only mentions in passing. Then again, departments are rarely the kind of things that are prominently featured for themselves; they are background information for the prominent people and industries which they get off the ground. In that respect, I think this department has been quite successful, and that the article provides somewhat useful context connecting notable people, companies, and events. Conversely, I see absolutely no harm in keeping it. I admit having trouble pointing to a specific piece of policy that would mandate that it be kept, though. —
Gamall Wednesday Ida (
t ·
c)
15:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I am going to have to say that if, as per Gamell Wednesday, departments are rarely the kind of things that are prominently featured, but are just background information, then departments rarely are notable (and they don't
WP:INHERIT notability from their prominent alumni and faculty). If the only 3 non-self refs for this one only mention the department in passing, then that points to it not being notable.
Agricolae (
talk)
03:38, 20 April 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.
I have concerns whether the sources are sufficient to have the subject meet
WP:NBIO; deprodded by
User:Boleyn (creator) so we are here. He got a few paragraphs on himself in
[69], and a bit more coverage as he was featured in an episode of reality show
The Secret Millionaire[70], but is this sufficient? To me it is still on the low side of required in-depth coverage by multiple independent sources. At best, I can see his bio merged to the reality show page, which could have a list of episodes and its heroes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets
WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Article now has sources from 3 national, reliable publications and 3 local, reliable publications. As I stated on the article's talk page where I tried to start a discussion yesterday with
Piotrus about this, this would not be a candidate for deletion even if he was non-notable, we should always look for
WP:ATD. If non-notable, it would be a choice of merge to his company's article (
CeX (company)) or (less likely) to the Channel 4 programme, The Secret Millionaire, where he had a whole episode on him and his philanthropy.
Boleyn (
talk)
06:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I still disagree. You don't list which sources are which. I hope you don't count
[71] in your "national, reliable publications".
This is half-based on quotes from the subject. Nope, I don't see much quality coverage - this is not a subject fit for an encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Which is which, do you mean which are local and which national? The Croydon Guardian, Tottenham Independent and East London Lines are local, and all had full articles on Dudani (two of them had several articles on him actually, I just used one from each as references as the others didn't include much new information in terms of making an encyclopaedia article). The Telegraph, Radio Times and The Guardian are national, reliable publications. The Guardian is a national broadsheet and reliable; the article is based on interviews so yes, it uses quotes from the subjects of the article, but that isn't a concern. The Telegraph is also reliable, though you're right that as it is an announcement in the Telegraph, it is essentially a primary source so doesn't really count towards notability. The Radio Times is a national publication which reviews TV and radio shows, only those that are most of interest. That still leaves 2 national, reliable publications and 3 local newspapers. There was also a lot of coverage in tech publications that I wasn't sure were reliable or not.
Boleyn (
talk)
08:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Heavy reliance on interviews is a concern, per
WP:INTERVIEW. Review of a TV show or episode does not mean the person who appeared in said episode is notable. Etc. I am not impressed by the sources; you as the creator who used them have a different opinion. Let's see if anyone else joins our discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep There are multiple, reliable sources on this man. I'm not sure he meets the criteria for inclusion except those laid out at BASIC and GNG, but the coverage here is sufficient for inclusion in this encyclopaedia. I also fail to understand why this was not a merge proposal; I disagree that any of the pages on the 'Secret Millionaire' would have been suitable, but his company's page would have been, were he non-notable. However, I am satisfied that the sources are of an acceptable standard: not outstanding, but certainly over the bar.
MartinJones (
talk)
17:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- not every CEO / founder is notable, and in this case, the accomplishments do not warrant an encyclopedia article. Sourcing is thing, to the point that the article does not make a particular claim to notability; closer to A7 than to being a notable subject.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
18:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
K.e.coffman, why did you vote delete rather than merge/redirect to company as an
WP:ATD? Even if you think the sources aren't enough (I'd have to disagree strongly with that), then he is surely a valid search item for someone who has heard of him, through his work as CEO/founder of a notable company or his episode in a notable show. This article geets several hundred views a month.
Boleyn (
talk)
06:49, 23 April 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.
There are numerous case cites to this legal decision, however, beyond that, there doesn't appear to be coverage outside of case law to establish that this court case meets GNG.
DarjeelingTea (
talk)
15:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm not sufficiently conversant with UK law to assess the importance of this case, but for those who are and who want to take a look, there is a page with information on it
here. For those wishing to research further, the cite appears to be Lewis v. Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 (UK).
TJRC (
talk)
22:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There has been nil participation since the last two relists.The participants have just commented but not !voted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades Godric08:17, 14 April 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.
Keep— All the information contained in the article is taken from reputable sources providing coverage on an international, national and local level. I have relied on established publications observing and analyzing the aluminium industry, widely circulated English news outlets, major Asian English-language dailies, Chinese news articles, as well as official government publications in Chinese. The article cites multiple independent sources. They are not merely trivial coverage, since they do not simply report meetings, phone numbers, routine notices, etc., as specified in
WP:CORPDEPTH. Below is a run-down on the sources I used:
AluWatch is a major new aluminium industry watchdog consisting of individuals, NGOs, and business seeking to reduce the impact of climate change. It compiles a yearly set of key figures about the most important players in the market, and I used its East Hope figures.
http://www.aluwatch.org/key-figures/
China.org is the Chinese government’s official news website, which means that the information provided needs to be utilized critically. However, no other news site has provided such an in-depth report of the Liu brothers and their respective enterprises, including East Hope, in English.
