The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Insufficient discussion. Try renominating a few months later.  Sandstein  08:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Niccolo Milanese

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

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The article cites a lot of articles written by Milanese, but I can't find any independent sources about him. –  Joe ( talk) 10:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• It seems to me that there are several articles about Milanese at the end of the entry - from newspapers in different countries - and the organisation he has founded is well known and importante. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidberber11 ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Davidberber11: Could you clarify which? I looked through when I nominated the article and they seemed to be all a) primarily about European Alternatives, with Milanese only mentioned in passing; and/or b) not independent of Milanese. See WP:42 for a brief statement of Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. –  Joe ( talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. –  Joe ( talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

These two, for example: https://komentare.sme.sk/c/20393296/britsky-aktivista-unia-vas-mala-lepsie-privitat.html http://www.tovima.gr/world/article/?aid=435776 Davidberber11 ( talk) 07:17, 4 October 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. There is a consensus to keep the content. Renaming the page or merging it can be done outside of AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 02:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Iana Kasian

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

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

Appears to fail WP:CRIME. reddogsix ( talk) 03:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep, on the basis of this story being major news. - Mardus / talk 03:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS applies and your argument does not apply. reddogsix ( talk) 03:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The article is notable, because Kasian's death is a rare and very gruesome murder. - Mardus / talk 03:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

If that is so, please point me where in WP:N or other guidelines that it specifies that a "rare and gruesome murder" or other crime is notable. reddogsix ( talk) 03:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia:Notability: The topic has received 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. Neither is this routine news coverage. - Mardus / talk 03:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:1EVENT. reddogsix ( talk) 04:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

From there:

• if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.
• If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
• if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.

- Mardus / talk 04:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I am sorry, but, although I find sadness in the event, I do not find the murder of a model in the same league as the items you refer to. reddogsix ( talk) 04:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The topic here is not the murder, it is the person. She obviously fails WP:BLP1E, but often the article gets moved to Murder of .... In this case there is an article on her, and an article on the accused, but Wikipedia really doesn't need both. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• KEEP I made the page because 1) death by torture in North America in 2017 is always significant; 2) any modern-day scalping is significant; 3) that which captures the popular imagination has its place in popular culture. Odd how no one seems to care about the validity of the suspected perp's page... just kill the victim's page? N.B.: /info/en/?search=Torture_murder > not a very long list, is it?
• Could be merge, redirect or move? Abductive ( reasoning) 04:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep but Rename to Murder of Iana Kasian. A BEFORE convinced me - beyond the tabloid coverage, this is widely covered (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) - meeting WP:CRIME. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Clearly adequate coverage. May have to change the title per Icewhiz, though I am not a fan of the "Murder of" titling. But keep one way or the other. Definitely Montanabw ^(talk) 07:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- the article as written is WP:BIO1E; the subject was not notable before she died. I would oppose a move to "Murder of X]], as I don't see lasting significance or societal impact. The content is tabloid-like in nature. The murder is not especially significant or unique; fails WP:NCRIME. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Opining that death by scalping in the 21st Century is extremely rare, perhaps entirely unique in NA, so an inherently notable event in modern society, tabloidista aside. I saw only one other case so far this century, and the victim survived. (MA, 2005.) Death by torture in NA is also very rare. AHampton ( talk) 03:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per references. Per major news. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 09:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Sandwich Fault Zone. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

2010 Illinois earthquake

2010 Illinois earthquake (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

• Low intensity – V (Moderate)
• No injuries or deaths
• Lack of coverage from the scientific community
• Not listed on the NGDC's significant earthquake database
• Fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT

• No lasting effects
• No depth of coverage

There are slightly more notable events in Illinois, and we do have an article, but this is not one of them. This one also does not qualify to be on the list so redirecting is not an option. The USGS entry for the event tells us that it happened and that the highest reported intensity from several thousand people on the ground was V (Moderate) but nothing more. If there were damage, injuries, or deaths, related detail would be listed under the "impact" section:

• M 3.8 - 8km NW of Village of Campton Hills, Illinois – United States Geological Survey.

There is really nothing to salvage with this one. Redirecting to any article (even Sandwich Fault Zone) is not necessary. WikiProject Earthquakes has more than 170 stand alone earthquake lists. I don't see a need to be creating embedded lists in other articles. This article is about a non-event and the encyclopedia won't lose anything with it gone.

Dawnseeker2000 01:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I would redirect it to Sandwich Fault Zone. It's significant in that it is a rare occurrence in the area, and it was felt by a lot of people. Funandtrvl ( talk) 17:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Regardless of whether an occurrence is considered rare, felt (non-destructive) events are not notable and it seems a little desperate to want to write about them. Dawnseeker2000 15:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect with selective merge to Sandwich Fault Zone (consensus on 2nd AfD), partly as per WP:PRESERVE - this this minor trembler was quite widely covered at the time. Plus, possibly because it does get pageviews [7], showing that it is a useful search term. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Sandwich Fault Zone; not independently notable. Anything useful could be picked up from the article history, if desired. A simple redirect would work just as well. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:06, 5 October 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. bd2412 T 20:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Acronyms in healthcare

Acronyms in healthcare (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Originally prodded. Prod was removed. This is an indiscriminate and poorly organized list of medical industry acronyms that is 100% unsourced and of which most of the parent articles are redlinks. The list provides nothing that the parent articles cannot, and therefore is not useful. There is nothing here to explain why these subjects are notable, no reliable sources to satisfy verifiability or notability, etc. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I can't see why someone would use this to look up an acronym rather than the search function. Neither do I see people browsing this list out of interest. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 06:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep I'll do my best to furnish some references to the article. The use of acronyms in healthcare is an independently notable and referenced entity. I'll see if I can find some lists of acronyms to act as references for this list also. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 10:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - this is not really a list of acronyms (initials that spell words) simply a list of abbreviations. Vorbee ( talk) 10:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Happy to give Tom some time. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete no reliable sources cover "acronyms in healthcare" as a topic that includes this list. Perhaps a medical directory of some sort does. This fails WP:N. Also, in the intro it says "acronyms commonly used in health care" is a judgement or an opinion by the article's author, not based on reliable sources and therefore fails WP:V and the list could be construed as WP:OR. Then of course, Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information WP:Indiscriminate and it is not a directory WP:NOTDIR. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Steve Quinn we arne't a repository, but I feel this as a topic is notable. IF the list was removed (which I agree is indiscriminate per your above points) would you consider retaining the article as a stub? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Tom (LT): Yes. Based on your restructuring of this article, I now agree with retaining the article as a stub or even longer. I mean, the variations on how the safety issues come about could extend this article. In any case, I am now changing my ivote from "delete" to "keep". Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows this topic to be highly notable, with whole books devoted to healthcare and medical abbreviations: Mosby's Survival Guide to Medical Abbreviations & Acronyms, Dorland's Dictionary of Medical Acronyms and Abbreviations E-Book, Stedman's Pocket Medical Abbreviations. There are plenty of online resources, to supoort such a list, too, Tabers Medical Dictionary, Stedman's online, HANYS Healthcare Acronyms & Terms, etc. With such sources available, verifying glossary entries is a matter of editing, not wholesale deletion. WP supports glossary style articles ( MOS:GLOSSARIES) and this is one of them. If editors wanted to restrict to only abbreviations of notable topics, i.e., get rid of the red links, that would be OK, too, but it would make the glossary less useful. -- Mark viking ( talk) 00:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The MOS discusses glossaries in general, that is true. But the MOS is not a notability guideline or a Core content policy. Per WP:MOS The Manual of Style...is the style manual for all Wikipedia articles...the Manual of Style presents Wikipedia's house style. The MOS is a style guide like the MLA style manual or APA style guide. I am guessing there are instances where a glossary is used in connection to a notable topic; but there has been no demonstration this is a notable topic. The above books are not indicators of notability for this topic. The content of each above book is routine information for whatever field each book covers.

Those books are reference works and do not show how this topic is remarkable, worthy of note, has garnered commentary in reliable sources and so on per WP:N. Therefore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary - that is the function of the above books There is a sister project for that called Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a directory - that is also the function of the above books. This not an encyclopedic entry. It consists only of routine information. The Wikipedia article is essentially a mirror of any one of the above books. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 05:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Steve Quinn lots of reliable sources comment on the use of acronyms in healthcare [8], most of which are critical of it. It is an independently notable topic. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 10:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

*Delete -- The choice of which abbreviations (not acronyms) to include constitutes original research. Rhadow ( talk) 14:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• • @ Rhadow WP:OR isn't a reason to delete an article about a notable topic. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Pardon me, Tom (LT), what I should have said was WP:OR instead of references to secondary sources. Rhadow ( talk) 11:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep I changed my ivote from "delete" to "keep". The article has been rewritten and restructured by Tom (LT). It is now a prose article rather than a problematic list article. As such, there are sufficient reliable (scholarly) sources that support this topic when viewed from perspective of acronym and abbreviation incongruities, which can result in patient safety issues. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- Rhadow ( talk) 02:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Article has been significantly improved and meets all guidelines now. -- Dane ^talk 20:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian ( talk) 21:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 06:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Davilex Games

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of reliable, significant sources. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 21:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Videogameplayer99 ( talk) 19:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Tentative keep I don't speak Dutch or French but from what I can tell using GTranslate, these [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (also one in German) seem like reliable sources covering the subject in detail. Maybe someone speaking Dutch and/or French can confirm? Regards So Why 14:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Gamekings is the most prominent gaming outlet in the Netherlands, see also its wiki page. Not familiar enough with the others. I'd also like to point to the Dutch wikipedia article, which includes articles from Tweakers and the NRC Handelsblad newspaper. GameLegend ( talk) 19:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• @ Maplestrip and Soetermans, how does the Dutch coverage look? Any suggested additions to the above? czar 07:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• I had never heard of Apparata.nl and Sprout before, and these websites don't look bad, but I currently don't feel comfortable saying anything one way or another about them. Gamekings is indeed very prominent in the Netherlands, and though I don't like the outlet, it is probably considered a reliable source. The Dutch Wikipedia article is a bit odd, as we have one for the company and one for its games division. The interview on Tweakers I would consider reliable and useful, the NRC Handelsblad article would also be useful if it were still available. Either way, this should be enough sources for a keep. ~ Mable ( chat) 11:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Hi @ Czar, sorry for my late reply. I found this article be Gamer.nl, which is another Dutch language video game website. It's not in the WP:VG/RS, but from my experience it is more serious and adult-oriented than the adolescent target audience by Power Unlimited, which is listed. In the Netherlands' Alexa rankings, Power Unlimited ranks 1215, Gamer.nl ranks 1690. With the other sources, I also would vote keep. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  Gamer.nl is pretty decent. I would personally definitely prefer it over Power Unlimited if I were looking for Dutch gaming news. ~ Mable ( chat) 12:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I can't tell whether that Gamer.nl story is a repackaged press release or just a bad machine translation (if the former, then it won't be much help for independent notability) czar 17:28, 5 October 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Shafi Group

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

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep---This article was unreferenced since 2008. I just expanded the article with 5 new references and 3 external links using international magazines and newspapers. Looked hard enough to find a lot of in-depth coverage. This is a major conglomerate company of Pakistan and a leading exporter of leather goods (leather shoes, handbags, leather jackets) with major brand name clients in Europe and North America. So there was a lot of info and references there that I could use. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 18:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Disagree with the sources you added. This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited so if sources are discussing Muhammad Naseem Shafi then we should have article on him rather on his group. Greenbörg (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - coverage fails WP:GNG. I can't find any recent significant coverage in notable third party sources - it's just local trade pubs, and dated at that. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per timtempleton Fails WP:CORPDEPTH could not find significant coverage in notable third party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 12:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete. I didn't do any searching on my own (hence my weak modifier), I just looked at the references currently in the article. None of them struck me as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. I saw a couple of perfunctory directory-type listings (Bloomberg, Business Recorder), and a couple of shallow pieces in industry publications (Leather International Magazine). The Dawn reference looks like it's an incorrect URL, but in any case, the title of the referenced article doesn't sound promising. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:25, 11 October 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Devrim II

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

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

No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Better to put single line on NUST Pakistan article rather having such article. Greenbörg (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:46, 10 October 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.  Sandstein  08:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Everything's 13

Everything's 13 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not prove that the organisation meets WP:ORGDEPTH it presents the organisation as a humanitarian charity but the principal aim is to promote the sikh faith by hiring speakers and also make grants to humanitarian relief organisations. The main source sikhnet is affiliated as it promotes the organisation on its web site here Most of the article is about the founder and not the organisation. Domdeparis ( talk) 17:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete no claim of meeting GNG. As nom says, "Most of the article is about the founder and not the organisation." power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:41, 6 October 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.  Sandstein  08:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Stanley Spiro

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

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

Other than authoring an obscure textbook and having supposedly been featured in a Time article about his music, this individual is not notable. I assert that even with these, he fails notability in his fields: dentistry and music. DRosenbach ^{( Talk | Contribs)} 20:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete This article is not a notable subject for Wikipedia. Does not meet WP:Notability NerudaPoet ( talk) 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete – The subject's work as a musician, which the Time magazine article discusses, does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC in terms of significant coverage and impact. The subject's claim to notability in the fields of dentistry and anesthesiology is also rather weak. Google Scholar searches doesn't turn up anything beyond his textbook Pain and Anxiety Control in Dentistry, which, granted, is cited only by at least 5 papers. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC on that basis. Mz7 ( talk) 08:30, 11 October 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train ^talk 06:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Camille Chen

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

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

Non-notable actress. Chen has been in a lot of shows, but never in a leading or anywhere-near-leading role. Many of her roles, even the more recent ones, seem to be very minor ones, without even names ("Asian Beauty"; "Cheerleader"; "Waitress"), or in TV ads. Her most prominent role was probably her recurring role on Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, where she was part of an ensemble cast and appeared in 16 episodes; but even there, she was pretty far down the cast list.

The references are poor; there are only three. One is to a now-404 Yahoo TV directory entry; Yahoo TV was a non-selective list of actors and what they appeared in (like IMDB, writ small), and not any indication of notability. Another one is to her personal wedding registry site! The only more-or-less good source is a now-404ed page on her ( archive) from a sometimes-updated web site that seems more blog than news. [14].

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR:

• Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production? This is the closest factor. She has appeared in multiple shows, but none of the roles appear to be significant. I point out the Studio 60 appearance above, that's probably the closest one to meeting this, but even there, that's only one role, not "roles".
• Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following? No.
• Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment? No.

I actually liked her in Studio 60, as well as her one-episode role on Californication, but I don't see notability here.

I was going to PROD this, but the article's been around for more than 10 years (coinciding with her appearance on Studio 60, so I suspect greater things were expected that just never materialized), so I thought I'd make this more prominent rather than risking it just get deleted without a hearing. TJRC ( talk) 23:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete total lack of notable roles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:35, 27 September 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. Mz7 ( talk) 08:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Joe Helle

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

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

WP:BLP of a small-town (pop. 2K) mayor, not referenced to enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. As always, every mayor of every town does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists -- but four of the six references here are primary sources that cannot assist notability at all. And while the other two sources are reliable source media coverage, they aren't enough media coverage: what we require to make a mayor notable in a town this size is evidence that he's considerably more notable than the norm, by virtue of having garnered an unusual volume, depth and/or geographic breadth of coverage. And further, one of them reveals what I suspect is the real reason for this article, even though the body text doesn't explicitly say so: his candidacy in a future state legislative primary. But as always, that isn't a Wikipedia inclusion criterion either: a person has to win the seat, not just run for it, to get an article from a statehouse election. So there's just not enough substance, or enough sourcing, here to deem him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete orders of magnitude below the level of being notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Matthew Spencer (ice hockey)

Matthew Spencer (ice hockey) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG with mostly primary and WP:ROUTINE sources. Won no major individual awards, played long enough in a well covered or league, or drafted high enough to be presumed notable per WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter ( talk) 22:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: NN player fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 23:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. - DJSasso ( talk) 17:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:ATH (no significant honors etc) as well as WP:HOCKEY. Shearonink ( talk) 23:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. -- Dane ^talk 20:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:44, 10 October 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Olympia Nelson

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

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

Biography seems to exist only to draw attention to the subject having posed naked as a six year-old. Fails WP:GNG. The editor who created this article appears to have retired. Contested WP:PROD. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 21:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Snow keep -- This nomination is a clear instance of what happens when we ignore the advice of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When half a dozen cabient ministers go on record about images of someone, and the press covers the controversy, in detail, then that individual measures up to the inclusion criteria of GNG. Geo Swan ( talk) 13:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The controversy is already covered in the appropriate article. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 14:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Woah!

1. The link nominator offered did not have to be an old-fashioned uni-directional link. It would have been far more useful to have used a wikilink to Polixeni Papapetrou#Controversy. That is the article about Nelson's mother. It was Nelson's mother who published controversial photos of her, a decade ago. But Nelson was far more than a mere photographic model.
2. Nelson is still quite young. Nevertheless professional editors decided she could write authoritative comments on the controversial topic of the online shaming of girls and young women. I am sorry, but I don't think there is any question that this is a strong notability factor. Further, I don't think there is any question that it makes no more sense to shoehorn coverage of young adult Olympia Nelson's publicatons into her mother's article than it would make to shoehorn the article on Stella McCartney into the article on her father, Paul McCartney, or the article on Adam Cohen into the article on his father, Leonard Cohen.
3. Nominator says that Polixeni Papapetrou#Controversy already covers everything notable about Nelson. Okay. This is just a single paragraph. Not only does it leave out all coverage of Nelson's notable recent views, it only briefly mentions one of the politicians who offered notable comment on the original photos, where the existing article on Nelson cover the notable comments of four cabinet members.

   This make nominator's assertion that only one paragraph of coverage is "appropriate" essentially a radical informationectomy.

   Nominator, could you please return here, and see if you can explain why the single paragraph in the article on Nelson's mother is the "appropriate" amount of coverage of Nelson? 23:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Geo Swan ( talk)

• Lack of effective compliance with WP:BEFORE In 2013, when Nelson was in grade eleven, the editors at the Sydney Morning Herald, a leading Australian newspaper, published an article Nelson wrote, entitled: "Dark undercurrents of teenage girls' selfies: Pouty self portraits have turned boy-girl relations into a cut-throat sexual rat race". The article says this op-ed was widely republished. What it doesn't say, but should say, is that scholars who were looking for articulate young women who commented on the pouty selfie craze, quoted her, cited her, summarized her.

  Nominator claimed the article should be deleted because it "seems to exist only to draw attention to the subject having posed naked as a six year-old." Well, heck, the influential 2013 Sydney Morning Herald article doesn't even mention that she ever posed naked. A nominator who complied with Before would know this. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Retired contributors? The nomination reports: "The editor who created this article appears to have retired..." Clarification please - is our nominator arguing the article should be deleted because the article creator is no longer around?

  If so, I direct their attention to WP:OWN. Once they click "save changes" the indiviudal who started an article was no more authority over it, and no more responsibility for it, , than any other member of the wikipedia. Geo Swan ( talk) 01:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Geo Swan, I provided a link to where the controversy is covered in the photographer's article (which is the appropriate place for that information). I did not say that the section could not or should not be expanded or that its current size is appropriate. I did not say that the article should be deleted because the creator of the article has retired. I was noting their retirement in case someone felt that an editor who creates an article about six year old nude models need to be looked into more closely. I only noticed this article at all because it used as a source the personal blog of a creepy Australian fucker obsessed with naked children. I have no comment on the Sydney Morning Herald article because, well, heck, the link does not work for me. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 03:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment above refers to "the controversy". But I already pointed out to WLC that Nelson was at the center to two completely separate debates: (1) the morality of publishing naked photos of children, even if the parents were the photographer, and published the images in an art magazine; (2) the phenomenon of girls only a few years past puberty, publishing alarmingly sexualized self-portraits. The second debate took place five years after the first, and HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH NELSON's MOTHER.
• World's Lamest Critic writes: "I only noticed this article at all because it used as a source the personal blog of a creepy Australian fucker obsessed with naked children."

  Woah!

  Are you really saying the real reason you nominated the article for deletion was so a creepy paedophile couldn't cite it in his creepy blog?

  Isn't that a clear lapse from WP:NOTCENSORED? We don't delete neutrally written, properly referenced material, because our emotions are engaged in an off-wiki debate. Are you saying you were first triggered to delete the article so a creepy paedophile couldn't cite the wikipedia? That is what it sounds like you meant.

  Here are some other choices, when one finds a creepy paedophile, or white supremacist commenting on the wikipedia:

1. Sigh, walk away;
2. Check the wikipedia article, confirm it is neutrally written, and properly referenced.
3. if good faith contributors accidentally included passages that they didn't realize would seem salacious to a paedophile, rewrite them, or simply remove them, explaining why on the talk page.
4. You should only have considered deletion if you made a reasonable good faith attempt to independently confirm that the topic of the article measured up to our inclusion criteria, and you then concluded the topic of the article did not measure up to our criteria.

• I am sorry to say the record strongly suggests you either made an inadequate effort to measure Nelson's notability, or that you looked no farther than the paedophile's blog page. You placed a {{ prod}} on this article on September 27, asserting, " Biography seems to exist only to draw attention to the subject having posed naked as a six year-old. Fails WP:GNG..." The contributor who removed the prod wrote: "rv a prod that's clearly untrue. The article makes two claims to WP:N. They may be valid or not, but please don't insult other editors as being unable to count." I think they were correct, there were two claims to notability, not one as you claimed. Yet, the AFD you initiated five hours later uses the exact same wording as your prod.

  Surely you can see how this strongly suggests that, not only did you fail to read the article closely enough to recognize that the article does contain TWO claims to notability, it also looks like you couldn't even make the effort to read the explanation for removing the prod, and give it some consideration, prior to initiating the AFD.

• I too found something to do with the wikipedia on an alarming blog. Formerly there was a sockpuppet master who was able to talk the rest of us into entrusting him with administrator authority -- twice, using two different sockpuppets. I read that he hung out on some particular white-supremicist hate sites, and I googled those sites, searching for wikipedia. I did not find the wikipedia-trashing comments I had read he had made. I did find a white supremist denouncing the wikipedia, because it didn't even have an article on Andrea Amati, who he characterized as the inventor of the violin.