http://www.china.org.cn/video/2008-10/27/content_16672447.htm
2011 USGS Mineral Yearbook: a primary resource for anything related to minerals, there is barely any other publicly available report with such a range of information on activities of individual companies that would normally be ignored in other publications.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/myb1-2011-alumi.pdf
Platts: one of the most influential news providers, and market data analyst of natural resource markets. Its Metals Daily series is always the go-to publication for up to date, detailed observations on developments in the industry or individual companies. The same is true for Antaike’s Alumina & Aluminum Monthly, though with a narrower focus on aluminium. Because of East Hope’s prolific activities, the series often features concise articles on the company. The same applies to Antaike’s publications.
http://www.antaike.com/uploadfiles/20120619/2012061915421737061.pdf
Aluminium Insider is a leading news platform specialized in the aluminium industry, supported by possibly the largest metals news analyst, Metal Bulletin. In a similar vein, Asian Metal stands out because of its interviews with people in the industry and relevant companies, such as in this case, where they interviewed an East Hope manager.
http://aluminiuminsider.com/chinas-east-hope-group-to-invest-us1-5-bn-in-inner-mongolia/
Xinhua is the Chinese government’s official press agency, so a critical mind is required, but is generally trustworthy when it comes to reporting government announcements and policy shifts, such as the one quoted in this Xinhua article. Although this article didn’t mention East Hope by name, it still provided relevant information in the context of East Hope’s business.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-06/16/c_135442680.htm
China Daily is one of the largest dailies, but with a somewhat broader reporting scope as Xinhua and with a more prominent opinion section. Unlike Xinhua, China Daily reports more often on Chinese companies, including East Hope, which is the focus of the article cited.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/interface/toutiaonew/1020961/2017-04-05/cd_28805896.html
163/NetEase is a widely read Chinese daily online paper. With the Chinese public becoming increasingly outspoken on the state of the environment, papers like these have become increasingly important in reporting on pollution accurately. Again, East Hope is the focus here.
http://henan.163.com/16/1216/14/C8DPC1F302270ILI.html
As this list shows, these sources have a broad reach across both English and Chinese-speaking audiences. I therefore do not follow the reasoning that the notoriety requirements are not satisfied. On the contrary, East Hope, no less because of the controversies surrounding its activities, is clearly very much a part of the public discourse in the context of Chinese metal manufacturers.
Most of the above was on the article's talk page while it was still a draft. Directory/list entries, mentions, routine coverage, and primary sources do not show notability. My breakdown of those sources:
Standard directory citation commonly used throughout Wikipedia articles on companies.
Standard directory citation commonly used throughout Wikipedia articles on companies.
Establishes important context that reflects the importance of the company.
East Hope is clearly mentioned, and the reference provides important context on the company, as it establishes the link between its business undertakings and one of China’s richest individuals.
The article is crucial in establishing the family connections between East Hope’s founder and the other large companies run by his siblings, while helping to place the company into the broader socio-economic context of 1980’s China as well.
It still contains crucial information whose inclusion into the article is required, because it clarifies the scale of East Hope’s production and, therefore, provides a means of comparison against its competitors.
This is highly read and authoritative, so the fact that East Hope is included in the brief means that a large audience will be informed on East Hope’s actions.
Covers a major investment of the company, one of its biggest in recent years, making it clearly important information broader general interest.
Interview provided info that established the scale of East Hope’s activities. However, I re-wrote the sentence to clarify where the information came from.
This article is crucial for understanding the controversy surrounding East Hope’s actions. In tune with Wikpedia’s standards, I wanted to provide a citable source on the government’s policy to clearly show what the controversy is.
East Hope is the subject of the title and most of the public concern of illegal med use is directed against East Hope, seeing that it is a major animal feed provider.
See above, plus it has the full list included.
It is a pretty important mention due to it being the largest planned addition of capacity.
Seeing that these are primary government documents detailing the number and scale of East Hope’s infractions, this is vital information. Given that these docs cover major breaches of law, excluding them would mean a breach of Wikipedia’s rules on neutrality. Also,
WP:CORPDEPTH does not mention that government documents are inadequate.
The cited article deals exclusively with an accident at one of East Hope’s plants. This is primary coverage of the firm’s activities.
Just because something is or can be used as a reference for something, does not mean that it can be used to establish notability. Based on the above, you do not understand the difference. —
JJMC89 (
T·C)
00:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I cannot judge the depth of coverage in Chinese sources, but it seems a sufficiently large company that it is likely to be notable. Given the
WP:Cultural bias is sourcing, I think we should accept it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DGG (
talk •
contribs)
22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I can't read through chinese sources either but I had spent some time figuring out notability on the article when it was at afc. I gave it the go through when I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources. I believe that
WP:CORPDEPTH should not be valid here as a criteria for deletion. If still in doubt, we could request translation of chinese sources (as machine translation isn't reliable).
Yashovardhan (
talk)
10:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The first report discusses the establishment and the projects of the company in detail, and if it were an routine reporting, it would only contain the paragraph four. The second one does have some personal opinions which should be treated as primary sources, but it also includes detailed analysis on the company's history and goals. Also, whether there's an corresponding entry on zhwiki is
irrelevant. --
Antigng (
talk)
04:27, 21 April 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.
fails WP:GNG. 3 gnews hits. 2 of them merely refer to the museum at end of article as other museums worth visiting
nothing in gbooks, gscholar. museums are not inherently notable. nothing in bbc.co.uk either. Those arguing keep must provide evidence of indepth coverage.
LibStar (
talk)
02:16, 6 April 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.
No evidence of notability. Only sources are databases; no independent coverage from reliable sources establishing notability.
JTtheOG (
talk)
03:11, 6 April 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.