  So, I was in situation somewhat similar to you, and your ppaedophile. I did something positive however. I started an article on Amati. Geo Swan ( talk) 17:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete A few things here, one Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper, two a republished op-ed is NOT evidence of significant coverage and three she is only notable for ONE EVENT. Also if editors could please refrain from creating multiple headings as it makes it hard to follow any discussion. CommotioCerebri ( talk) 11:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing administrator CommotioCerebri is wikihounding me. Over 75 percent of their edits are either reversions of my edits, or are otherwise about my contributions. This comment is not a policy compliant not-vote, but is an act of harrasment, and should be totally discounted. For the record, NELSON could hardly be a one event individual, when the extensive coverage she earned in 2013 nad NOTHING to do with the controversy of 2008. Geo Swan ( talk) 13:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Geo Swan, you appear to have chosen to participate in this discussion immediately after our unpleasant interaction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sana Dua. After I asked you on your talk page to back off, you started badgering me here. I am sorry to hear that you feel another editor is harassing you. Maybe you should stop harassing other editors. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 15:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Trim and merge and redirect It was her mother's controversy, not hers, so merge the further information in this article into the mother's article and redirect to there, and trim off all the other not (yet) notable stuff. Subject is a single event, and not yet notable in her own right. TOOSOON for her own article. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Aoziwe, excuse me? In 2013 hse was the subject of multiple' television and radio interviews. She was profiled, multiple times. This coverage had absolutely nothing to do with her mother. So, why are you saying coverage of her should be redirected to an article on her mother?

    How closely did you look at the article? Did you perform your own web search? I am sure if you spent a minute with google you would find the coverage of Nelson in 2013, which is not focussed on the controversy in 2008, is very significant, would probably have been enough to establish notability, all by itself, even if she hadn't been at the center of a controversy in 2008.

    The article needs work. I only started working on it yesterday. I added a link to a page where the Australian Broadcasting Corporation published about the segment of a public affairs show profiling Nelson. The article on the program quoted some of the notable people who they sought out for opinions on Nelson. The 2013 video link has expired, but the article about the show seemed to me to imply the entire show was devoted to Nelson. So, when a television network devoted considerable airtime, maybe an entire episode, to Nelson, can you explain why that coverage does not establish notability? If you do that web search you will see that the ABC coverage was not the only TV and radio coverage of her.

    Yes, ideally, the article itself should have linked to the other TV and radio coverage of her from 2013 -- her second bout of notability that had nothing to do with her mother's photos. But, please remember, our deletion policy tells us we don't delete articles that are weak, when the underlying topic is notable. Our deletion policies tell us that weak articles on notable topics are supposed to be flagged for improvement, and improved. Geo Swan ( talk) 13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The facts of the matter are these: "Encouraged by her parents, she sent an essay on the subject to The Age newspaper in Melbourne". The publication of that essay in The Age (and sister newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald) amounts to something closer to a letter to the editor than an op-ed. Yes, it garnered a bit of attention at the time because she was a 16 year old critiquing the behavior of her peers. That's it. It may become noteworthy if Olympia Nelson goes on to something notable in the future, but to prop it up with breathless claims that "the article about the show seemed to me to imply the entire show was devoted to Nelson" shows a complete lack of perspective about this article. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 15:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• World's Lamest Critc, I am not "hassling you" now, when I say I think this comment shows you STILL haven't made the effort to comply with BEFORE, and conduct a thorough web search. You dismiss her op-ed as something that should have been publishished as a letter to the editor.

  I simply can't believe you could have written this if you had seen how widely cited it was, how many adults made comments like: "Reading the incredibly eloquent op-ed of teenager Olympia Nelson last week, it struck me how much the sexual expression of teenagers has shifted in a relatively short time.". In a previous AFD discussion you wrote something seriously off, in response to an explanation, from me, that you and I are not reliable sources, and that we rely on the professional judgment of professional journalists and editors, not the personal opinions and judgements of wikipedia contributory.

  Your response then was that I didn't know you weren't a professional journalist, in real life. Similarly, here you are asking the rest of us to ignore the judgement of The Age's editors, and discount the notability of the essay, based on YOUR JUDGEMENT that it should have been a letter to the editor. I wouldn't care if you claimed you were secretly a Pullitzer Prize winning journalist. So long as you are participating here, where you could be anyone, your judgements count for nothing, same as the rest of us. Every day a professional journalist is on the job, their judgement calls affect their careers. They are potentially one bad decision away from never working in journalism again, or not getting that next desirable job. But, even if I knew you were a professional journalist, that would not tempt me to invest your opinions with the respect we give reliable sources.

  As you should know, the wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedians who would be RS, if published elsewhere, can't publish a new idea here. They have to publish that new idea somewhere else, and trust that another wikipedia contributor will see fit to summarize it here, if it is going to appear here.

  Second, even if I knew you were a professional journalist, you could hate some of the restrictions of your job, and want to do all kinds of things your day job as a professional journalist wouldn't let you do. For instance, you wrote above that you first came across the wikipedia article when it was on the blog of a creepy paedophile. Practically everyone hates genuine paedophiles. There must be some professional journalists who hate having to cover stories related to paedophilia; hate covering them when the paedophile is at large, hate covering their arrests, trials, sentencing, imprisonment or release; and hate covering anything to do with their victims. A professional journalist might come to the wikipedia precisely to get away from things like covering creepy paedophiles.

  In fact, she originally did submit a shorter version as a letter to the editor, and the editors chose to encourage her to expand it into the first of several op-eds. Does getting an op-ed published in a major paper convey notability? I say the answer is yes. Does it convey more notability if you are still in grade eleven? I say yes. Er, I missed this at first -- her dad works at The Age, which erodes some of the notability of her being published there. But they still have an obligation to only consider publishing op-eds from the teen-age children of employees when their work meets their professional standards.

  The main notability of her essay on selfies is from how widely cited it is. Her other essays did not capture the attention of other RS, and they didn't write about her, so they convey much less notability.

  There are all conclusions you would have arrived at yourself, if you had properly complied with BEFORE.

As to whether the entire 2013-09-23 episode of Australian Story was devoted to Nelson -- look here, I believe it establishes the entire episode was focused around Nelson. It sez: "Melbourne schoolgirl Olympia Nelson is only sixteen, but she's no stranger to controversy. She's grown up in an unusual but talented household as the daughter of an art critic and acclaimed photographer Poli Papapetrou. Olympia and her mother have had a long creative partnership. But in 2008 an unclothed photograph of Olympia aged six generated national controversy when it appeared on the cover of the magazine 'Art Monthly'. Even the Prime Minister bought in. Now Olympia has weighed in from an unexpected direction by publicly challenging the popularity of 'selfies' – often explicit self portraits posted on social media. Her robust analysis of the selfie trend and issues around girls, sexual expression and self image was published by The Age Newspaper, setting off a new debate... "

Geo Swan ( talk) 17:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete this is a whole lot of puffed-up nothingburger. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing administrator: Geo Swan is pushing to keep this so hard and has made many walls-of-text posts both here and on my talk page., I suspect he has a conflict of interest. Note [15]. This is all trivial coverage of a minor, puffed up so it doesn't meet a surface reading of WP:BLP1E. It should be deleted. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 14:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• I think you've mistaken AfD for ANI. If you have a complaint against another editor, because you think they have some sort of undeclared COI, then that's the place to voice it, not here. If you're here, then don't make snide, unanswerable digs at another editor - stick to discussing this article. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• I have amended my remarks, hopefully to your satisfaction. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Administrators know they are not supposed to just count noses, that they are supposed to evaluate the arguments offered, and they are authorized to completely ignore comments that are not based on a wikidocument or long established convention. Yes, as a courtesy to you, I left you a note on Talk:Power~enwiki, requesting you to step up your game. I could have addressed the same concerns about your initial lack of an reference to wikipedia policy to the closing administrator.
• You did come back, and expand your initial comment with one tidbit of policy-based justification -- BLP1E. Please regard my thanks for this gesture as proportional to the effort you put into fulfilling your obligations.

  Sadly, BLP1E is clearly inapplicable. BLP1E applies to individuals known only for a single event, while Nelson is known for multiple events. Nelson is known for the very widely cited op-ed published in 2013; she is known for the images of her naked her mom published in an art magazine; she is known for going on record and defending her mother's decision in answer to criticisms from the Australian Prime Minister, which I would count as a third event. When her op-ed was published, in 2013, The Age did not even mention the images published in 2008. She didn't mention it either. These were very, very clearly separate events.

• With regard to conflict of interest, I don't even live in Australia, and had never heard of Nelson, before I encountered this AFD. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Call to relist, although I am the only keep, so far.
  • Nominator does not seem to have made any edffort to comply with BEFORE, and seems to have acknowledged that he or she decided to try an delete the article because he found a creepy person was linking to it. Nominating something for deletion, without actually reading it, just so a creepy person, off-wiki, can't link to it, sounds like a clear lapse from NOTCENSORED.
  • Power~enwiki's BLP1E assertion strongly suggests they didn't read the article, as Nelson has two events, separatted by five years, that have nothing to do with one another.
  • CommotioCerebri edit history shows this wiki-ID was created solely to impede my work, so their delete should be discounted.
  • Aoziwe's merge also seems to be written by someone who didn't read the whole article. Only one of the two major sources of Nelson's notability has anything to do with her mother, so a redirection to her mother's article just doesn't make sense.
  • Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 18:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Geo Swan, you have completely misunderstood and/or misrepresented the situation. One reference used in the article was the personal website of some creepy Australian fucker who is evidently obsessed with naked children. It was this use of that site as a reference that caused me to look at this article in the first place. I do not know who might be linking to this Wikipedia article off-site and I am completely unconcerned by it. That is not why I nominated the article for deletion. Please read more carefully. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 23:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Geo Swan. I have reread the article, now a third time. I had also done my own searches. Over all I think it is TOOSOON for the subject to have their own article. I suggest one more "event", or one more significant "follow up", would put her over the line. The "op-ed" material is certainly notable in an article on that subject, but two events, both of which seem to have been covered for the either voyeuristic content or sensational content do not seem to add up to ongoing notability at this time. I did not get back to your earlier comment because I do not see the point in getting into debates for which there might not be any common ground to build a consensus upon. Yes the person does seem to have potential and I would hope it eventuates, but not an article just yet. The redirect is to cover the first event, which is really related to the mother. The second is a single event for the subject at hand, not yet having ongoing notability for that person. Regards. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for taking additional efforts to review the references for this topic.

I think you are mistaken to focus on events. It is not events that make topics wikipedia notable, it is coverage in reliable sources.

For instance, a soldier might commit an extraordinarily brave act, or an extraordinarily perfidious act – which didn't receive any RS coverage, or received only brief mention, in his or her local paper. It wouldn't matter how extraordinary wikipedia contributors found his or her act, if we couldn't use RS to verify the event.

But, if a well respected columnist picked his or her story up, years later, and their coverage of it got other reporters to cover it, that individual would then meet the criteria for notability, without any new events.

Our nominator discounted the notability of Nelson's widely cited essay on risque selfies, saying it was something that should have been a letter to the editor – while not acknowledging how many other writers reported their reactions to her essay, and how many scholars grabbed at a chance to quote an actual teenager, an intelligent and articulate teenager, say interesting things about risque selfies. It is not my personal opinion that the essay was interesting and significant that makes Nelson notable. Rather it is the documentable impact it had, as proven by all the RS who cited her, quoted her, or paraphrased her.

I'd also like to ask you about the 2013-09-23 episode of Australian Story – she got an entire episode of a long running documentary show, that broadcasts in prime time. Did a million of people watch it? Or mere hundreds of thousands? Other media profiled her. She appeared on other television shows, and radio shows, for interviews. Are you sure you don't recognize this establishing her notability?

Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 13:47, 10 October 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, per clear consensus. bd2412 T 20:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

J.M. Frey

J.M. Frey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has been tagged for multiple problems since 2012 and it seems time for the community to weigh-in. In summary, it is a CV, full of OR, and has no real RS. The ref list consists of FaceBook fanpages, press releases, promo from her publisher, etc. The only independent source is a review of one of her books in Publishers Weekly, but that is pretty weak, since this is a trade publication that reviews around 10,000 books per year (much of what is published). The article for this book, Triptych, has many of the same PROMO problems. Finally, it was written by a SPA whose 1st edit was creating this article. Agricola44 ( talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep I cleaned up the article a little. Her writing has been reviewed in RS, but I would like to see more coverage of her. Squeaks by for CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 16:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Notable author whose works have been covered by places such as Publisher's Weekly. She meets all WP guidelines for authors.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 01:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Would it be possible to state what other factors you believe render her notable?...because coverage by Publisher's Weekly isn't one of them. To repeat what's in the AfD statement, PW is a trade pub that reviews around 10,000 books per year, i.e. a large fraction of the world's books that are published. Agricola44 ( talk) 05:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Agricola44 PW doesn't review EVERY book or even a large fraction of the world's books. The United States alone, in 2013, published 304,912 books. If we add other English speaking countries like UK, Australia, NZ and Canada, that bumps it up to 540,646. In addition, PW does review books in Spanish, which would bump up the number to 620,177 if we include Spain, Argentina and Mexico. 10,000 books is a lot of books to be reviewed, but they are hardly reviewing a large fraction of the " world's books." Therefore, getting critical attention for her writing shows she passes CREATIVE because PW has to decide which books to review out of this huge pool of books. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't want to get into snobbery here and I know you work at a library, but 300K or 500K or whatever number we pick as the "total" is misleading. What I referred to was "serious books" (for complete lack of a better term) and I think it is fair to say that 10,000 is a large fraction of the serious books that are published per year. I would assume, though I have not checked, that your figure of 300K includes, for example the gajillions of ISBN'd coloring / children's / craft / hobby / knitting / etc books published every year, the mega-gajillions of ISBN'd vanity books ( Bowker assigned ~700K ISBNs to self-publishers in 2015), ISBN'd "for dummies" books, ISBN'd "how to" books, self-improvement and amateur psychology books, etc. etc. I'm sure some of these are reviewed in PW too, but I think "review" is taken here to mean a selective review in a topic-specific publication, not a trade review in a publication that only does reviews. We clearly disagree, but I would just point out that one of the ramifications of your argument is that, if what you say is true, then we have 10,000 articles on notable authors we should be creating every year. Agricola44 ( talk) 20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Coverage by Publisher's Weekly absolutely is an indicator of an author's notability. The magazine is a highly respected source of reviews and coverage of the publishing world. Next thing you'll be arguing that coverage in the New York Times isn't an indicator of a subject's notability b/c the NYTimes covers 1000s of people each year.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 00:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but that's a very misrepresentative argument. PW's very purpose is very focused: trade review of current books. It is relatively non-selective in what appears there (10,000 reviews/year) and it is targeted to a relatively small segment of society: those in the "book business". Most people outside this small world have never heard of it. Conversely, NYT is a mainstream news source, arguably among the half-dozen most important news sources in the entire world, covering "everything" and read by hundreds of millions of people daily...and, as such, is extremely selective. And I agree with your second point. For example, anyone sufficiently notable to have an obit or review in the NYT is sufficiently notable for WP (with the converse being obviously not true). In the end, Frey's notability claim seems to rest mainly on a single obscure work that was reviewed as a matter of routine course in a trade publication. For reference, I'm currently in a slugfest arguing "keep" over at Cassie Jaye AfD, where I maintain the opposite is true. Like Frey, notability seems to hinge mainly on one work, but unlike Frey, this work has been the subject of many reviews in mainstream, i.e. selective news sources. I think I've said about all there is to say. Best wishes, Agricola44 ( talk) 06:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep the article needs significant cleanup. However, there's enough to meet notability, and I see no other reason for deletion. 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Power~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 20:08, 7 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 02:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Singer 2018

Singer 2018 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:CRYSTAL, fails WP:GNG and WP:RS The Banner  talk 21:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

There is a reliable sources. And these programme will record on December of 2017. 特克斯特 ( talk) 07:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Reliable sources should also be independent sources, not sources provided by Facebook or the production company/future broadcaster. The Banner  talk 16:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ The Banner:@ Boing! said Zebedee:These are the reliable sources. Singer 2018 and Singer 2018(2). The director and the news said it will broadcast and it had already in preparation since June. 特克斯特 ( talk) 17:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

No independent, reliable sourcing. The Banner  talk 14:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

not sources provided by Facebook or the production company/future broadcaster You see again, it these sources provide by Facebook or the production company/future broadcaster? 特克斯特 ( talk) 15:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Your own source (through Google Translation):"Singer" director Hong Tao interview: the second quarter has been in preparation and Recently, the "singer" director Hong Tao in Hunan Satellite TV news network interview, said "Singer 2" has been in preparation.. So no independent source, as that director is clearly involved in the program. Please, read WP:RS. The Banner  talk 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

You mean that the director cannot involved in the program? If he is not involved in the program, then it is not a reliable sources. And this news Sina have reported to the audience it will held it.(I have given the link) 特克斯特 ( talk) 16:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

No, the interview with the director (or any other employee involved in the program) is not an independent source and because of that not a source conform WP:RS. The Banner  talk 18:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

If in your says, Singer2017 this page also should be deleted? The sources also involed the employees. 特克斯特 ( talk) 04:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

keep just an other fanatic deletion mission from The Banner 178.197.231.36 ( talk) 14:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16 The Banner  talk 19:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:TOOSOON it's not too soon to have this article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - There are enough sources and notability for the article. -- Dane ^talk 20:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I still think that it should be kept, many Chinese mainland people are attention in this TV program. The notability is enough for this program 特克斯特 ( talk) 10:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 07:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment If WP:TOOSOON is a concern this article can be moved to draft for a few months, but eventually it will be moved back to mainspace. The previous 5 seasons have been huge in China and to some extent throughout East/Southeast Asia especially in the Sinophone world. Timmyshin ( talk) 12:10, 10 October 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 speedy delete. self-sourced promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Dr. Rachel Thomas

Dr. Rachel Thomas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Obviously an entrepreneurial person, but does not appear to have independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP requirements. The promotional piece on the University of Sydney website doesn't count. Boneymau ( talk) 20:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Boneymau ( talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Boneymau ( talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau ( talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as PROMO. She has 2 pop-med books but they're not widely held, according to WorldCat. Sources are completely inadequate in that they're all related to her. Agricola44 ( talk) 02:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

James Aiono

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Passes GNG. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] From nl.newsbank.com, "Aiono happy to be with Utes", "Snow College's Aiono won't join Utes until '10", "Murray D-lineman committed to Utes". WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 21:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep First team all-American (even for junior college) seems to me to be an easy pass.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete junior college accomplishment is not a sign of notability. The college notability of athletes rules are meant to exclude indiscriminate inclusion of college athletes. Aiono does not meet football notability requirements, which are abysmally low. He is not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep since passing the GNG. gidonb ( talk) 00:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per GNG, although the junior college achievement does not demonstrate notability IMO. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes WP:GNG per the above sources. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Vivek Velankar

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

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

Ther eferences merely mention him as one of the people involved in information issues. There's no substantial coverage DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does not pass the notability standards for Wikipedia. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 22:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. He is a Right to Information activist in India now there are thousands of RTI activists he is just one of them and neither is his organisation notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 15:31, 10 October 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 - This is almost perfectly split 50/50 for keep vs redirect. As per the comment at the bottom, best to close this as snow close, no consensus and revisit later if needed and not to belabor this for a full week. Summary: both 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting and Stephen Paddock will be standalone articles for now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Stephen Paddock

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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

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

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

This is the biography for the suspect in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. An attempt was made to redirect to the main article on the event, was reverted, and so here we are. It's not quite an AfD, but it's not quite a merger, since the section on the individual in the main article is probably of equal or higher quality, and it's not clear that anything substantial in particular would need to be merged. Subject does not appear to be notable for anything other than this single event. GMG ^talk 19:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per WP:Notability-- Metalhead309 ( talk)

I don't believe this falls under those grounds. He is only notable for this event, as WP:1E states is not viable for an article. 404House ( talk) 20:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Quoting WP:1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Da_Metalhead309 ( talk) 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Significant yes, but highly significant? On par with Lee Harvey Oswald or John Wilkes Booth? Unlikely. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defeedme ( talk • contribs) reply

On par with Nidal Hasan perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - There is nothing of significance or interest in this persons life up until he committed mass murder. I see no reason to have a page dedicated to him, other than for glorification of his memory. Yevad ( talk) 09:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, depending on its size, or keep the article, but do not delete the history. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 20:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting per WP:1E; most of the biographical information is already there. Yoninah ( talk) 20:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, this is a bit redundant looking back on it now, and I was the one who did the undo whilst not logged in. Woops. 404House ( talk) 20:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect – Since he isn’t known for anything else, basically we have two articles about the same event. Objective3000 ( talk) 20:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect – WP:1EVENT. Since he died, there will be no trial or other content to cover in an encyclopedic way. Neutrality ^talk 20:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per WP:BIO1E as everyone else suggests. ansh 666 20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedily Redirect per WP:BIO1E. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect and move content to Draft:Stephen Paddock. Paddock will likely gain more notability in the future, per most other perpetrators of mass-shootings of this scale, but that time is not yet. -- Lewis Hulbert ( talk) 20:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:NOTABILITY KingAntenor ( talk) 20:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Would you prefer not to have Paddock's bio in Wikipedia? It's sort of like having an article on World War II, and not having an article on Hitler because he has already been covered elsewhere. And ... no photo of course per Wikipedia:Non-free content. This entry was researched and created roughly at the same time as the expansion of section "Perpetrator" in the article 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. Please look at timestamps. And, here's what WP:1E says: In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Poeticbent talk 20:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

His bio is already, word for word, in the article about the shooting. This is just a short WP:content fork. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Please look again. These two entries are not at all similar. The biography article is a calmly-told and concise account of Paddok's life. Meanwhile, his description in the parent article is mostly about his life in connection to the crime committed by him. Poeticbent talk 15:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hitler would have been notable as a politician without WWII; Paddock has no notability outside of the Las Vegas shooting. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 19:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The event is unfortunately significant, this individual's role is significant, and given his wealth, his defense contractor ties, his bank robbing father ... there is going to be a lot of biography. Some of it will be of considerable political significance, and frankly, if pundits rush to use this as an excuse for gun laws, then the public will be well served by seeing how immune the shooter would have been to them by virtue of having the money and connections to get any license he asked for. We have more than enough now to have a separate article - because otherwise, we overwhelm the article about the shootings with this personal information, which as it strays into biographical detail produces some unwelcome associations people will be complaining about. Wnt ( talk) 20:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