KeepKeep or merge; if kept, rename to
privilege of the floor of the United States Senate). It's a stub and does need expansion, but the "privilege of the floor" of the Senate has a long history and adequate discussion in sources, e.g.:
Redirect per BD2412. This article gives no real information about what the content of the rule is. It would be better if the article
Standing Rules of the United States Senate summarized the content of the rules rather than just listing their titles. If there are rules that require full articles to describe their content and implications, those can be broken out separately later. But this article consists at present of only two sentences of uninformative prose. --
Metropolitan90(talk)20:23, 14 April 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.
Thanks for your guidance and support, I'm still working on the text and retouching part for this page (
Wiki-en:Song Weilong (actor/model)), definitely going to find some noticeable evidences for his career and the upcoming works (TV series, movies, covers of fashion magazines etc.).
Actually, I'd like to see this page on the first site of Google Search for "Song Weilong", because the Chinese Google Search results and the Chinese Wikipedia page (
Wiki-zh:宋威龙) both leads to this actor/model person, not the speed skater person (宋伟龙), just lack of translation work.
Besides, the Chinese Wiki page for the skater Song Weilong (宋伟龙) is not even created (
Search 宋伟龙 in Chinese Wiki), so in the first place I was considering whether to substitute the pages, and set the model as the main page, plus one disambiguation page, but the system said the skater page has an upper level. The Fact is, that the younger is more famous than the skater for now in China.
An other fact is, according to the Baidu Baike page
[75], the skater already changed his name to Song Jinhan (宋金翰), and retired from his career, started a personal life as modified car company owner or technician [source:
https://kknews.cc/sports/xz6y5q.html date: 2016-05-06 publisher: Ice World Sport]. Thus, I would glad to update his page as well if needed.
In addition, the actor's Sina Weibo account has almost 2 Million followers
Weibo Homepage, and the Google image search results of "Song Weilong" are also mainly the pics of the model, not the skater
Google Images.
UpdateBoleyn, how to determine if the debates end and whether the discussion is completed? Thank you. Technically I don't know how to remove the AfD Message, I'm not sure if I could.
The essential problem is, the Google result looks messy and very confusing since a long time, because the Wiki page leads directly to the speed skater person, and the right sidebar of Google shows the information of the skater (profession, height, age), but with the pictures of the model
screenshot of Google page, which come out from Google image search engine.
Basically everything on the Google page beside this very first Wiki linkage, are about the model, not the skater.
For the current status, I don't think it's a final result or best solution for this problem, I still suggest that we separate the name into to two terms, if can not put the model on the dominant position for now, then just create a redirection page of "Song Weilong" to the "Song Weilong (disambiguation)", so everybody searched the word on Wiki can check the both pages, and not get confused with the other.
For example, redirect the search of "Song Weilong" to disambiguation page for the two people
- Song Weilong (speed skater)
- Song Weilong (actor/model)
And it also has a very big influence on Google search engine result. This is why at this moment people can only view the skater's Wiki in Google search result, that is already a serious mistake.
If we don't add the assumption of (skater) behind the name, it will be very confusing. People kept asking me why Google shows the model person is 27 years old, which is not, he is 18.
And the skater has changed his last name to Song Jinhan, not Song Weilong anymore, so far I learned from internet news pages.
It could be a permanent misleading page of the Google-Wiki system. In the long-term, the model just started his career late 2015 and has more than six upcoming works, on the other hand, Song Jinhan is retired from skating on national team. Therefore, I wish you can reconsider it and make further suggestions. Best regards.
Otherwise, we can use
This page is about Chinese short track speed skaters. For Chinese male television actors, see
Song Weilong (actor/model).
After one week of discussion, an admin will count the results of votes for deletion and for keeping and make a final decision. Once this happened, the deletion tag will be removed from the article or the article will still be deleted. How something "looks" on a Google search is not a primary concern, if at all. WP is an encyclopaedia and not a marketing or search engine optimization tool! With regards to the two individuals with the same name, I'm not convinced that the skater changed his name. A Baidu profile is not sufficient evidence. I don't think "kknews" or any blog is sufficiently reliable. On the contrary, the Chinese Olympic Committee
reports about him and
lists him under Song Weilong, as he will be listed on medal and participant tables in western media. Therefore, this can only be solved by referencing the disambiguation at the top of each article.
Jake Brockman (
talk)
07:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)reply
CommentSokkwo, don't worry about page titles for now, one thing at a time. If this survives this discussion, you can go to
WP:RM and editors will help you establish what should be done with the page titles. Best wishes,
Boleyn (
talk)
07:51, 1 April 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.
Possible hoax. Looked at this about 8 times. Tried to find all the papers. Can't identify Politika187 site. Cant find it at all. All there is, is the Twitter page. Originating editor need to come in and provide additional references. Fails
WP:GNGscope_creep (
talk)
22:22, 30 March 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 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.
Delete. Kiev is certainly a large and prominent enough city that its city councillors would clear
WP:NPOL #2 if they were sourced properly, but it's not a position that exempts him from having to pass
WP:GNG for it. This is referenced almost entirely to
primary sources and
YouTube videos rather than to
reliable source coverage in media — and, for added bonus, it's written like somebody tried (badly) to convert his
résumé into prose rather than like an actual encyclopedia article. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR database on which every local politician is entitled to an article just because he exists; reliable source coverage must be present to support an article.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:56, 14 April 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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. She seems to fail
WP:CREATIVE. No reviews of her work as a poet are presented. As a translator she won a very minor Polish prize "NAGRODA PRACY ORGANICZNEJ IM. MARII KONOPNICKIEJ", about which I cannot find much information (
[76]); it also does not have any page on Polish Wikipedia (which is much more inclusive, and which one would expect to have articles about all significant awards in Poland - not that this is an argument here, just another minor red flag). The only hope to save this is if someone can dig reviews of her poetry (or other awards) in Chinese, but as far as English (and Polish) sources go, I am afraid she is not shown to be notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:36, 28 March 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.