This is exactly what I meant. Please note that 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting#Perpetrator is already completely out of proportion to the significance of the event itself, and the number of victims. Poeticbent talk 20:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. While WP:WI1E, it states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". The same way we have an article both for the Virginia_Tech_shooting and for Seung-Hui_Cho, we should follow that standard here. -- Rockstone talk to me! 21:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect, best speedy. There is nothing at this time to take this past the 1E event. There is nothing to say that if down the road it becomes apparent that there is more, it can be forked at that time. It's worth mentioning that most of the keep arguments seem to point to the event, not the man, or are just red herring comparisons to Hitler. Wouldn't it be better to concentrate our efforts on one article now, and move content later if it becomes more appropriate. At this point, every detail we know about this fella is pertanant to the crime and could be covered there just as well as here. The test IMO is there any reason we'd be talking about this fella if he hadn't gone postal? John from Idegon ( talk) 21:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The operative word here is "media coverage". Please note, the entire 4th paragraph in section Perpetrator of the parent article contains information of no relevancy to the actual shooting and should be moved here as a whole because of it. Poeticbent talk 21:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - Agreed, the individual in question was not really notable enough to be considered distinct from the event that resulted in his demise. - Wiz9999 ( talk) 21:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per WP:BIO1E as everyone else suggests. Whiteguru ( talk) 21:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect, since the shooter is dead, no further analyses in secondary sources regarding his trial etc., will be possible. Since Wikipedia articles require such analysis, and presently what little " analysis" there is is entirely related to his motive, the shooting article is the place for this. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, since the event and the individual are both notable, just like how there is an article for both the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and Omar Mateen 86WikiEditor ( talk) 21:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• definitely redirect On first thought, the article should be a keep in a real encyclopedia but Wikipedia is very specific that they don't want bios of killers or murder victims (instead having a "Murder of Joe Smith" articles instead of "Joe Smith"). AGrandeFan ( talk) 21:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• keep, because of historical significance- most shooting terrorist act in USA, there is going to be a lot of biography, because of Sourse For NOT FINISHED investigation, because of source for foreigner Wikipedias, because of RESPECT for 100 thousand Americans- simple people,family members and friends of victims ,that NEED this perfectly Wikipedia information.Please, Please! -- Zasdcxz ( talk) 23:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete (or Redirect, whatever) Notable for one event, and the event article suffices. If it gets too long, trim extra wordiness and pointless trivia. We're not meant to include everything we can Google. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect The entry for the incident can handle the biographical info easily enough. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 22:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. WP:BIO1E states that "the general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." Beeteegee ( talk) 22:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, per Abductive's reasoning. A classic case of WP:BIO1E. As the shooter here is deceased, there will be no more coverage of him outside of the one event he's notable for. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 22:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect If coverage in the future shows a need for this to be a separate article, it can be branched back out. But for now, things are best off having this redirect back to the shooting article where most of the information is. Gatemansgc ( talk) 22:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting per WP:1E; most of the biographical information is already there. Television fan ( talk) 22:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The event is so notable that we should have a separate page about the perpetrator. This page already passes WP:GNG, but we still do not know the most important thing: why he did it? Obviously, there was a reason, and investigators will find it. Then there will be even more content for the page. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep; sure he is notable for one event, but analysis of every moment of this guys life is being made in the media currently and will be ongoing for years to come (i.e. there is a 0% chance that he does not meet WP:SUSTAINED). See Omar Mateen for a recent example. Books will be written about this guy, there is no chance that he isn't a long term notable figure (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald is also notable for one event, should we delete his article?). Redirect voters here are focusing too much on WP:BIO1E and WP:RECENTISM and ignoring the forest for the trees. WP:BIO1E says: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 22:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect The more that's developing, there's less and less to be said about the subject. Better to wait until there's enough content to justify a stand-alone. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep I'm afraid Paddock is notable for a separate article. No one in this discussion has mentioned Charles Whitman, the notorious " Texas Tower sniper". I recall he was known solely for mass murder, yet he has a well-written biography. WP:RECENTISM prevails in this case. Ever Crumbling ( talk) 23:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, this is good example, and I am looking at this part. He had psychiatric problems, had cancer and was on drugs. I hope the investigators are doing all necessary forensics this time. So far, I did not see anything of this nature about Stephen Paddock in RS. My very best wishes ( talk) 00:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I have seen some comments along these lines. And, in my mind, it is a good reason why this article should be removed until we know what the Hell is going on. Objective3000 ( talk) 00:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Objective3000: I agree but have the opposite conclusion. Having an article is important to see if it's possible to construct an interesting narrative based on the RS available. It's worth letting the community have a go at it as the investigation continues. If nothing comes up, the the argument for deletion is obvious (e.g. no notable motive in X number of days or weeks or months or whatever) deleting per 'one event' guidelines." - Scarpy ( talk) 17:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete clearly falls into one event, arguments about more information will follow will only just fill the article with non-noteworthy trivia, all it needs is a bit in the main article related to the event. MilborneOne ( talk) 23:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect by now. Notable for only one event does not appear to have an article for himself. Carlosguitar  ^{(Yes Executor?)} 00:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per clear WP:1E. This shouldn't even deserve a discussion. Kaldari ( talk) 00:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Insertcleverphrasehere. WP:BIO1E is an important guideline but it does include conditions which have been met to gain this split off article. The very reason that he is an unknown is why investigators are looking so deeply into this person. I also want to add for what its worth is that he is the son of a bank robber who escaped obtaining a place on the FBI's most wanted list. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect obviously per WP:1EVENT not really sure why this is even debated. -- CosmicAdventure ( talk) 01:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Please remember WP:NOTAVOTE, if you cant explain why the policy applies here towards redirecting then your argument doesn't hold water. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:1E stands on it's own pretty well. It's not like this guy was a famous gambler. Come on. -- CosmicAdventure ( talk) 20:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - per one event. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Snow Keep - although known from only one event, the event is very noteworthy as the most deadly mass shooting in US history which makes him very notable. Snow Keep. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 01:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Defenitely Keep-This is a very important article that sums up what little information we have on the killer. I think it should stay because the rule is that the article has to be about something notable, but not how many notable things, or specifics of what they have to be notable FOR.

But if it matters that much, I suggest moving this entire article to the article about the shooting, adding it as a section, similar to the page, 2014 Isla Vista killings. As you can see, Eliott Rodger's bio is mixed with the attack. I think if an agreement cant be reached, we try that.- K-popguardian ( talk) 01:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep The perpetrator of the worst mass shooting in US history is clearly notable. Even WP:BLP1E says we can and should have an article on such a person if the event is significant and the person's role is substantial and well-documented. The worst mass shooting in US history would definitely qualify as a significant event, and Paddock's role is clearly substantial and well-documented. Smartyllama ( talk) 02:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep Paddock is responsible for the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. I think he is notable enough for his own article and the article also touches on some personal info. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 02:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - Saw this coming. Yet another case for why we need to enforce WP:NOTNEWS swiftly and effectively. This is a content fork that has BLP issues (yes this can extend to recently deceased people) and he is known for one, unfortunate incident. Perhaps in the future, when his motives and state of mind can be analyzed -- by secondary sources, not news reports -- then he may have a claim for notability as an important case study. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 03:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per WP:BIO1E and WP:1EVENT. Not to mention, a subject article just opens up the floodgates for ongoing media speculation posing as content. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 03:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - textbook WP:BLP1E Tazerdadog ( talk) 03:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep this is good, reliably sourced information that people want to read. Much of it would be out of place in the article about the shooting. Antrocent ( ♫♬) 04:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. I vehemently oppose any redirect or deletion attempts. Paddock is (at this moment) the worst mass murderer in American history, so he's clearly notable. There is far too much necessary information to accurately portray Paddock in the overall 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting page. MAINEiac4434 ( talk) 04:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep I suppose. I would hate to lose any of the information and putting all this in the article about the shooting would be awkward. We really ought to review this in a year or so. ''Paul, in Saudi'' ( talk) 04:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete & Redirect per BLP1E. Also news stories about current events are primary sources, and the GNG prefers secondary sources to demonstrate notability. On a basic level 'US gunman kills lots of people' is not at this point in time a notable act, and mass-shootings are common. There is a related discussion at the village pump on the applicability of NOTNEWS as well. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Citing BLP1E is invalid as this is clearly a highly significant event as it's the biggest mass shooting in US history, which the commonality of mass shootings only adds to the high significance. Per precedence with Omar Mateen, knee jerk deletion reactions doesn't overrule history, even bad history. GuzzyG ( talk) 08:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

That is an argument why the *event* is notable not the person. Which is what people are suggesting the biography is redirected to. Of course its not actually a notable event just because more people are killed, as mass shootings are common in the US, it would be a notable event if it led to some change in the gun control laws for example. Secondly it is a current event, not 'history'. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep He is responsible for what is now the deadliest mass shooting in American history, and if other perpetrators of notable shootings such as Dylann Roof, Nidal Hasan, and Omar Mateen have their own articles, I see no reason for Paddock not to have his own either.-- RM ( Be my friend) 08:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep We're likely to know more about him over a time and a separate article makes sense. Laurent ( talk) 08:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Just like the other biggest mass murderers in histroy like Anders Breivik and Omar Mateen, should a separate article be suitable for this mass murderer. JBergsma1 ( talk) 09:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect, best speedy. There is nothing at this time to take this past the 1E event. Sometimes the volume of info about the perpetrator necessitates a seperate article, that is not the case as yet and there is no present reason to suppose there ever will be. This is simply a content fork at present and no good reason for this info NOT being in the main article is offered. Lots of OTHERSTUFF arguments above. "Wait and see" should lead us to wait to see if there is a need. Pincrete ( talk) 09:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete & Redirect for now per WP:1E - contrary arguments above tend to rely upon WP:OTHERSTUFF or that he may be subject to significant coverage in the future to independently have an article in the future - WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 09:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:1E is the focus of the counter-argument as the subject's role in the event was a large one. Notability has been established on his part. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 09:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTAVOTE -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 17:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Lost cause to delete this. Other perps of crimes of this calibre rate an article due to coverage of their pre event life and interest in them. He already meets GNG on the non-crime coverage of his pre-crime life. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep for obvious reasons, this person is clearly "notable." O-Qua-Tangin-Wann 2015 ( talk) 12:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect. If there's referenced/cited information in it which should be but hasn't yet been included in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, don't overlook it, but it's the event and its ramifications that have the notability, not the contemptible instigator. As far as the existence of pages about Dylan Roof or Omar Mateen, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists that shouldn't. – Athaenara ✉ 12:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep: While facially this guy is a one-event, the event is rather significant as the deadliest single perpetrator shooting incident to date in U.S. history. Similar to Timothy McVeigh, the one-event domestic terrorist who was the principal actor in the Oklahoma City bombing, or his primary accomplice Terry Nichols, both of whom rate articles despite their both being WP:1E. Guidelines like 1E are just that, guidelines, not rules. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis. Bahb the Illuminated ( talk) 12:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I think that most people think of guidelines as 'rules', or at least 'rules of thumb'. However, note that WP:1E contains an exemption for exactly this kind of scenario that redirect !voters seem to be ignoring: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 13:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Some are also insisting that this discussion is a "waste of time" which in my opinion is insulting to the AfD process. This isn't some quiet deletion where we are talking about borderline WP:CSD. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Historical event that will have long term coverage. Wikipedia would be incomplete without an in-depth biography that would be impossible to maintain in the space allocated in the event article via redirect. If not kept it should move back to Draft space so it can be further developed as new sourcing comes available. -- Green C 13:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Notable enough to have own Wikipedia article. It needs to be a separate article with all information known about him. AlaskanNativeRU ( talk) 14:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Stephen Paddock does not follow any previous spree killer characteristics, this by itself already makes Paddock notable. Plus the article for the seemingly non-notable spree killer Seung-Hui_Cho was kept, we need to keep Wikipedia consistent. -- Moebiusstrip ( talk) 14:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep As one-event person whose one event was profoundly notable, just like Omar Mateen and Seung-Hui Cho. Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 14:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - If he isn't notable now he will be in a few days, keep the page to save the trouble of writing it over again. - ZLEA ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 14:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per the "recentism" essay that talks about news spikes and dealing with lots of information that might otherwise glut up the original article. There is a lot of worndering about "who was this guy" and "is he a terrorist or a lone wolf or what" ... a really good encyclopedia should be able to provide people this information. Once wikipedia has pulled together all relevant information, this guy's bio might stand alone or not but it is too early to tell what even happened. Peace, MPS ( talk) 14:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting as others have suggested. He is not notable outside of this event. Snorepion ( talk) 15:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting, since he is not notable outside of the shooting. Also, this prevents any "fame" of having a separate page. -- Frmorrison ( talk) 15:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - can't see much justification for an exception to WP:1E, i.e. write an article about the event, with a paragraph about the person (whose biography is not even that large). -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 15:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep w/o prejudice to renom in 6 months. We all know this AfD is not a good way to spend our time, wait 6 months until after things have calmed down hopefully.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 15:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per WP:1E. The information is useful but can be covered elsewhere. He has no notability except for this one event. -- El on ka 15:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Elonka: Have you read WP:1E? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Knowledgekid87: Please assume good faith and strike out this inflammatory comment if possible, made toward another experienced editor with 10+ years of tenure. Alex Shih ^Talk 15:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Asking a question isn't considered inflammatory, I just wanted to know how "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." wouldn't apply. Sorry if I came across as rude. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