Keep This a Cuban cultural initiative in Malaysia. It is similar to Canada house in London, but a lot less notable and famous. I did find several decent refs and added them. The organization is real, the refs and notability are real but not extremely strong. I am not sure how it hurts Wikipedia to keep the article. It might actually provide a minimal service to readers. If kept it should be renamed to Casa Cuba (Malacca) or (Malaysia) as there are other Casa Cubas (e.g. I saw refs for one in Tampa).
198.58.162.200 (
talk)
06:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete When people argue to keep it "it is a lot less notable" than other institutions, this means it is not notable and does not pass our notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Google " "Casa Cuba" Malaysia -wikipedia" yields several hits, including an Arab Today article and a The Star article from 2011 and 2016. Article has been expanded during this AFD, and could be expanded more from sources, but
wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Renaming the article to add a disambiguating phrase "(Malaysia)" or otherwise may be appropriate, but "Keep" decision is compatible. Renaming can be done by any editor after AFD closes, or put to a Requested Move at the Talk page of the article. --
doncram19:33, 5 April 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.
Redirect to
Live action role-playing game - The article is complete
original research that tries to explain a topic that fails
WP:NEO. It goes on to be confusing as the start is almost like it's a video game and moves on to explain more about a Live action role-playing game, hence why it should not be merged but just a redirect. -
Pmedema (
talk)
03:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete or at the very least, Redirect to
LARP. Searches bring up nearly nothing, and the few things that do come up are not from reliable sources. Most of them are nothing but announcements of upcoming events, and many of them seem to be using the term synonymous to regular LARPing. The article was created well over a decade ago, and the fact that no sources have really been created in that time span leads me to believe that this was nothing more than a
WP:NEOLOGISM that never became a thing.
64.183.45.226 (
talk)
18:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- no point in preserving article history as the page consists entirely of unsourced original research. Once deleted, the name can be redirected at editorial discretion.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
02:34, 15 April 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.
Keep - per sources above. Especially the NBC one, which is probably one of the most mainstream reliable sources in existence, and is very long and dedicated entirely to the subject.
Sergecross73msg me03:02, 15 April 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 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.
Non-notable songwriter. The content I've checked so far mainly fails verification and I am unable to find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources as would be required to meet
WP:NMUSIC or
WP:BIO.
SmartSE (
talk)
12:51, 29 March 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.
Discussed briefly at
WT:PHYS - concerns are that it is too broad and the term too ambiguous. Basically, almost every experiment in particle physics would be on this list. This would be better served as a category (or a slight modification of existing ones).
Primefac (
talk)
16:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, it's too broad. To respond to Andrew D's point, entire books are written about tiny subsets of all scattering experiments. An analogy would be if someone proposed "list of historical people". One could also say truthfully that "entire books are written about such people", for example any history book. That fact doesn't address the complaint that the list is too broad. --
Steve (
talk)
00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
"Too broad" is not an issue for either policy or practise. For example, we already have
List of experiments, which is more general. We also have plenty of other very general list names including
list of people;
list of books;
list of places; &c. Such large lists are typically structured as a hierarchy and so that would be a sensible approach for experiments too. If scattering experiments are divided into different classes then we can continue the hierarchy as needed. Lists are quite flexible in their construction and that's why, per
WP:CLN, they have many advantages over categories.
Andrew D. (
talk)
09:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
You made a telling error by omitting the s in
lists of people,
lists of books,
lists of places. All three of these are lists of lists, which is appropriate for extraordinarily broad categories. I would not be opposed to a list of lists of scattering experiments, if we already had a bunch of appropriate sub-lists like "list of resonant x-ray scattering experiments", "list of spin-polarized heavy ion scattering experiments", etc. etc. As for
list of experiments, I think it's a terrible page and I would support deleting that too. We shouldn't refrain from deleting one bad page just because there are other equally bad pages out there. --
Steve (
talk)
12:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - In many cases, I think lists better serve our readers than categories and this could be one such case. The breadth of types of scattering experiments is such that the
scattering and
scattering theory pages do not give much coverage to individual experiments. Providing an annotated list of experiments would give readers a different view with a different kind of specificity than the broader articles (yes, this is a version of ILIKEIT, but it is also an explanation of why I think the list is encyclopedic). I also agree that listing in this way is not OR, as there are RS as Andrew D points out that give similar lists.
Smmurphy(
Talk)15:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak keep – It looks a little better when split between specific experiments and general categories thereof, but I wouldn't be heartbroken to see it go.
XOR'easter (
talk)
20:27, 9 April 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.
No evidence of any notability. All the references are the TV company's own web-site. No evidence that this mish-mash has any intrinsic value let alone notability. Fails
WP:GNG by a mile. The compilation of such a list is original research as there is no evidence that the title is in any sense notable VelellaVelella Talk 22:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not a particularly notable subject, and the sources being used are nothing but the episodes of the series itself, and as mentioned, the information here is already included in its entirely in the main
Studio C article, making this an unnecessary
WP:FORK.
64.183.45.226 (
talk)
19:14, 19 April 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 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.
Comment: That doesnt apply to members, in that case every single member of any band/group in the world could have its own article, the person needs to be individually notable (i.e. have notable solo work) outside of group, number #2 on that criteria makes Red Velvet notable, and not all their members.
Snowflake91 (
talk)
13:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: This is not a reason to keep, why does it matter if she has a stub article with a picture on other Wikipedias, where inclusion standards vary from country to country? She fails all 12 points at
WP:MUSICBIO, so totally not relevant reason to keep, you didnt provide a source for a claim "Clearly notable as an individual performer and celebrity", she has no individual songs, she has not been casted as an actress, and everytime you're gonna search her name on google it will be red-velvet related stuff. Look at
Talk:Myoui Mina,
Talk:Im Nayeon, and
Talk:Momo Hirai, those members are just like Yeri with no solo works (and they are currently much more popular in Korea), and the articles were easily merged into their group's article. And all Spice Girls members are clearly notable independently from the group with their solo musical releases / television and film appearances, so the argument is very poor.
Snowflake91 (
talk)
09:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Since
WP:MUSICBIO has been mentioned, it should be noted that the guideline it expresses is almost a side issue in this case. While subject is well known as a member of a singing group, she is also a bona fide international celebrity whose image has appeared on magazine covers and entertainment sections of newspapers in the manner of other international celebrities such as
Paris Hilton or
the Kardashian sisters who have become "famous for being famous", without even possessing subject's performing talents. She has hosted a TV show, appears without other members of Red Velvet on talk and variety programs and has extended entries in ten Wikipedias, including those from the world's major languages (all with photos and infobox), with a majority of the articles also including a discography and career details. Of course,
WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS, but we are not serving Wikipedia users in a helpful manner if a celebrity who has carved out an individual presence in the entertainment industry is redirected to a mention in a group article.
—Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)02:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The reason why there are articles on other wikipedias is because of
WP:Fancruft, the fans feels an urge to create a stub article just because they can, and again inclusion standards for notability differs here, on English Wikipedia, then on Korean, Vietnamese, Indonesian etc. wikis. The only solo work she has is co-hosting a TV show for 6 months, but only that is not enough to pass notability criterias. And please dont compare Hilton or Kardashian with Yeri, they easily pass general
WP:GN since there are "billions" of news reports about them, while Yeri is pretty much never mentioned as a solo member anywhere. Just google "Kim Yeri" and choose "news", the only results you get is some yellow tabloid news like
This and
This, not to mention that both websites are listed as unreliable per
Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources.
Snowflake91 (
talk)
09:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
At this point some relevant questions may be warranted regarding this nomination. Since
Red Velvet (band) has five members, why was the nomination not structured as a multiple redirect for all five? An examination of the articles for the other four members of Red Velvet —
Irene (singer),
Seulgi (singer),
Wendy (singer) and
Joy (singer) — confirms that there are no proposed deletion or redirect tags on any of their articles. Is there a waiting period to discover if this nomination succeeds before proceeding with one-by-one nominations of the remaining four members? Is there a contention that this member of Red Velvet is the sole non-notable member of the group and is therefore undeserving of an individual English Wikipedia entry in the manner of the other four members? Since the group has only five members, a
WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS argument regarding the other four members would seem to be too broad to encompass the seemingly random choice of this group member for nomination.
—Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)19:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
All other four members are notable (Irene and Joy passes acting notability for having a lead role in a TV drama/series, while Wendy and Seulgi have solo musical releases which charted on
Gaon Chart).
Snowflake91 (
talk)
19:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Accordingly, the answer to a key question above, "Is there a contention that this member of Red Velvet is the sole non-notable member of the group and is therefore undeserving of an individual English Wikipedia entry in the manner of the other four members?" is supposed to be accepted as "Yes". Nine brother/sister Wikipedias contend that she is sufficiently notable to warrant an individual entry, but English Wikipedia, which has higher standards than Russian, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese or other Wikipedias, would insist that Red Velvet is composed of four notable and one non-notable member. Whether such insistence is based solely on
WP:MUSICBIO or if other standards of notability, such as celebrity on an international scale, should also be taken into consideration, may be left to decide by other contributors to this discussion.
—Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)20:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I forgot mentioning redirect, if the afd passes, it NEEDS to be redirected and NOT deleted, I copyedited the page and added more refs, so when she gets notable enough, we can simply restore the content instead of creating the whole page from scratch.
Snowflake91 (
talk)
22:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Red Velvet (band); deletion just creates a baitlink in red and we will be doing this again in six months. I also fail to see why someone didn't just boldly redirect this in the first place instead of the AfD, but maybe they did...?
Montanabw(talk)08:17, 16 April 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.
Non notable topic about artifacts in a fantasy series. There are no independent, reliable sources and the article is written like an opinion essay.
Ciridae (
talk)
09:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - My goodness, it just goes on and on and on. Encyclopedia should not be a repository of fan material, reliable sources do not discuss the details of this fictional world.
ValarianB (
talk)
12:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Books of Swords. This is just a whole lot of plot-only
WP:CRUFT with no non-primary sources supporting any of the information. Searches also bring up no reliable sources discussing the swords either, as only fan sites and fan wikis mention them. Merging is unnecessary, as the swords are already mentioned in the book series main article, and this amount of unsourced cruft would not improve that article in any way if merged into it.
64.183.45.226 (
talk)
18:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge Some possible RS'es:
[78],
[79],
[80],
[81],
[82], but I'm finding the commentary doesn't really focus on the swords themselves in any way that would require (or benefit from) an article separate from the series'.
Jclemens (
talk)
04:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't really see the benefit of a Merge in this case, as none of those sources really say anything about the swords themselves that isn't already included in the main
Books of Swords article.
64.183.45.226 (
talk)
16:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge, but in summarized form. I agree that there's no need for this level of detail on Wikipedia, but the current version of the
Books of Swords article doesn't list the individual swords either. Replacing the current redirect to this page with a list of each sword and a 1-2 sentence description of its powers, or a table with powers and drawbacks should be sufficient. --
Bobson (
talk)
17:02, 19 April 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.
Comment: this is a band, not a company, so the notability standard it has to clear is
WP:NMUSIC, not
WP:NORG — and at least in theory, they do have a nominal pass of NMUSIC #8 for having garnered a
Polaris Music Prize nomination. Granted, that can still be not enough for an article if they prove entirely unsourceable besides nominal confirmation of that fact itself — but I'm withholding judgement as of yet because nominator clearly measured the topic against the wrong notability standard, so the sources will have to be reviewed a second time since NMUSIC is a different test.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete It is not so simple as to whether this is a band or a company, it appears. They seem to be both a record label/studio and a group of affiliated artists that the label/studio hosts. If they were clearly one or the other, then there would not be enough under the applicable SNG's to consider keeping. As it is, however, I think we have to consider them under both
WP:NCOMPANYandWP:NMUSIC. Using that standard, I still don't believe that there is enough significant coverage or that the prongs of NMUSIC are satisfied, with the possible exception of #5.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)18:31, 19 April 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. Doing our
own analysis of satellite imagery to determine the status of the project doesn't make for the strongest of arguments, but there's clearly no consensus for deletion here. – Juliancolton |
Talk01:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. No reliable sources yet provided even state that the bridge is planned. There is lots of politically funded material on the web, but that is all, and we might think of blacklisting at least one of the references given. This bridge may well happen, but it
may not.
Andrewa (
talk)
19:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Not a strong keep, but this bridge is clearly under construction and will be significantly notable. The article just needs some better sources, possibly Chinese-language if necessary. --
NoGhost (
talk)
21:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The most info I could find is
[83], but not a RS. If you assume it is accurate (note it was created recently in 2017), it says nothing about construction - it's all forward looking. At least the nearby
Jinanqiao Dam is real. Can't find anything on the Huali expressway that it's supposed to carry either. Also note that it is listed in
Bridges and tunnels across the Yangtze River without a source where it says it is opening in 2018, another indication it isn't happening as planned as the source above says opening in 2021.
WP:TOOSOON.
MB05:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. It is definitely notable and from google imagery, it is definitely under construction. I fixed inconsistencies that were from when it is was Taku Bridge.
ShakyIsles (
talk)
04:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. ShakyIsles' mention of Google satellite view confirmation that it is under construction is significant. Discussion above can be interpreted to mean it was once planned for 2021 but is advanced to 2018. Wikipedia needs to try to keep up with major infrastructure in China. --
doncram02:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The delete arguments centered about it not being clearly under construction; since it is per Google satellite view, they should be disregarded.
LuizdeO (
talk)
23:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep and expand to the scope of
zh:丽攀高速公路. This bridge is part of a partially complete highway; the highway does not have an article on the English Wikipedia. Judging by the (Chinese-language) sources on the Chinese Wikipedia article, there should be
sufficient coverage.
feminist15:36, 21 April 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 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.
Keep' - Delete the content at
SBS Transit, Add {{mainarticle|SBS Transit (Trains)}} to SBS transit and try to source this article (I'd imagine there's tons of Malay, Mandarin and Tamil sources on the subject). –
Davey2010Talk14:19, 6 April 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.
Delete: An article on a recent new publishing firm, where the provided references are start-up coverage, including what is visible of the paywalled item. The coverage falls short of
WP:CORPDEPTH and the bronze award for cover design of one of their first books does not imply notability for the firm.
AllyD (
talk)
12:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Small publisher of literary novels that "launched" in February 2017 with a book , linked in article, that did indeed get reviewed. Also, yes, it is probably PROMO by publisher or author, but it is also reliably, albeit sparsely, sourced, and is clearly being taken seriously by the industry.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
17:24, 21 April 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.
Improperly sourced article about a minor local award of little to no wider interest. This is referenced almost entirely to the award's own
primary source website about itself, some of the winning artists' own primary source websites about themselves, and non-notable
blogs — and the only two things here that actually qualify as
reliable sources, the Barrie Examiner and Sudbury Living, are coverage of individual musicians in the recipients list rather than coverage of the awards per se. There's simply not the depth of coverage being shown to get this over
WP:GNG — and the notability claim being made on the talk page in response to a prior prod attempt, that they're notable because there are some artists who won a TIMA early in their careers and then later went on to become notable somebodies with Wikipedia articles, is a transparent failure of
notability is not inherited. High schools could claim notability for their own internal student achievement awards if "somebody who won this once eventually became famous" were a valid notability claim in and of itself.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:55, 6 April 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
General Notability Guideline is not met by this film director/producer etc. There are a huge amount of false positives, it appears to be a common name, but the sources about this person do not exceed the types seen in the article - i.e. passing mentions of his work, next to nothing about him.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
22:11, 30 March 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 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.
Band with no strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC and no strong
reliable sourcing to support it. They released three EPs before breaking up but no full-length albums, and the only references cited in the article are to a directory and a
blog, not reliable sources. While this cherrypicks quotes from EP reviews in an advertorial manner, those aren't sourced at all. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they existed; passage of a specific NMUSIC criterion must be reliably sourced for an article to become earned.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:43, 6 April 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.
Non notable web personality with only one decent source, no indepth coverage. Being nominated for the teen choice awards is not enough for notability.
GuzzyG (
talk)
01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: Just wanted to drop a note that this is part of a student assignment with Wiki Ed, so if all else fails I would like to have this sent to the student's userspace so that they can work on improving it and having a copy for grading. We will try to work on it during the AfD, of course.
Shalor (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
12:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect to student draftspace for class Article subject is not notable. Fails
WP:GNG. As an editor stated above, this is basically a one source article, but just does not cross threshold of notability.
Antonioatrylia (
talk)
12:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Move to userspace; not notable yet, but the student shouldn't have their work deleted outright if it was part of their class grade (trout to the instructor for approving such a superficial subject, though).
Montanabw(talk)08:14, 16 April 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.
Poorly sourced
WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC and no strong
reliable sourcing to support it. The only notability claim even being attempted here is that she's won awards at the
Toronto Independent Music Awards and the Northern Ontario Music and Film Awards, neither of which are major enough to satisfy NMUSIC #8 -- but take those claims out, and literally all that's left here is "she exists". And apart from two pieces of purely local media coverage in her own hometown -- which would be fine if the rest of the sourcing around them were more solid, but cannot carry
WP:GNG by themselves as the only valid sources in the article -- this is otherwise parked entirely on
primary sources that cannot carry notability at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but nothing here now is enough.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:39, 6 April 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 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.
No indication of notability, and appears to be largely comprised of
original research and trivial information. A search for sources shows little from RS on this specific group/publication, and much on homosexuals in leftist movements not specific to this organization. The WordsmithTalk to me19:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
It's difficult to find sources on "Gay Left" (the organisation/publication) rather than "gay left" (leftist politics amongst LGB people), but there are a few hits.
This article is on the general term "gay left", but the section on Gay Marxism has a few paragraphs specifically on the Gay Left collective. I don't have access to
this chapter, but it looks like it might be promising. The article Interrante, Joseph (1978). "Gay Left". Radical History Review. 19. is a review of the journal. There's also
this introduction to the journal, but it's at best arguable that it is independent enough to count towards the GNG. Nonetheless, I think there might be just enough to keep this as notable.
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk)
17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Given this publication was in existence before the internet it will always be harder to find sources. However those found above are certainly looking promising.
AusLondonder (
talk)
22:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Thinly sourced and lacks reliable independent secondary sourcing, fails to meet the simplest of WP standards to establish notability.
Cllgbksr (
talk)
14:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I found a detailed book review in JSTOR about the Gay Left Collective, the book is Gay Men and Left in Post-War Britain - as the publication of a notable group, and for its historical and social significance, I think the subject is notable and could be expanded by someone with a special interest.
Seraphim System(
talk)18:42, 15 April 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.
An unremarkable YouTube channel; sources are tabloid-like and do not meet
WP:CORPDEPTH. Part of a walled-garden which also includes equally nn
Justin Stuart &
Andrew Scites; both are currently at AfD. Please see:
Nom's comment -- the articles referenced above (which were created by the "Keep" voter at this AfD) have been recently deleted, along with
ThatWasEpic. Please see:
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 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 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 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.
Delete: Notability is not temporary, even if the project itself is dead was the previous argument. Unfortunately there is a lack of
independent sources to suggest this claim. We can't
WP:IGNOREWP:GNG as keeping this will in no way improve Wikipedia or help the average reader. Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious extended encyclopedia apparently, I'd like to see Encyclopædia Britannica include this article in their latest edtion :).
Nicnote •
ask me a question •
contributions19:53, 17 April 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 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.
Sources are only local news, does not seem to have received the breadth of coverage necessary to make it notable. Creator had a COI and is now blocked from editing for sockpuppeting.
KDS4444 (
talk)
03:17, 14 April 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.
None of the references included here come from appropriate sources to verify a notability claim. It looks like she was mentioned in a US News & World Report article
here but I was not able to review the actual article to see the extent of coverage. Other than this, Google Books is a dead end, Google news turns up a single
trivial mention and nothing else, am not seeing enough to make a notability argument here.
KDS4444 (
talk)
03:14, 14 April 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.
Delete. They supposedly have two albums, which is one criteria of
WP:BAND, provided they're on a real label. But they're not: Amazon has one, The Drift, but it is on the Jiggerypipery label. Discogs.com has not heard of them. So, not looking good. There is
this review, but it's from some obscure site, and its the same one that was used to rescue them back in 2006. And that's it; I can't find anything else beyond passing mentions. They have 752 GHits, down from 1,450 GHits in 2006... ouch.
Simon Crowe was in the band, and he has an article, if that matters, which it really doesn't. There's nothing there. They do have a MySpace page.
Herostratus (
talk)
07:31, 14 April 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.
Delete no indepdent sources about him to show he passes GNG. Merely writting works is not enough to pass either the author or academic criteria, and there is no indepcation the works are impactful enough for him to pass either of those criteria.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The additions do not show indepdent coverage of Beckeld in reliable sources. They merely show he exists and writes and his works are available for purchase, this is not enough to show he is notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Sources are independent and reliable. They are. Happy Easter dear John.
Natacha Berling
I challenge you to name even one source here that is from an indepdent, reliable source that provides indepth coverage of Beckeld. I will give one example. One source is a report that Beckeld is going to give a lecture on a subject. Generally what amounts to ads disguised as news for a lecture do not show notability. Beyond this, it is published in Madison Patch, part of Patch.com, a "local and hyper local" news platform that does not meet the requirements of a reliable source as far as I can tell. This is bascially a PR piece for an upcoming lecture in an extremely local publication. This is not the stuff notability is made of. Nor are listings of his works in directories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
To answer your comment about the lecture, I did choose this humble reference among others to illustrate his volunteering experience in Namibia. I start to wonder what kind of interests you pursue in insisting on deleting this page even though there are clear evidences of the relevance of this page here. His notability is demonstrated in the various references. I could have added more, I do not think it is necessary. His work is very good and smart for what I read, and I do believe he deserves this page. I disagree with your opinion but I do respect it. Peace. Administrators will decide then. All best.
Natacha Berling
Delete. The only one of his three supposed books that is even listed by Worldcat is his Ph.D. dissertation, writing a Ph.D. dissertation does not make one notable, and there seems little else here. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
06:29, 20 April 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 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.
Non-notable primary school. Prod was redirected to school district, as per customary practice, but redirect was reverted as well. So here we are.
Onel5969TT me01:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect A completely unsourced article about an elementary school. Not only does the school appear not to be notable, the article does not even make a credible claim of its significance. The school clearly exists
http://tfes.nbed.nb.ca/ so the original redirect to the school district was the correct action and it should be restored.
Meters (
talk)
04:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - yes that is the consensus, that elementary schools, unlike secondary schools, are not notable simply by existing. Each elementary school must individually pass
WP:GNG, which this one clearly doesn't.
Onel5969TT me02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep with the addition of two news articles and a picture, the wiki now meets
WP:N guidelines, and the prior votes should be voided, or at least updated.
Spem Reduxit (
talk)
01:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
CommentTerry Fox is notable. A school is not notable because it is named for him. Adding a picture of Terry Fox to the article does nothing to address the school's lack of notability. The two sources added to the article do nothing to show notability:
Passing mention of the school in an article about the lack of required annual asbestos inspections since asbestos mitigation in 12 schools in 2004. The only mention of the school is: "There is no asbestos in the following schools: ... Terry Fox Elementary School ..." I have no objection to adding the material to the article, but it does not contribute to notability.
Terry Fox's brother visited nine schools in New Brunswick to tell Terry's story. One of the schools was Terry Fox Elementary School. This does not contribute to the school's notability.
Meters (
talk)
03:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
onel5969 and
Knox490: Would a redirect to the school district be a acceptable outcome for you? That is the usual procedure as this non notable institution may at some point be searched on Wikipedia. If you're agreeable to that, it will be easier for the closer to assess a consensus and avoid relisting. Thanks.
John from Idegon (
talk)
21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
That was my assumption of what you were trying to do. Unless there is a specific argument raised against a redirect in an AFD I figure any Delete !votes will likely be happy with reasonable redirect. Certainly I am if a good redirect is raised after I !vote delete.
Meters (
talk)
23:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I want to make some comments about a few concerning comments above:
The fact it is primary is not a reason to delete or to keep an article on a school, per the recent schooloutcomes RFC. (Yes, that's the other implication regarding SCHOOLOUTCOMES.)
No topics are presumed notable simply by existing, whether schools or otherwise, unless reliable, secondary sourcing (that is not regional in nature--ref
WP:NORG) can be found to indicate that topic's notability.
The RfC only dealt with the topic of the presumed notability of secondary schools. It did not touch how we should deal with pre-secondary educational institutions. The argument for redirect is that we have for over a decade redirected these schools as a matter of course. This is because the people who tend to be searching for these schools tend to be children, which causes two issues: First, we want to avoid the recreation of these articles via a redlink. Yes, they could do it anyway, but a redirect drastically cuts the chances of an 8 year old doing it. Second, its useful for 8 year olds to be redirected to their hometown or their school board. They are looking for something, so we give them something that is useful for the reader.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
18:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what is concerning Izno. If it was my comment about the school existing and hence deserving a redirect perhaps I was unclear. I simply meant that since it exists but is non-notable it is a viable redirect. If it were a hoax I would !vote Delete. Not sure what I would do with a non-notable former school, but that's not germane here. The only argument for keeping or deleting based on nothing but existence was by the article creator (I have now tagged it). I see no problem with the notability discussion.
Meters (
talk)
18:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The comment re "primary" was due to the nom's statement primary school; the few per-nom !votes, your elementary school reference in your !vote, subsequently John's "per Meters and longstanding practice", Spem's
WP:POINTy comment, and One's response to such. I see the conclusion of the RFC as commenting only on secondary schools now and that the previous (and current) guidance re primary schools in SCHOOLOUTCOMES (not that it should be cited--maybe that should simply be removed due to NORG/GNG) was that they already needed to meet the bar w.r.t. GNG/NORG. Consider me educated.
The comment re "existence" was due to
One's followup to Spem (that is the consensus, that elementary schools, unlike secondary schools, are not notable simply by existing), which, post-RFC is incorrect--you did not appear to pick that up Meters.
The comment re "redirect" was really just a "I don't see a need to delete since we routine merge/redirect unnotable topics to greater-relevant topics" but didn't word it like so. So don't worry about that. --
Izno (
talk)
23:37, 20 April 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 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 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.
Weak Keep - as written, this is indeed close to
WP:DICDEF. However military stockpiles are significant in operational planning, and in terms of on-going maintenance tend to be challenging where compared to civilian stockpiles (explosive ordinance needs to be kept in separate bunker well apart to avoid a chain explosion of the whole stockpile from a single accident, theft is quite a large concern). An decent encyclopedic entry on military stockpiles could be written.
Icewhiz (
talk)
11:34, 14 April 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 subject of this article does not appear to be the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken
WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate evidence of such coverage, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should significant coverage be located during the course of this discussion. Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
00:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. He is not an academic in his specialty of metaphysics so he doesn't have that advantage in terms of establishing himself as an author. I went to Amazon and none of his books were reviewed, starred, etc. I did a Google search on this person's name and the second site to come up was a Google sites web page. His social media following is very low too so in the absence of him landing a major publisher, it is going to be hard for him to establish himself as a notable author. He may be a great writer, but right now it does not appear that he is a notable writer in terms of the volume of his book sales.
Knox490 (
talk)
00:30, 14 April 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.