"Latest in string of mass shootings from country with poor mental health care & almost zero gun control - next on news at 11, bear shits in woods." Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Wow . To classify the deadliest mass shooting in US history as on the same level as "bear shits in the woods", that takes some serious Olympic level mental gymnastics. How is the deadliest mass shooting in US history not 'highly significant'? and if not, what would you consider 'highly significant'? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 18:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Its not highly significant. Its only 'deadliest' mass shooting by 9 people since the last one. No doubt next year given the lack of any inclination by the US people or its government to restrict access to weapons able to kill large numbers of men, women and children we will be back here with another one. '58 people shot' in a country that has no history of mass shootins is significant. '58 people shot since 49 were last year' is not. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 18:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect – Until any further notable details of his life come to life, it is sufficient that his entire bio be a section in the massacre article. If further details, separate from his role in the massacre, come to light later that warrant a separate article, then, but only then, can such an article can be split off on its own. —  Loadmaster ( talk) 16:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per WP:BIO1E. Unlike say, Anders Breivik or Nidal Malik Hassan who were arrested after their rampages and faced legal actions as a result, the perpetrator in this massacre is dead. There will not be any trial or any other sort of legal procedure that takes place regarding Padddock so it seems to me that this article is a pointless WP:DUPLICATE and WP:CONTENTFORK. What could be included here that could not be included in the Perpetrator section of the event's article? -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 16:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are already separate articles for Omar Mateen and Seung-Hui Cho, both of which killed less people than Paddock. Paddock's own father even has his own Wiki page, Benjamin Hoskins Paddock. If that wasn't enough, Paddock is the perpetrator of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. Modern History how can than not be classed as notable? Inexpiable ( talk) 17:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The Benjamin Hoskins Paddock article has only existed since yesterday, maybe it is in need of an AfD itself. (Hint, hint) -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 17:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The Benjamin Hoskins Paddock AfD was snow kept. The hint hint is that this AfD, like the Benjamin Hoskin Paddock AfD should be snow kept. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 17:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Regardles, just because the perp's father has an article doesn't mean that the perpetrator himself needs one. WP:INN. -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 17:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. When the nominator is not endorsing a deletion ("It's not quite an AfD, but it's not quite a merger"), got to wonder why the nomination. Seems to be the obligatory AfD for articles surrounding recent events. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 17:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now - Stephen Paddock may end up being notable in a similar way to how Charles Whitman is notable. So we might as well collect information on him until that clearly is or is not the case. If his motives are discovered to be "non-exceptional" and undue publicity for them would be counter-productive (e.g. no benefit to neuroscience or anything like that, just a glorification of terrorism or resentment) then I would say redirect. - Scarpy ( talk) 17:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Stephen Paddock may end up being notable in a similar way to how Charles Whitman is notable. Yes, and the sky may turn cyan tomorrow. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 17:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I am baffled by this implied argument in many comments here that his notability depends on what his motives were. Sources are investigating and commenting either way, every aspect of this guys life is being poured over and being reported. The perpetrator of the deadliest mass shooting in the USA is going to be notable with or without 'interesting motives'. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 18:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

At least as far as my reasoning goes "interesting motives" has nothing to do with it, it's that Paddock is only notable for WP:1EVENT. Yes it is the worst mass murder in the United States and one of the worst in the world, but the perpetrator is dead now and thus will never be notable beyond the massacre. The only reason I could see an article on the perpetrator existing would be to cover the legal phase after the incident; that is not going to happen in this case. -- Millionsandbillions ( talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I was more referring to Scarpy's comment. In any case, notability is based on the sources that cover the subject, not what he did. The coverage of this guy's early life have been run-of-the-mill a week ago, but it isn't any more, and there is plenty of sourcing already from high profile sources attempting to uncover everything they can about his life before the incident (he alsready meets WP:GNG, a higher level notability guideline than WP:1E). These are exactly the kinds of reports form reliable sources that make people notable beyond the event itself (i.e. information from reports about his early life clearly *is* encyclopedic if it has been covered in a reliable source, but is not appropriate for the article on the event, thus justifying a separate article). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 18:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Millionsandbillions: not really the same, it's not a prediction as much as we know that eventually through investigation, autopsy, etc something motivating him to commit the crime will be uncovered -- you don't need a crystal ball for that, the crime was already committed so there was something motivating it, that's certain. What is not certain, yet, is what the motivation would be. This is where I disagree with Insertcleverphrasehere if his motivations were just at the level of personal resentment or ideology, then I would say we're outside the scope of where guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:1E apply for the reason you mention -- this is the deadliest spree killing in American history. That's a perfect reason to WP:IAR and not glorify the perpetrator with a Wikipedia article. If, however, the cause is something more at the level of biology (e.g. like Charles Whitman) then that knowledge can serve a purpose and an article would have encyclopedic value. - Scarpy ( talk) 20:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Agree with those pointing to the Unabomber and several articles on infamous criminals including mass shooters such as Charles Whitman. I don't see where this is even arguable. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 17:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Why can it be an exception for WP:1E? -- Mhhossein ^talk 17:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Because WP:1E reads: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". There is no denying that the suspect had a huge role in this event and has been covered extensively in the media. The guideline is best used for WP:LOWPROFILE people. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - He is only notable for the 1E, and the information about him should be kept in that article. Natureium ( talk) 18:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I believe an exception to WP:BLP1E applies here since this is a much more significant event than most shootings, and is now the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in US history. Paddock, likewise, is a very notable person now with significant coverage from RS. Like other users have said, we have articles for Omar Mateen, the Unabomber, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Timothy McVeigh, and Seung-Hui Cho. I believe the exceptions of 1E in those articles apply here as well. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 18:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Snowball keep despite the number of !votes to the contrary. The argument that there won't be enough coverage specific to the perpetrator because he didn't live to be tried is without merit— Charles Whitman, perpetrator of the University of Texas tower shooting, likewise died on the scene but that didn't prevent ample coverage specific to the perpetrator. We already know that Stephen Paddock's background is atypical for mass shooters; further investigation will only underscore this fact and expand upon it. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply—it is about cases where the occurrence of the event itself, or its own factual characteristics, are speculative. The guidelines themselves explicitly allow, and even mandate, predictions of the level of future coverage of events—for example, WP:SUSTAINED within WP:N explicitly bases notability decisions on what level of coverage is "likely" in the future.

As to WP:BIO, it is not entirely consistent on matters relevant to the question at hand, and IMO will need to be revised for consistency after conclusion of this AfD (though it would be a very bad idea to revise it during the AfD!). WP:CRIME within WP:BIO does say "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Yet WP:1E within WP:BIO says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"—and goes on to offer assassin Gavrilo Princip as an example. And even WP:CRIME goes on to say that "Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." An atypical mass shooter responsible for the worst mass shooting in USA history? You don't need a crystal ball to know what length considerations will necessitate for this one. Deletion or redirection would only interfere pointlessly with the normal editing process, and require a WP:SPINOFF to recreate this article.

— Syrenka V ( talk) 19:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Princip, or LH Oswald have seperate aricles largely because the volume of available info is so great that it could no longer fit comfortably within the 'event' articles. It requires a good deal of CRYSTAL to imagine that this will ever be the case with Paddock. If/when the info no longer fits reasonably ell within this event article, then is the time to 'fork'. All that is achieved by doing it now is to 'disperse' content and duplicate info. Pincrete ( talk) 19:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Syrenka V ( talk) 19:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting per WP:1E; In time this guy might become culturally significant as others who committed significant acts. When that happens mentioning "Stephen Paddock" will invoke a social response. But he is not like that yet. He might just end up being "that guy who shot up a lot of people in Las Vegas." Wikipedia should not lead cultural trends, it should follow them. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 19:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep They already have significant coverage which is only going to increase over time. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect not individually notable,-- KTo288 ( talk) 20:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep-The subject has significant media coverage as noted. I also point out that we have articles for several other perpetrators of mass acts of violence, who weren't notable for anything else. Display name 99 ( talk) 20:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

SNOW no consensus

• Comment; It appears to me that the difference in opinions expressed between keep !voters and redirect !voters are twofold:

1) A difference in interpretation of WP:1E. Keep voters (including myself) have argued that the line: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." justifies inclusion, which is reasonable. Redirect voters place more emphasis on the opening lines of WP:1E, and in particular generally dispute that the "event is highly significant". This is also reasonable, as the example WP:1E gives, of Gavrilo Princip and his role in the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, is undoubtedly a much more "highly significant" event than even the largest mass shooting in US history. This difference in opinion is totally open to interpretation, and as far as I can see, neither side has been able to convince anyone from the other.

2) Different emphasis on anticipation of coverage. Keep !voters have pointed out that significant coverage of his life before the shooting has already emerged, and that it is inevitable that there will be a significant amount of future coverage that won't be appropriate for inclusion in the event article. They argue that the article should be maintained as a separate article to facilitate the inclusion of current and future material. Redirect !voters on the other hand have called this WP:CRYSTAL, say that both articles are currently short enough to justify a merger, and also suggest that we should not speculate on future coverage but base their !votes on current coverage only. Syrenka V has commented just above about how WP:CRYSTAL is not intended to apply to anticipation of future coverage, but only to anticipation of furture events. Syrenka V further argues that anticipation of future coverage is essential and that " WP:SUSTAINED within WP:N explicitly bases notability decisions on what level of coverage is "likely" in the future." Again, both of these positions are entirely reasonable, and both have been unable to sway others to their opinion.

I originally asked for this discussion to be reopened, as it wasn't clear that WP:SNOW or any speedy deletion criteria applied to the early close. However, a picture has emerged since; that these are un-reconcilable differences in the interpretation of policy, and that there is no indication that anyone intends to change their opinion. Considering the current !vote count of 42 to 41, I think that the outcome of this as 'No Consensus' is inevitable and that a SNOW close of No Consensus is justified at this point in the discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 20:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Support - My intention was to record a strong consensus one way or the other, but that doesn't seem to be happening, and if it's going to be redirected, and per Milowent, that strong consensus may be more likely to happen in a few months. Let's not waste any more time on it when it's clear a strong consensus is not going to be achieved within the next few days. GMG ^talk 20:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Obin.org

Obin.org (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails web notability standards. Article was previously deleted at AfD but little improvement has been made. DrStrauss talk 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm not sure it's a "web" thing, but it doesn't meet WP:GNG either. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 15:33, 10 October 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. It's clear that the content should be kept. Merging to redirecting this to another article does not require AFD, and while there was a minority which supported that, it was not widely discussed here. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 02:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Klemme Community School

Klemme Community School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This is probably a copyvio, but has not been deleted because the creator of the article is also the author of the original text. No real notability is shown here and I do not believe it meets schooloutcomes criteria. at the very least this needs major rewriting. Dysklyver 19:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 655#a thank you and comparing the copyright date of the website with the creation date of the Wikipedia article, it appears that the copying has been from Wikipedia, not to it. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment the suspected copyvio content in the article is from when it was created in 2007 and has only been tagged since August 2017. The website says "PAGE CREATED 15 JAN 2010 ©2010 LaVern D. Velau" and the earliest cached version is from 2013.

Thus it looks like the article was first and the webpage copied it. The website gives its sources as "This information and photos were taken from the books Klemme Iowa 1889-1989 © 1989, Heritage of Hancock County, Iowa Volume One © 1993". If you think this is copied verbatim from these sources, please verify it by gaining access to them. Failing that, I don't think there are grounds to call it a copyvio. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep or Redirect - I think with some effort, this could be reworked into a viable encyclopedic article, or at least redirected into a subsection of another. For example, the article makes reference to combining with the Belmond school district, in nearby Belmond, Iowa. The Belmond article, education section, specifically mentions serving Klemme. It might not be the greatest fit for this article, but at least it's a decent start (?) - NsTaGaTr ^{( Talk)} 19:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• probably Keep and improve. But it may be best to wait for an answer to the question posted here before closing this AfD. Maproom ( talk) 22:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The original creator of the article (whom has apparently taken up a new similar username stated here that the website was copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. As such, I've removed the copypasta tag. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Notability is pretty much satisfied by the book noted in the article. The article is sixteen different kinds of awful, but that is not a reason to delete. It will, however need a motivated editor with access to local sources to fix it up. To that end, I'll leave a note at the Iowa project. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep We do not delete articles about notable topics just because one of the contributors has not read and understood our licenses (which they agreed to) and is having a hissy fit. I agree that the article is awful in many ways. The immediate solution is to remove the overtly awful content and keep the barely adequate content, with the goal of whipping the article into shape. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article meets notable guidelines, just the outstanding question around the copy from other website and which was first but if all ok then it should be kept. Just is really going to need a tidy up. NZFC ^(talk) 05:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Yes, again, not written to the or usual style or even standard, but that's not a reason for deletion ( WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP). Some of the sources are solid and probably underused, and in any case, as an aside, it's hard to imagine many institutions surviving 100 years+ and not attaining any degree of notability. — fortuna velut luna 12:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Klemme, Iowa and keep the title as a redirect. At the moment, there is simply not enough to adequately verify the content of even the most basic stub on this topic. Note that the two books which are mentioned as "sources" and which are being used to argue for notability are not devoted to the school per se, i.e.
  • Klemme, Iowa 1889-1989 (1989) which was privately published by a local historian
  • Heritage of Hancock County (1993) compiled by the Hancock County Genealogical Society and published by the now-defunct Curtis Media Corporation which was a historical and genealogical book publisher

We have no way of knowing how much of the content in the Wikipedia article is original research (quite a lot, I suspect) and how much is actually from the two books mentioned. No page numbers have been provided in any case. Certainly nothing after 1993 can be sourced from them. I could not find any articles in the Google Newspapers archive that even mention the school. The local paper The Klemme Times ran from 1895 to 1961 and is available only on microfilm at the State Historical Society of Iowa. The 1970 high school yearbook is online here, although again, a rather dubious source and behind a paywall. The site of the Belmond-Klemme school district [22] to which it merged has nothing about either school's history. Once the "essay" material, names of past students, and random sports sourced by user-generated content at a Google site wiki [23] are removed, what's left? And even that will be very inadequately referenced. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I am coming to consider myself a deletionist, but I have the personal view that almost anything that is well-documented from more than a century ago is notable and should be recorded in Wikipedia. Something that lasted for nearly a century doesn't need to be as important as the Roman Empire or dinosaurs to be kept. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Klemme, Iowa per Voceditenore. Assuming that our notability requirements are met, the present article would still have to be cut back to practically a single sentence until such time as someone can access offline sources. Meanwhile, the references section states "This information was taken from the books...", the phrasing of which suggests a possible copyright violation. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Cordless Larry, I doubt if there is significant copyvio from those two books, although it's possible. It's more likely that the bulk of the content comes from interviews with residents by the WP article's creator and other original research, e.g. unpublished city documents, private scrapbooks, etc. If old newspapers were used, there is no indication of it. The main problem is separating out the OR from what might have been written in the two books. We simply have no way of knowing. If kept or merged, I'd be willing to work with other editors to pare the article down to something reasonably encyclopedic. However, the result will be extremely short and still poorly referenced, as we are working in the dark. It would have been helpful if the editor who created the article had minimally included page numbers for the books. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, I just did a search on newspapers.com (see [24]), and there probably is enough there to source a few key points, although its very laborious if you don't have a subscription and have work only with the OCR text. Voceditenore ( talk) 16:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Klemme, Iowa or re-purpose to Belmond-Klemme Community School District. The article is egregiously full of trivia and other obviously non-encyclopedic content. Once the article is cleaned up, there won't be enough for a stand-alone article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep it's notable and we don't delete articles for the reasons the creator wants. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep because, being a long established high school it will undoubtedly meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. It's been recently re-written so, fortunately, the continual insulting of the original author(s) can now stop. Ironically the Wikipedia article could be sourced quite well now using the Klemme Homestead Museum page (which the original Wikipedia author claims to have helped create). Sionk ( talk) 13:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't feel like the original author has been "insulted" here, but including content such as the full list of names of the graduating class of 1990 does suggest that they don't understand what Wikipedia is supposed to be. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 14:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Sionk, the Klemme Homestead Museum piece is a copy of the Wikipedia article. OK for an external link perhaps, but circular referencing I'm afraid. See John from Idegon's first comment above. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Okay fair enough, thanks Voceditenore, I can see it's identical in every respect to the Wikipedia version as of 2009. Sionk ( talk) 15:31, 8 October 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. EpicTraveler, consider making a draft and seeking the input of other editors or using WP:AfC next time. A Train ^talk 06:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Unistal Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Unistal Systems Pvt. Ltd. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails to establish any notability under WP:ORG and is written in the style of an advertisement throughout. Any clean up will require removing the vast majority of content (if not all). Vasemmistolainen ( talk) 18:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Nom is right on the money. Refs are entirely self-promotional. PROD territory. South Nashua ( talk) 19:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I had create this wikipedia page just for informative purpose and not for any promotion purpose. I had first created the same in the sandbox before getting it live on Wikipedia. But I am a beginner at Wikipedia, I will make the necessary changes so that it should comply with the Wikipedia policies. I would request the fellow members to give their valuable suggestion so that I can make the changes in the Wikipedia page as I have really worked hard to create this page and don't want to get it deleted. EpicTraveler ( talk) 04:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I have made the necessary changes as which complies with the Wikipedia policies. I would request the fellow admin to check the same and please guide me so that my hard work on sandbox doesn't go in vain.

• Delete Regrettably, pages cannot be kept merely because someone spent time making them. They have to warrant their existence. Personally (despite your hard work) I fail to see how this company is noteworthy. It exists, it does its job, but so do billions of other businesses in the world. What makes this one special? Pupsbunch ( talk) 21:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Not to be Deleted - I do agree with you Pupsbunch, but I have created this page to provide unique information about this company. This company has many a things which are unique and should be known to people around the world. I am not saying that you keep this article merely because I have put my hard work in it, But for the unique services and products the company is offering. I have research a lot about the company and then decided to make a page for it. I do believe that there is nothing wrong create a page for a company who is a bit unique compared to other companies belonging to the same industry. Talking about the net-worthiness of the company, you must know that Unistal stands second amongst the pioneer in data recovery software and services after Stellar. I do believe that the not be deleted. EpicTraveler ( talk) 12:45, 11 October 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. This one was a bit of a challenge to parse (not helped by the substantial amount of off-topic digression, and the result of the DRV was unusual to say the least), but while not unanimous, the consensus here is that WP:BLP1E does apply in this instance. Especially when dealing with a BLP of a minor, consensus on BLP concerns are a substantial issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Holly Neher

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

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

Previously brought to AfD and closed as delete per BLP1E. The recent DRV on that closed as "Endorse but restore" with the option to take it to AfD to reevaluate the sourcing, so bringing it here. I saw nothing in the DRV that would get it past WP:NHSPHSATH, which is the main criteria we should be evaluating under in addition to BLP1E. A high school quarterback that gets coverage within one season is not sustained coverage. That two additional weeks have passed from the last AfD does not make it any less one event. This is very clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. If coverage of Ms. Neher continues past this season or reaches beyond routine coverage that is expected of major high school quarterbacks, then we can have an article. Currently though, even the coverage in major papers is relatively routine for high school athletes, and more coverage over a period of less than a month does not change the one event issue. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Since this closed so recently at DRV on the claims that the concerns of the last AfD were solved, I'm notifying all of the participants of the previous AfD @ Paul McDonald, SchroCat, Ritchie333, WikiOriginal-9, 103.30.143.157, Hmlarson, EEng, Betty Logan, RickinBaltimore, Iridescent, TheGracefulSlick, Cullen328, Reyk, John from Idegon, Boing! said Zebedee, DGG, Bishonen, and Power~enwiki: if I have missed anyone unintentionally, please notify them. Thanks. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)@ Lepricavark and Paulmcdonald: I seemed to have missed you or got the ping wrong. Sorry for the oversight. Pinging now. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment the article is egregiously bad and largely written to survive the AfD process rather than to be part of an encyclopedia. WP:NHSPHSATH is irrelevant, WP:GNG is the relevant standard. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, but NHSPHSATH is written to help limit what claims for HS athletes count towards GNG. If we didn't have it, virtually any HS quarterback in the US would pass the GNG. GNG is the standard, but the sports specific criteria helps us to understand it. I'd argue pretty strongly that Ms. Neher passes neither. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• I have not taken a position on notability, but am puzzled by the suggestion that the articles was "largely written to survive the AfD process rather than to be part of an encyclopedia." Articles are supposed to present a basis for the subject's notability and the fact that the author here has attempted to do just that is a plus rather than a badge of dishonor. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• The article makes only one real claim: that she's a female high-school football player. Why this fact needs 26 references, other than to attempt to demonstrate that this meets GNG, is beyond me. Sentences like "Before playing in an actual game, Neher was gaining attention through the press." exist purely to throw more references in the article for AfD participants to point to, IMO. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• There are several noteworthy claims, but even if there were not--not all article content points toward notability, but all article content should ideally be referenced. Are you trying to say that the subject isn't notable because there is too much coverage in independent, third party reliable sources?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Power~enwiki, you're right. How encyclopaedic is "Neher's achievements began to change the landscape of high school football almost immediately[19] as news of the accomplishment spread to Australia." Ouch! Such overblown claims and bad prose make this even worse than normal (and what has Australia got to do without anything, for goodness sake?! - SchroCat ( talk) 22:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• That first claim came from Bleacher Report who wrote "Holly Neher is changing the landscape of high school football." The reference to the source in Australia speaks to the global impact. It's all true and all referenced.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• "true and referenced" isn't well written and isn't encyclopaedic. "True" is always debatable, with the poorly crowbarred reference to Australia in the text. This reads like a high school newsletter, not an encyclopaedia entry and parroting the excessive hyperbole of journalists is one element of that. Being very badly written is just part of the problem here tho. - SchroCat ( talk) 05:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Yes, truth is always debatable. I have heard people debate that the sky is orange. Comments on the content and editing should be reserved for the articles talk page. Of course, we discussed that in the last AFD so you should know that. Right now, the topic is the notability of the subject, not the quality of the prose of the article.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• If you want to keep 'on point' about the notability, why did you bring up the move to draftspace a few comments below? That has nothing to do with deletion either, but you're happy to drop it in here. Part of the problem tho Paul, is that you don't appear to listen. There was a consensus to delete the article: you didn't listen and went off to have it overturned (badly). You're told which bits of the prose are truly awful, and you leave them be. In the first 'life' of the article, I removed the truly awful sentence that had only been crowbarred in to try and get round AfD: "Several independent news sources have credited Neher as the first, including the Pensacola News Journal,[10] the Miami Herald,[7] Business Insider,[11] and USA Today.[12]" Not only did you not listen to people telling you it is crap prose, you went and forced it back in again without the slightest thought about why it was taken out. What is the point of taking stuff to the talk page if you're going to put your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you"? I really do get annoyed when people don't bother listening to a community consensus and then waste everyone's time by making lots of people jump through the same fucking hoops again to end up back at the same place. - SchroCat ( talk) 15:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• I'm "listening" (reading), and I "hear" (understand) you. I just think your views are incorrect in this case. There is no reason to get upset at me because we disagree.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Im not "upset", so please don't try to tell me what I feel. I do not think you do understand the problems here, either with the notability or the standard or prose, and your unwillingness to edit some of the crapness out of the article, even when it is pointed out to you, speaks more than your claims to the contrary. - SchroCat ( talk) 15:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• You are correct, you stated you are "annoyed" and not "upset" -- I apologize for that. Please avoid the use of gross profanity as outlined in the policy WP:CIVIL.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Please don't lecture me, it's fucking tiresome. (And no, that's not me being upset or annoyed, it's because calling the prose crap isn't uncivil). - SchroCat ( talk) 15:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Please read WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL 1 (a).-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Oh, for fucks sake. Stop with the civility bollocks and stop driving this further and further away from the deletion debate. Do you remember what happened when you dropped crap like this onto ANI last time? It was shut down quickly for being a pointless waste of everyone's time. The civility poking is beginning to take on shades of passive aggressive baiting, so drop it now. - SchroCat ( talk) 16:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Since you feel safe at ANI, do you have any problem with being taken to Arbcom?  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• PMSL! If you want to waste the time of so many people doing something so pointlessly misguided, there is little I care to say or do to dissuade you. - SchroCat ( talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

What exactly would you be taking ShroCat there for, Unscintillating? Cassianto ^Talk 22:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Not to be rude, but can you guys take this elsewhere? This has very little to do with the AfD. Unscintillating either do whatever it is you threatened to do and probably get WP:BOOMERANGed, or just stop. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete...again. Still a high school athlete who is recognized for one event. All the coverage on her is routine and we seem to forget Wikipedia is not a newspaper. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The coverage of a high school quarterback in the Bleacher Report and USA Today is routine? I doubt that one in 1000 see coverage like that. Hobit ( talk) 19:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep references indicate WP:GNG met. "Currently though, even the coverage in major papers is relatively routine for high school athletes" - International news coverage is not relatively routine for high school football players. Hmlarson ( talk) 18:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Query. "Endorse but restore"...? May we have a link to the DRV, please, Tony? I'm re-pinging @ Lepricavark and Paulmcdonald:, just in case, because you're supposed to start a new line to ping somebody, I've been told. Bishonen | talk 18:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC). reply
  • Thanks Bishonen, the link is here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 26. Also linking in nomination. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep There is no reasonable argument that she doesn't meet WP:N, so the question is does she overcome WP:BLP1E. Given that the sources started quite early on (August 23rd saw significant coverage in the Miami Herald that was reprinted as far away as in Pennsylvania) before she started playing and has coverage in the Bleacher Report after doing well, I'm not clear what the claimed "one event" would be. Throwing a touchdown can't be it, because there was a lot of coverage before that. I don't think "being a girl playing football" is an event. Hobit ( talk) 19:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Its a question of what ongoing coverage means. I don't consider coverage within a two month period "ongoing". That's routine coverage for a football season. Re: the national press: yes, we've deleted high school athletes with better sourcing than that (though I'd be at a loss to find the AfDs). TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The word "ongoing" is not in WP:BLP1E nor is it in WP:NHSPHSATH. At least, not that I can find.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • The word I was looking for was "prolonged" which is in NHSPHSATH: High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
        • Prolonged: From the article references, the first USA Today article was dated August 17, 2017 and the most recent referenced article is dated September 25, 2017. That's over a month. I suspect that many would say that qualifies. Wiktionary says prolonged means "lengthy in duration; extended; protracted", with Lengthy having its roots in the idea of being longer than traditional--and there's been a lot more coverage than your average high school quarterback.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 22:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete There are special requirements for sources in this area, to supplement the GNG and explain what is relevant to notability more specifically. She does not have sources that meet them. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • What are these requirements and where can a list of them be found?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Still Delete, still 1E, still puffed-up sources. E Eng 20:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep clearly passes WP:GNG with global coverage in significant independent third party sources over an extended period of time. WP:BLP1E does not apply because there is much more than "one" event, and WP:BLP2E is not a policy or guideline. WP:TOOSOON does not apply because the significant coverage already exists for events in the past. Multiple full-length feature articles in reliable sources like USA Today, Business Insider, and others clearly are WP:NOTROUTINE. The requirements in WP:NHSPHSATH are exceeded because notability is not derived from school papers or local coverage. And the claim that Wikipedia has deleted high school athletes with "better sourcing" cannot be taken seriously in this AFD because we are not talking about other sources and since the claim has no reference, we cannot evaluate those cases to see how they might apply here. Did I miss any?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete again per BLP1E, as I said last time. All the attempts to make this something other than BLP1E are completely unpersuasive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Would you or someone else please identify the event in question? Hobit ( talk) 21:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• I rushed to move this to draftspace as soon as I saw that it had been sent to mainspace directly from the DRV.  I recommend that it not be returned to mainspace until November.  I see that even though I thought I'd get to it before anyone had a chance to nominate it for deletion, that there is already a frivolous process.  Please move this to MfD if you think that a deletion process is needed.  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Why did you move it to draft?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • A more important point is why deletion review took such a sub-standard step in moving it back into mainspace. The subject is non-encyclopaedic and the writing little better than that of an average high school student. - SchroCat ( talk) 14:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • I apologize that the bulk of the writing that I (and contributions from others) have put into the article isn't up to your standards for quality of an article. I wish I could write better and more to your liking. Unfortunately, "I don't like the writing" is not a reason to delete an article. If you want to know more about the reasons behind the DRV result you should contact the editor who executed that result. Do that, and then we will be right back here having this discussion. Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion? I remind you that WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is not an argument.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
        • I haven't said it is a reason to delete it (in fact in a comment above about the parroting of journalistic hyperbole I say the awful prose if one of this article's problems). - SchroCat ( talk) 15:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep plenty of sources and BLP1E does not apply. Lepricavark ( talk) 21:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete (still). Still falls foul of BLP1E and fails GNG requirements. There is no 'substantial and prolonged coverage' (a month just isn't "prolonged" coverage); this is, at best WP:TOOSOON for a student to pass as encyclopaedic content. – SchroCat ( talk) 21:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• "On the fence" comments. The problem here is the "prolonged" coverage prong of WP:NHSPHSATH. Unlike most SNGs, this one is an "exclusionary" standard intended to avoid opening the floodgates to thousands upon thousands of articles about high school athletes, a danger about which we need to be wary. On the other hand, the spirit of NHSPHSATH is to ensure that we limit high school athlete articles to truly exceptional cases. Here, even though the Neher story hasn't been around for long enough to qualify as having received "prolonged" coverage, it is an exceptional case that has garnered international, substantial, and non-routine coverage. Moreover, it involves a female athlete, a subject on which Wikipedia has had a significant problem of under-representation. For these latter reasons, and assuming the closure is done so as to avoid the floodgates problem, I would not be troubled were the article to be kept. 22:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 ( talk • contribs)
• Redirect for now to Hollywood Hills High School.  Of course the sources pass WP:GNG, but GNG is not WP:N.  For reasons that I don't entirely understand, this seems more like an event than a bio.  WP:NHSPHSATH even erroneously requires event notability for people, which serves my purpose here.  As an event, notability requires coverage the equivalent of Balloon Boy, where the coverage here doesn't come close. 
  Much of this is a developing story, for example, there is nothing in Google books.  Yes, the Sun Sentinel said on 25 Sep that, "Hollywood Hills junior Holly Neher made history with her start at quarterback on Friday night."  But the next week she didn't start and didn't throw a pass.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment looks like she picked up the start on their Oct 3 game from this article and had a fully-functional game.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • "West Broward defense dominates Hollywood Hills in 33-13 victory". Sun Sentinel. September 28, 2017. Hollywood Hills quarterback Holly Neher didn't start, played sparingly and did not throw a pass.
      I don't think that being allowed to play only against easy opponents says much about her playing skills, just the opposite.  Unscintillating ( talk) 16:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Worth considering, but no reason is reported why she did not start or play very little. And she did get the start and significant play time in the next game. There could have been a medical reason she did not play, there could have been a family reason, or an academic one. Or maybe the coach's game plan called for a different signal caller against that opponent. It's worth considering, but I would say it's outweighed by getting the start and significant play time the next game.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
        • I've added a paragraph break to clarify that the point I was making was related to this being a developing news story.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete- from memory, this has not changed a lot since the last time except that the puffery and ref bombardment have become more grotesque. Reyk _YO! 06:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List_of_female_American_football_players#High_school (possibly with an anchor placed at Neher's entry). It is obvious that Neher has acquired some minor notability, but the article is mostly trivia and all the pertinent facts are already given at List of female American football players. It's really a question of substance and the general list already provides the essential coverage.. Betty Logan ( talk) 11:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• I asked above, but I'm guessing it got missed. Could one of the "1E" !voters identify the "one event" please? Hobit ( talk) 12:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I asked that all through the last AFD and never got an answer. I'd still like to know the answer too.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • The high school football season is in my mind, one event. Yes, multiple games, but we do treat sports seasons on Wikipedia as individual occurrences (see 2017–18 Fulham F.C. season for the first example that popped up in my search box). That combined with the fact that a two month period is not prolonged coverage makes it run afoul of our limitations as to what coverage counts. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • There is nothing in WP:BLP1E to even hint that multiple events should be lumped together and called "one" event, and that is supported by the guideline WP:ONEEVENT as well as the reasoning at the essays WP:WI1E and WP:BLP2E. One event means one.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This person goes beyond being a one trick irrelevant athlete, the one event is that she was the "first female in the state of Florida to throw a touchdown in a high school game" as high school athletes are generally non-notable, this is considered the only claim of significance, but is also a one-off event. She is obviously groundbreaking in her multiple accomplishments, and while admittedly at a low level, this does not detract from her general significance, particularly in the US. She is clearly the first female to achieve a number of things many others (men) take for granted, however this puts here significance above that of, say, Joe Bloggs. Dysklyver 14:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply