WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2018 JULY 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 July	25 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

ContraPoints

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

Non-notable YouTuber with relatively low subscriber count. I found two articles on the channel ( 1, 2), but they are from somewhat less than reliable sources (one of them politically partisan) and they do not amount to notable coverage. Pokajanje ( talk) 23:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep: Subscriber/view count has no bearing on notability except insofar as it enables people to see the videos, which leads to significant coverage in RS. New York Magazine is a reliable source. Regarding Current Affairs, partisan does not mean non-trustworthy ("reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"), particularly for a topic like this. Reviewing/profiling a creator online is non-controversial and nothing like giving an interpretation of a politically-charged current event. Readers can disagree with their glowing review, but it doesn't make the channel any less notable. If perceived bias is the issue, we can even append "left-wing magazine Current Affairs ..." in the text of the article. Moreover, neither one of these sources are passing mentions; they are both in-depth profiles (enough detail that nothing in the article comes from the videos themselves, all from secondaries). There ARE plenty of passing mentions in other sources, but these are not what notability hangs on, anyway.-- MattMauler ( talk) 01:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep for reasons stated above. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 01:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep, as ContraPoints has become a point of reference for online discussions on politics across the political spectrum, especially among young people and internet aficionados, no matter one's personal opinion on the content. As a disclaimer I need to mention that I authored a similar article on Mike Stuchbery who performs a similar function in public discourse. It was immediately a target of "new accounts" which edited troll content in and upvoted a deletion request like this one. This article should stay, but as with my article on Stuchbery, any serious Wikipedian who sees neutrality issues should of course be able to edit it. VividImpression ( talk) 11:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. As Matt stated, being reliable doesn't mean being neutral. We seem to have enough reliable secondary sources to satisfy the general guidelines. Alexander Levian ( talk) 22:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep as per VividImpressions Wolfson5 ( talk) 03:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Further supporting my !vote above: I added one source to the article, since discussion began, from the LGBT magazine Out Front: [1] The article is not as long or in-depth as the others above, but the magazine has been around since the 1970s and releases both print and digital editions, so I thought it might have implications for notability as well. Secondly, I wanted to note that the New York Magazine article linked above is by Jesse Singal, who has written for The Atlantic and Newsweek. With his cred and the magazine's, it doesn't make sense to dismiss the ref as "less than reliable."-- MattMauler ( talk) 22:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Bit of a mess here, but it seems that the topic doesn't meet GNG anyways. I moved it to draft first before deleting because I wasn't thinking straight, just in case anyone's wondering what happened. ansh 666 07:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Microstructurally Stable Copper and 10% Atomic Tantalum Nanocrystalline Alloy

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

I don't believe this article meets WP:GNG, as it is a highly-specific topic. This could be covered more broadly in an article on nanocrystalline copper alloys or nanocrystalline alloys. Additionally, this one particular alloy appears to have been developed by K. Darling, and many of the subsequent sources are also by him, and "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Additionally, the Weertman source does not appear to refer to this specific alloy. Enwebb ( talk) 21:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ Move back to draft space. This is a bit mystifying; looking at the history, it looks like this was a declined draft, and I'm not following from the logs how it ended up in mainspace. All of the sources are first-party. The creator, User:Annafarrell 2, has created a few similar articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
There was a declined draft that was merged into this article. For some reason this only shows in the logs of the source article, not the target, and there is no indication what the source was. Here is the log entry. Brad v 22:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ TheSandDoctor: can you explain why you merged this into mainspace? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't know why merging was required because the only contributor to the draft also created this article and therefore attribution was fine, but I assume it was merged into mainspace because that's where the article was created, and then the original draft was history merged. Natureium ( talk) 01:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ RoySmith: Sorry for the delay (just got off work), that is why the history was merged (cc Natureium). I just forgot to move it back to the draft namespace after the merge. I am still open to doing that, only issue is that this is now nominated. -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello everyone thank you for your input- I am the author of this piece and hopefully can clear up some of the concerns. Initially I tried to publish this post with the title of purely "Microstructurally Stable Nanocrystalline Alloys" with the hopes that as more research develops covering these impressive molecules it can add on. However, as I have only published a few pieces it underwent review and the criticism was that the title was too generic. So the draft was indeed deleted. It was recommended to me by my community of Wikipedia writers that the article be titled more specifically with the components and that it could perhaps be linked to later if desired. Source one was the initial publication as naturally that was what I was writing on. Sources 2 and 3 however are not written by those involved in the research. Source 2 is a piece written by Bob Yirka for Phys.org (a journal with an impact factor of over 8) who was not one of the scientists participating in the topic concerned. He has no affiliation with the U.S. Army so far as I can tell. Source 3 is written by Julie Weertman (also not involved in the research) from Northwestern. This source is more specifically about creep resistance and nanocrystals generally. Thank you very much for your comments! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annafarrell 2 ( talk • contribs) 22:22, July 24, 2018 (UTC)

Comment Additionally, it should be noted that the creator has a paid COI, as acknowledged on their user page, regarding this topic. Enwebb ( talk) 22:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
When I came across this earlier today I wasn't sure what to do with it. It didn't qualify for moving to draftspace, clearly needs a new title ("Microstructurally stable copper-tantalum nanocrystalline alloy" was suggested by Bradv), wasn't quite notable based on the sources, but wasn't terrible. I think the best thing for this is for the creator to develop it into a broader article that includes other similar materials that can be a topic that satisfies notability criteria. Natureium ( talk) 01:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
~~Draftify~~ back to the broader topic. I agree with the nominator that this alloy on its own probably doesn't pass WP:GNG, but the broader topic Draft:Microstructurally stable nanocrystalline alloy has a decent shot at becoming an article. Either way, this probably should not be deleted at this juncture. Brad v 03:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Based on the update below, a new article Microstructurally stable nanocrystalline alloys has been created, so this should now be deleted. Brad v 20:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello again: I have noted your comments and made a new page that is hopefully broader and more accommodating for other users' contributions. I am happy to discuss further the quality and variety of my sources- if you notice all cited sources, except the primary publication, in this piece have no affiliation with the army, are not by the primary researchers, and are reporting from institutions with high standards and publications with credible impact factors. I was able to find other nanocrystalline alloys and wrote down a line or two of the results claimed by the researchers as a starting point for the rest of the community. I suppose I will leave this here to see which page people prefer to preserve: /info/en/?search=Microstructurally_stable_nanocrystalline_alloys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annafarrell 2 ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ugh. I realize you're just trying to be helpful, and probably aren't familiar with all of our policies, but this was not a good idea. What you've got there is a WP:FORK. The best thing would be to delete Microstructurally stable nanocrystalline alloys, and continue the conversation here about what should be done with Microstructurally Stable Copper and 10% Atomic Tantalum Nanocrystalline Alloy. You can propose that you'll re-write the text to cover a broader topic, and/or move it to a different title. And then people can discuss that and decide if that's the right thing. But, creating a fork in the middle of a discussion, just leads to confusion. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ RoySmith: There's no reason to stop editing just because of an AfD. To be completely fair, Annafarrell 2 has received a lot of conflicting advice, and this particular AfD is a comedy of errors. This edit actually clears things up — the article that this AfD is about can be closed as delete or redirect, and the new article can be reviewed separately. Brad v 20:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Of course there's no reason to stop editing. My apologies if I gave that impression. What I was objecting to was the forking of the article. People edit articles that are the subject of AfDs all the time. But, yeah, I agree this AfD is silly. Based on what User:TheSandDoctor said above, it's only by accident that this is even in mainspace at all. We should just move it back to draft space, then it can be worked on, edited, renamed, etc, etc, for however long it takes. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment, would redirecting this (with some words added) to Nanocrystalline material be an appropriate course (ditto Microstructurally stable nanocrystalline alloys)? Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of offenders executed in the United States in 2018. Absent a strong argument against redirection, and where such is an available option, ATD and CHEAP carry a lot of weight. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert van Hook

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

Article was PRODed by me a couple days ago on concerns the subjecct fails WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. The tag was removed by an editor claiming that the subject's usage of the Homosexual panic defense and appeal makes van Hook notable. While the article has been improved and references added since the time of the PROD, the issue of the article failing WP:GNG and WP:CRIME (and perhaps WP:BIO1E) remain Inter&anthro ( talk) 21:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Inter&anthro ( talk) 21:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Inter&anthro ( talk) 21:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment WP:CRIME I can see going either way, but don't the current sources cover WP:GNG as significant coverage in national media? Also, per our article, he's the only person executed in Ohio this year, one of four in the last five years, which might suggest that his was a more notable crime than most. On WP:BIO1E, the idea is that if someone is known for one event, they should probably be merged into that event's article. Since there isn't an article for the murder separate from this biography, I don't think it applies. Mortee ( talk) 23:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. The murder attracted little attention in 1985. The subject's notoriety is therefore derived from his recent execution. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The execution is reported appropriately at List of offenders executed in the United States in 2018. WWGB ( talk) 23:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- Well, he was executed in 2018. here is coverage from 2017, here he's "getting engaged" in 2016, here is the Supreme Court ruling on the case in 2009... the coverage in 1985 is harder to assess, being pre-internet and now drowned out. List of offenders executed in the United States in 2018 has no information about the crime or the victim, only the criminal's name and stats. Still no vote for now, but I'd like more clarity on the nominator's position. Mortee ( talk) 00:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  - @ Mortee: The subject of this article does not pass WP:CRIME as neither the murder he partook in, the victim, or his death have been covered in anything that passes WP:ROUTINE. The fact that the Homosexual panic defense was used in his trial is not notable in itself as there are plenty of people who have used it as an excuse. Neither is the fact that he is the first individual to be executed in Ohio this year, in fact taking a look ahead there are quite a few people from Ohio who are scheduled to be executed. Of the sources you provided in the above comment the first is routine news which surrounds the appeal process of every convict who is scheduled to be executed, the second source comes from a tabloid and is also not notable as it is not unheard of for inmates to get engaged, and the third source falls under WP:PRIMARY. All three sources can certainly be added to the article, but the underlining issue is this is a criminal whose crime and life have not revived any indebted coverage. If said coverage of his crime or execution can be provided than I will gladly withdraw my nomination. Inter&anthro ( talk) 01:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of offenders executed in the United States in 2018. He's notable only for one event, doesn't pass WP:GNG. But plausible search term for redirect. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - No lasting significance. Wikipedia is not a true crime blog. Carrite ( talk) 17:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Lords of the Ring

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 21:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge the gist back to the individuals' bio articles the delete, or maybe redirect it to whichever of the two is more notable. This is like doing a separate article on Bono and the Edge's pre-U2 garage band. —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - The information is still on the individual bios. Not noteworthy (Routine) Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 08:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - Although both members are notable, I see nothing that indicates the team was. Finding addition sources, due to the name, is nearly impossible, so I am happy to be proven wrong here - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete nothing to indicate notability. JTP ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 19:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Johnny Punch

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 21:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - Everything I am finding appears to be WP:ROUTINE, fails GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Routine and largely unreliable coverage. LM2000 ( talk) 11:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable pro wrestler. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Mike Kruel

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 21:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails GNG, any mentions I can find of him on a WP:RS is WP:ROUTINE. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Just primary and routine sources. LM2000 ( talk) 11:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable professional wrestler. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Rita Catolino

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

Requesting to see if my article is notable JC7V7DC5768 ( talk) 20:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete I think the article fails notability for living person. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. notability not found for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC). reply
Delete Although there are some reliable sources discussing the subject, they all appear to be local and from only one area, therefore not satisfying the wide audience required by general notability guidelines. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 16:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete does not pass notability per GNG. Natureium ( talk) 18:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete not so much. Kraose ( talk) 09:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete with absolute prejudice! I don't see any notability on her either. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 12:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. The good news is that the inter-AfD interval keeps increasing. Clear consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

List of fictional swords

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

This list article is mostly WP:OR and fancruft, and has become bloated with massive amounts of non-notable trivia. It should be deleted, as it lacks sufficient references. I have created a basic article for the topic of fictional swords called Swords in fiction, which should function as a replacement that can be more properly soured. _{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 19:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep The page in question has existed for about 14 years. It is high traffic and so has had hundreds of thousands of readers. The nominator clearly admits that the topic is valid as he has just written a content fork. The new page is inferior to the long-standing page and so, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, "the more recent article should be merged back into the main article". Andrew D. ( talk) 23:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- WP:ARTICLEAGE refutes your point about the article being 14 years old. To cite the section, "The article may have achieved its age either because its lack of notability was not discovered until recently, or because the collective interpretation of our inclusion criteria has evolved." It's clearly the latter rather than the former. Large amounts of fancruft was thought to be fine a decade ago but now the criteria have become more strict and the article should have some actual substance. There is very little in the list article that describes swords' usage in fiction, and it is merely a laundry list of various names and trivia._{ZXCVBNM (
  TALK)} 01:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Swords in fiction. Agree with OP. Any information in the list that might not be OR or fancruft can be preserved in the page history and merged to the new article. The more valid title for this article is the newer one, and Andrew's argument that it is a redundant content fork actually applies more to the older page, not the newer one. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 23:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note In its original form the list served as a navigational tool linking articles on fictional swords that existed back in the days when Wikipedia welcomed such articles, but at present almost none of those articles remain. Furthermore, ever since that date fourteen years ago the page has incorrectly characterized legendary/mythical swords as "fictional". WP:TNT would seem to apply here, but very selective merging into Swords in fiction would work. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 04:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

And FTR: the large number of previous nominations is a bit misleading: the first one, in 2008, should not count, as it ended in procedural keep and immediate renomination; the "second" was no consensus; the "third" in 2011 ended in "keep", but the majority of arguments were clearly flawed, based on the supposed possibility of cutting the cruft and properly maintaining the article, but this has clearly not been done in the seven years since, and a number of them were actually more equivalent to my !vote here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 23:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't be averse to a histmerge or a merge of the new article onto the old one, speedy deletion of the new one, and a move of the old one to the new title, just to preserve the page history. Either way the majority of the content of the old article has to go, and the list should not be more than, say, half the length of the "final" article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 11:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep and clarify inclusion criteria. This gathers together a lot of useful and interesting information, including multiple blue-linked swords. A deletion or a redirect without merge would remove a lot of valuable content, especially given the current state of Swords in fiction, which was started yesterday, by the nominator, and covers very little of this so far. In any case, Swords in fiction, which is a valuable page to write, is better reserved for broad tropes and symbolism with illustrative examples. List of fictional swords should be kept more expansive. The "fancruft" can be dealt with by restricting to swords explicitly mentioned in secondary sources or some similar tightening of the inclusion criteria. Mortee ( talk) 23:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- Said argument has been made before, specifically in the last AfD nomination back in 2011 and the page hasn't been improved since then despite plenty of people jumping on the bandwagon of "this can be maintained" and "this has potential". I don't think it holds much water after 7 years of people ignoring it. The page would also have to be completely rewritten regardless, as the sourcing is next to nil. Most of the so-called blue linked articles are just links to subsections, not actual independently notable pages._{ZXCVBNM (
  TALK)} 00:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Mortee: I'm curious what you mean by "blue-linked swords"; almost all of them are redirects, either to articles on the fictional works in which they appear or to other lists (in which the same names as in this list, and little else, appear) or to completely unrelated articles (the entries under Malazan Book of the Fallen are the worst offenders). Several of them link to articles on books that are named for the swords in question, which is not the same as having blue links to articles on the swords themselves. The vorpal sword article begins "Vorpal sword" and "vorpal blade" are phrases used by Lewis Carroll in his nonsense poem "Jabberwocky", which is telling. All of the Tolkien ones are linked, but of them all but one ( Sting (Middle-earth)) redirect to another list, and two of them ( Barrow-blade and Lhang) don't even link to entries in said list. " Shikomizue" is not the name of a fictional sword but rather a simple Japanese word that describes walking stick with a blade hidden inside. [2] Excalibur, which is linked either directly or through its several redirects ( Caliburn, Caledfwlch, etc.) probably close to a dozen times throughout the list (making it alone account apparently for around 90% of the entries in the list that link to whole articles about swords), is not actually a "fictional" sword by conventional logic; it's a "legendary" or "mythical" sword, and its inclusion is apparently based on the idea that it "probably doesn't exist", which is not a useful definition and not one used by reliable sources; lots of Japanese fiction mentions the Kusanagi, which is just as "legendary" as Excalibur, with the one difference being that there is a sword (or, rather, have historically been several swords) "officially" considered to be the "real" Kusanagi, and so it doesn't fall into that murky category of "probably doesn't exist". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 01:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

In my view, the right eventual structure is 1) an article about discussing history, tropes, symbolism etc, i.e. Swords in fiction (I'd be delighted to help write that) plus 2) a more thorough overview of noteworthy cases than would likely fit there, i.e. List of fictional swords. Not every item in a list has to have a standalone article (e.g. WP:LISTCOMPANY); merging into a list is a recognised alternative to deletion. Enough of these are discussed in other articles, some with dedicated subsections, that gathering them together is useful, leaving aside the question of which others deserve mention, and would only serve to overbalance the new article, which at present is not a suitable target for redirection either way. I don't believe the current page is worse than no list at all and, per Andrew D., it's popular with readers. There's work to do and the inclusion criteria could be tightened to reduce bloat, but deleting would be detrimental. Re: "fictional" vs "mythical", see List of mythological objects § Swords, again rightly a mix of bluelinks and not, in an article tagged as needing to be split for length. Mortee ( talk) 01:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep But clarify, per Mortee's well-presented arguments above. Deletion is not cleanup, and there is lots of good information in the article. It does need some cleanup and tighter sourcing, but it's not beyond fixing. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 03:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep per Andrew D. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keeep - there's problems, but nothing so serious that could not be fixed by normal editing. These many nominations become tendatious. Bearian ( talk) 23:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note Even before this AFD has been closed, a "keepist" editor has, apparently based on the emerging "keep [and don't you dare attempt to clean it up through conventional means]" consensus (sorry, but that's how these things are always read), decided to revert blanking of off-topic content that definitely needed to go regardless of whether the page is deleted. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 21:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Billy Fives

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC) (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Everything I see, including the sources that would be an RS such as browardpalmbeach.com are just routine coverage. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - lots of trivial mentions and one article [3]. No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Nikki♥ 311 03:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

J.D. Maverick

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC) (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete The only source in the article that might support GNG is [4]. I cannot find anything else out there to support it though so its moot. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - doesn't have significant independent coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Nikki♥ 311 03:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - A few dark matches in WWE does not make someone notable. Otherwise Andy Symmonds would be notable Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 08:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable professional wrestler. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ric Blade

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC) (UTC) reply

Delete Despite the number of sources in the article they are mostly OWOW (not a RS), cagematch or profightdb which do not help for notability. I cannot find anything not in the article to support GNG. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Routine coverage, mainly from unreliable sources and databases. LM2000 ( talk) 11:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable pro-wrestler. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Kit Osbourne

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC) (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete All sources in article are Cagematch of ProfightDB which do not help for notability claims. This is the only [5] source I could find that would support notability, which is not enough. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Doesn't have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥ 311 03:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable wrestler. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Simon Wickham-Smith

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

Non-notable individual. Does not meet the criteria for WP:ENT or WP:PROF. This article has sat around for years with minimal sourcing and content verging on the promotional; it's time to get shot of it. Yunshui ^雲 _水 17:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - not the best-written article, but here and [6] he's winning the Order of the Polar Star from Mongolia and being shortlisted for a National Translation Award for Poetry and Prose. Noted here. That former monk really is the person behind the album Extreme Bukkake. There might be enough coverage around to meet the WP:GNG overall. If so, the article should be trimmed then expanded and referenced, not deleted. Mortee ( talk) 00:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was wrong venue. Drafts are discussed at WP:MfD, and have different criteria than articles. AfD is not the proper place to discuss merges either. ansh 666 17:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Draft:Audi Bangladesh

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

No reason for a country-specific subsidiary of a brand to have its own page when the information on that page could - and likely should - be merged into the main article about the brand. Strikerforce^Talk 17:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was wrong venue. Drafts are discussed at WP:MfD, and have different criteria than articles. AfD is not the proper place to discuss merges either. ansh 666 17:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Draft:BMW Bangladesh

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

No reason for a country-specific subsidiary of a brand to have its own page when the information on that page could - and likely should - be merged into the main article about the brand. Strikerforce^Talk 17:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was wrong venue. Drafts are discussed at WP:MfD, and have different criteria than articles. AfD is not the proper place to discuss merges either. ansh 666 17:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Draft:Volvo India

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

No reason for a country-specific subsidiary of a brand to have its own page when the information on that page could - and likely should - be merged into the main article about the brand. Strikerforce^Talk 17:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Lexus w/o prejudice to any merge provided that material taken from the article is properly sourced. The article history will remain accessible at the redirect page. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Lexus India

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

No reason for a country-specific subsidiary of a brand to have its own page when the information on that page could - and likely should - be merged into the main article about the brand. I made an error in originally accepting this article at AfC, assuming good faith that substantial information existed to make the article notable upon its own merits. I no longer believe that to be the case. (edit) In my opinion, Lexus India fails COMPANY, with "no inherent notability". Strikerforce^Talk 17:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - or Merge as discussed on the article's talk page. Not notable enough for a stand alone article. Meatsgains^(
talk) 18:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Lexus. Dekimasu よ! 19:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. A country-specific article bases its notability on information specific to the country, including the presence of local manufacturing, assembly and training facilities and the choice of vehicles offered for sale, particularly those that are only sold in the country or that differ from the counterparts sold in other countries. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment As it stands right now, little to none of the suggested material you've mentioned is present in the article. Strikerforce^Talk 13:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete non-notable national branch of a notable company. A redirect to Lexus is another option.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 17:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge and Redirect to Lexus. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 12:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- EDIT: I mistakenly linked the comment to Audi. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 12:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect - to Lexus. There isn't sufficient unique content to make this article notable. While no doubt there is some specific content available, none of it is currently present. Therefore a redirect, not a merge, is in order, and if/when it is found a (sub)section can be created at Lexus, with a tweaked redirect at that point. Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Flack-Council-Coleman Reunion

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

Fails WP:GNG. Except for this Facebook page and this newspaper article (which is behind a paywall and may or may not be about this topic), there is nothing published in reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 ( talk) 15:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete No evidence of GNG. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage. FWIW, the article linked above in the Asheville Citizen & Times for 5 August 1989 is one bullet point under the heading "Religion—Notes" and reads "Jones View, AME Zion Church, Monticello Road, Alexander—The Flack-Council-Coleman reunion service will be at 11 a.m. Aug. 13 at the church followed by dinner at 1:30 p.m. at the Hillside Community Center in Weaverville". It shows that these reunions happen[ed], but does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability or prove out anything else in the article. It sounds like a nice tradition, but not something for Wikipedia to cover. Mortee ( talk) 00:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete This doesn't pass WP:GNG and is wholly unencyclopedic. Natureium ( talk) 23:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Baird Reunion

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

Fails WP:GNG. Except for a Facebook page, and the sourced content included in the article (one sentence in each source), there is nothing published about this event. Magnolia677 ( talk) 13:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

There is a repsonse on the talk page of the article, which doesn't address notability. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If a recurring site for the recurring event can be found, perhaps that site is already notable for some other reason. If so, that article can include material from the contested one, which would then redirect to the site article. Jim.henderson ( talk) 17:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. As with Flack-Council-Coleman Reunion, I can't find anything to suggest this belongs in Wikipedia, since we require anything included here to be covered elsewhere first. One of the articles is a family-provided notice in a local paper. The other discusses some members of the Baird family, but not the reunion. The talk page response is mostly about the issue of systemic bias very broadly, and doesn't help to address the issue of verifiability for the article, or lack of coverage of the specific topic in hand. Perhaps an article about black family reunions more broadly would be more sustainable. Mortee ( talk) 00:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete This doesn't pass WP:GNG and is wholly unencyclopedic. Natureium ( talk) 23:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

David Alan Ditsworth

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

Article PRODed with reason "Drummed-up biography, with some name-dropping, but no indication that this meets WP:ACADEMIC." Article dePRODed without reason given by editor since blocked as a troll. Claims in article not substantiated. I don't have access to every reference given, but those that I could check don't even mention Ditsworth (ref. 1, 7, 9, 11, 13. 14-16 are by Ditsworth himself). Google and GScholar searches did not render anything else. Ref 2 seems to be the only substantial source, but reads like an advertorial to me. PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 07:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak keep I am seeing a lot of sourcing, whilst this means he may not pass academic it seems to enable to pass general Notability. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment: Can you tell us which part of the sourcing is substantial? Those that I can access don't even mention the subject, others are articles that he published himself, which doesn't help establishing notability either. That the article was reference bombed does not make it meet our criteria. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

And that is the problem for me, there are a lot of sources I cannot access. So I am seeing some vert limited coverage from the sources I can access and (what about half) I cannot. Thus there maybe some notability here. I can neither confirm it or conform a lack of it. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It is indeed unfortunate that there are sources that we cannot access. However, the fact that among the sources that we can acess only one actually mentions Ditsworth (apart, of course, from those that he published himself) does not make me very confident that the inaccessible sources are any different. Pinging Doc James, who perhaps has access to the other sources. As an aside, much is made in the article of the fact that Ditsworth is cited by Gun Choi (whose biography was created by the same person who created this one), "president "in fact, secretary general) of the grandiose sounding "World Congress of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Techniques", which, in fact, gas just 51 members... -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment To avoud confusion: the numbers of sources mentioned above refer to this version of the article, which has been edited since. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete unless better sources can be found. He publishes under "D A Ditsworth" but GS gives only one paper with 129 cites. Not enough yet. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC). reply
Keep This is a similar article to /info/en/?search=Masaki_Watanabe except instead of the knee, according to multiple reliable sources, Ditsworth pioneered spinal transforaminal endoscopy. CAskywriter ( talk) 05:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Then why don't other research papers cite his work? Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC). reply

ANd WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very strgon argument. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Lots of concerns. Using primary sources. This link https://www.beckersspine.com/spine/item/13221-15-spine-surgeons--specialists-pioneering-surgical-technique is from "ASC COMMUNICATIONS" not a reputable publisher put a PR firm it appears. Not seeing major coverage / evidence of notability. This is also not a reliable source https://musculoskeletalkey.com/ Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment The fact remains that multiple experts in the highly specialized field of endoscopic spine surgery, writing from different parts of the world and in different years, have stated that Ditsworth "opened the era" of transforaminal endoscopic spine surgery and therefore influenced all work that followed. CAskywriter ( talk) 18:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Also, the concerns mentioned above have been addressed. CAskywriter ( talk) 03:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Some of the expanded endoscopic work of Ditsworth, since 1998, is described, with additional references. CAskywriter ( talk) 21:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep It does appear that Ditsworth is a pioneer in endoscopic spine surgery, according to good secondary sources, like Baylor. Hermesonolympus ( talk) 03:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

"Baylor" is not a source. Ditsworth is cited by someone from Baylor. Any scientist worth her/his mettle gets thousands of citations, so that's not really anything special. BTW, given your edit history, I'm more thn surprised to see you here... -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

delete per nominators rationale-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
delete this is fundamentally promotional and needs to be removed from mainspace promptly. It would need a fundamental rewrite even if the person were to meet PROF. Jytdog ( talk) 21:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete agree with Jytdog entirely. Natureium ( talk) 21:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Instead of Delete in Bold, perhaps there should be be a Re-write option that is equally offered in Bold instead, especially in cases that have been relisted. CAskywriter ( talk) 18:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment You don't need a "rewrite in bold". We don't care about writing here at AfD. What we care about is sourcing. All you need is a few good sources that actually confirm what the article claims (instead of just in-passing mentions that you'd like to interpret what you want it to mean) and we're done here. If no good sources are found, this will be deleted. -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment To Randykitty, Thank you for your advice and for the opportunity to clarify my sources. CAskywriter ( talk) 16:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
CommentThe article sources have been gleaned down to those readily findable through GS. Except, for some reason, only Ch. 61 of the second edition book edited by Anderson and Vaccaro, professors at Jefferson, is listed on GS, not Ch. 63, which was in the first edition. CAskywriter ( talk) 18:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per Jytdog. This looks like unencyclopedic WP:PROMO. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. What's often missed is that the criteria for notability isn't what the subject writes but what reliable sources write about the subject. Ifnord ( talk) 02:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is overwhelming. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Free Speech Fairness Act

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

Failed proposal received no significant RS coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 16:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 17:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 17:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete, per nominator, and indeed the article offers no secondary sources at all. Bishonen | talk 17:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC). reply

To closing admin: "the article offers no secondary sources" this is not a valid reason for deletion. Per WP:BEFORE it doesn't matter if sources are present in the article. What matters is are there sources available on Google or elsewhere? This !vote should be discounted. – Lionel^(
talk) 21:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Brilliant. I'm sure the closing admin will appreciate your assistance. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC). reply

Rude. I'm sure Lionelt doesn't appreciate you responding to him in that manner. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I am sure no one needs you policing every single minor discretion you find Winkelvi. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Are you his mother? He's a big boy, he can reply himself if he's upset. -- Tarage ( talk) 18:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Pointing out the big irony elephant in the room: editors telling me not to police behavior while policing my behavior. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - my BEFORE check comes up with a couple of articles on it, but no reliable source. It would seem that non-enacted law would fall under GNG, and it does not meet those requirements. Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - There are very few available independent sources. This subject could become notable in the future, but for now, the bill is in committee and may very well die on the vine.- Mr X 🖋 20:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep: this nomination is way, way off the mark. Without much effort I found numerous independent reliable sources with significant coverage establishing notability under WP:GNG. In fact, it took longer to write this comment than to find the sources.

Now, before you complain that some of the sources are partisan, you should read WP:BIASED which explicitly permits partisan sources. Editors !voting here must follow WP:BIASED and not disqualify sources because of a preconceived notion that they are biased. – Lionel^(
talk) 21:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - So firstly, WP:BIASED requires several things, which need to be demonstrated for them to remain acceptable sources, such as confirming that suitable editorial control/fact-checking is in place, and a demonstration that the source is reliable in this specific context. To give a run through the sources,

1) Fails intellectually independent as once Lankford's content (both direct and indirect) is withdrawn there is almost nothing left, let alone Sig Cov.
2) Fails "reliable in this particular case" - not only is there a general bias but he has a direct interest in encouraging a particular view, and control is limited as it's an op ed piece, he isn't a staff writer.
4) Specifically renounces control of the content at the bottom
5) While obviously normally an acceptable news source, it again is an opinion piece, the article was not provided by a journalist and thus there was not editorial control & fact checking.
Source 3 (Deseret) I've left till last, since it's not clear what the situation is. BIASED imposes an obligation to be able to justify the sources, it also is a distinctly tenuous fragment of a guideline that needs to be on extremely firm grounds to override the standard policy covering RS. Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Pointless, unless you address all of the articles found by clicking "news" and "scholar on searchbar. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

A couple of those sources are opinion columns. One is simply not a reliable source by our standards. What remains is sparse coverage in a couple of reliable sources.- Mr X 🖋 15:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep per Lionelt. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
~~Keep~~ MERGE: see below. This is a bill garnering significant attention. Wall Street Journal: [ https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-fix-the-johnson-amendment-1486686394 "How to Fix the Johnson Amendment; The IRS has created a chilling effect on some religious speech. Time for a thaw." text excerpt: "President Trump promised last week that he would “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 provision of the tax code that allows the Internal Revenue Service to police the speech of churches and other nonprofits. But Congress doesn’t have to repeal the amendment to make good on Mr. Trump’s pledge. The Free Speech Fairness Act, introduced in the House and Senate the day before the president made his remarks, fixes the law’s constitutional problems." And do note that Philip Hamburger has a new book out on the Johnson Amendment: Liberal Suppression: Section 501(c)(3) and the Taxation of Speech, University of Chicago Press (2018). The Johnson Amendment is a hot issue at the moment, and this Bill is about the leading proposal to reverse it. Article needs improvement, but sources exist. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Again, as WP:NEWSORG says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". The above WSJ article is written by the senior counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, and thus it hasn't ticked the appropriate boxes by any means. Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Editorial coverage isn’t enough to pass the smell test. 24.39.20.5 ( talk) 02:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete a one line stub that is not yet law (in over a year) authored by one member (is the the equivalent of a UK private members bill?), sorry to many things wrong with this. I suspect this is one of the 86% that die. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Slatersteven's argument is fairly persuasive. And the Hill's coverage was an opinion piece by a representative of an SPLC-designated hate group. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - For all we know this will not even become a law! Unless someone has a better crystal ball there is no reason to have an article that could potentially be “improved” by unreliable sources. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 17:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per Slatersteven and TheGracefulSlick above. If the bill does start making its way out of committee and into the national consciousness, we can always create an article. Not every byte of information that is created in the universe needs to be instantly mirrored on Wikipedia. -- regentspark ( comment) 19:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete; this is one of many perennial efforts to repeal the Johnson Amendment; the article on Johnson Amendment mentions repeal efforts, which are best treated in context. Neutrality^talk 00:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Insufficient coverage from reliable secondary sources. If this bill attracts more sponsors, it would gain more press coverage and may eventually qualify for an article. WP:CRYSTAL/ WP:TOOSOON. — Newslinger talk 13:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
~~'merge~~' this stub into Johnson Amendment#Repeal efforts. Too much sourcing comes up on the tool bar above, up to and including scholarly articles (not the sole topic of these articles, but still.) Nor is the fact that bill has not been enacted a legitimate argument for deletion. Johnson Amendment may be a better home for this widely discussed legislative initiative than a free-standing, one-sentence stub. Yet another topic in need of an editor. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Um, dude, it's already there. What's left to merge? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

good point. Although that section needs expansion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: lacks SIGCOV for a stand-alone article. The repeal efforts are already covered in Johnson Amendment#Repeal efforts and this is sufficient. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - run of the mill proposed legislation with no significant coverage. Carrite ( talk) 17:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Deb ( talk) 13:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

International Association for Contract and Commercial Management

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

Lacks significant coverage in sources independent of the subject, fails WP:ORG. 8 of the 10 sources are primary, another is a media release. Lacks coverage in independent sources. Flat Out ( talk) 11:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

World Union of Turkish-speaking Cypriots

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

Non-notable recently established NGO that is using Wikipedia as a means of publicity. Attracted my attention due to recent addition as a "see also" link to irrelevant articles. The organisation itself has no proper coverage in independent, reliable sources - the five sources in the article are either non-independent (the organisation itself, records of its registration in the UK and Cyprus), briefly mention it in the passing or entirely irrelevant. The content itself has a heavy POV and reads very much like an advertorial ("It took the world’s attention..."). Seems like an attempt to establish self-importance by a fringe movement. GGT ( talk) 15:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 16:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 16:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 16:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I do not think there is a rule about "recently established organisations" in Wikipedia policies. And please clarify what do you mean about "non-independent" since there is a coverage from international magazine in the article. There are a lot of article about the organisation in Europe and Cypriot press. For example, here is a article^[1] from a Cypriot news agency about organisation when its invited to general assembly of European Free Alliance, one of the major political party in European Parliament. And it indicates that they are the only organisation from Cyprus invited to the assembly to talk about political situation of Cyprus as well as the attacks happened against Afrika (newspaper). That is normal that Turkish nationalist Wikipedia users or editors will not be happy see this organisation exist and they will try to vandalise the article. But it does not change the fact that this is a known organisation and there will be more article about it since it has a representation in institutions like European Parliament. So that can be better to improve the article instead of deleting because second option looks more like vandalism. best Pasedembo ( talk) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

To be clear, this article was not nominated for deletion because it's a recently established organisation (that bit only strengthens my point that this is self-promotion), it was nominated because it does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The magazine in the article does not have significant coverage of the subject, it only mentions it in the passing. I had not seen the source that you have provided now, it seems to be based on a statement made by a WUTC representative ("WUTC temsilcisi konuyla ilgili yapıtığı açıklamada" = "the WUTC representative, in his/her statement on the subject..."), which means it is not independent. In any case, this is only a single source, multiple sources are needed, which I have been unable to find. Your aggressive labelling of me only serves to strengthen the idea that the article was written with ideological, not encyclopaedic, concerns in mind. And your claim that this organisation has "representation in the European Parliament" is outright misleading. -- GGT ( talk) 22:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- Now it is really not clear why this article was nominated for deletion. Because your arguments were based on few things which is not part of WP:ORGCRIT. Lets have a look at them again here. You words "Non-notable" and "fringe movement" is clearly POV. Wikipedia policies do not allow its editors to delete articles because they think that something is "fringe". And an organisation who has recognition from European Parliament probably makes them notable enough. Also you clearly wrote that "recently established" word which now you are saying that you didn't nominated article because of this reason. Fair enough. But all arguments that you made for the nomination is based on these two POV. There are significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about the organisation and I shared examples. There is only one sentence about "the statement of WUTC representative" and rest of the article is a news report from very respected Cypriot news agency. Many people who will read these entry do not know Turkish, so lets do not manipulate the sources when we share them. I am not gonna get involved in your accusation about "me labelling you". There is not a single letter I wrote is about personally you. So please shows the part that I am labelling you personally about something because now you are accusing me and attacking personally to me. In the end I am repeating that deleting this article will be vandalism and politically oriented because this well-known organisation has coverage enough to suit with the Wikipedia policies. The correct thing will be to improve it. best Pasedembo ( talk) 06:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 12:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

References

^ http://voiceoftheisland.com/kibristan-katilan-tek-orgut-wutc-olacak/85037/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Peter Solis Nery Foundation

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP and has no reliable sources. Iloilo Metropolitan Times articles are written by the founder of the organisation. » Shadowowl | talk 12:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - per nom, there is barely any coverage on the foundation that isn't written by him or his foundation (Note, as well as Ilono he also writes about it in his books). Nothing that could pass GNG, let alone WP:NCORP. Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Jayachandran P R

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

fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. 57 citations does not meet #1. I am not sure that being part of a team that discovered a new crustacean is enough to show notability. There is no indepth coverage of this person to show they meet WP:GNG. Article is an autobiography. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Named in list of team members finding one new species, and cited coverage is not significant coverage of subject, so no individual notability. Fails WP:NACADEMIC with low impact and no qualifying posts or awards. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom and above editor. Autobiography fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete really far from being notable and own separate article. Abhi88iisc ( talk) 16:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl ( talk) 11:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. There appears to be some kind of consensus with the agreement of the OP that does not involve deletion or redirection. Editors should feel free to pursue whatever moves and reversions they think appropriate. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Rover 200 Series / 400 Series

AfDs for this article:

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

Not an article, not a sensible disambig or redirect, not linked from any articles, no purpose now that the two topics have their own articles. So delete. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 15:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 15:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep and restore to something like this version.

The point is, as that article explained reasonably well, if floridly, is that the 200 and 400 are pretty much the same car. The article might be clearer if trimmed and renamed to something like the Rover R8 platform. This was a highly significant design in Rover's history. It was sometimes seen as "the first non-crap Rover in decades".

Should the Mark I and 416 sections be in here? Probably not. They have no relevance to the R8, and it's the R8 which is the notable part of this, and why the article title conflates the two model numbers.

"Platforms" in the US sense, weren't common in the UK at this time. We either developed unique cars, duplicating the same market sector betwen different factories and marques (BL, I mean you), or else did feeble badge engineering by thinking that swapping the radiator badge and the type of wood in the dashboard veneer fooled anyone. The R8 though was a brave (and successful) attempt to make a reliable Rover by developing a single platform, then using it across the range, even when there were differing numbers of doors and windows on top of it.

WP, in its usual ignorance, has instead split this article into two as Rover 200 / 25 and Rover 400 / 45. Which is easier to write if you're not even in the UK and just watching Top Gear, but it makes no sense for the engineering development of the R8, or the commercial history of Rover's recovery in the '90s. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Great idea. I support moving to Rover R8 platform and restoring the old version you linked and working from there. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Goodness, I'd forgotten all about that version - I did a lot of work on that back in the day but was overruled, unfortunately. I fully support something similar as it's much more logical. CyanIsland

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

@ Andy Dingley and CyanIsland: I restored the old version, moved it to Rover R8 platform, and made some edits. Please jump in and make it better. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Strikerforce^Talk 15:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Abar Basanta Bilap

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe it fails MOVIE. Strikerforce^Talk 15:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Post-closure NOTE I was not aware of the previous AfD on this article that resulted in a Speedy Keep. As such, I have withdrawn and closed this nomination. Strikerforce^Talk 15:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Qabool Khan Gadani

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

Confusing article about a village. Unsourced. Is it a village, or simply a private resort for 1 family? » Shadowowl | talk 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not notable. Absolutely no reliable sources found. Facebook page linked from article shows minimal activity. Newslinger ( talk) 12:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep - This looks like a distinct village. [7] WP:NPLACE. I removed the nonsensical content and reduced it to a stub. -- Oakshade ( talk) 05:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

~~Keep~~ Delete I had a very difficult time finding sources WP:V for this place until I clicked on the google map above - there's a geolocated photo on Google with the name of the village prominently displayed. SportingFlyer talk 06:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC) UPDATE: the photo was uploaded by article creator... see below. SportingFlyer talk 22:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't think Google Maps is a reliable source (required by WP:NPLACE), since it uses user-generated content. Anyone can add a missing place right now, and Google Map Maker opened up even more editing capabilities to the public prior to March 2017. — Newslinger talk 11:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't think so either, but Google Street View could be, and there's a photo of the name of the village. A little bit WP:OR, but since Wikipedia's also a gazzeteer, I don't think it's a problem in this instance, especially where local sources may be difficult to find. SportingFlyer talk 16:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm willing to vote keep if there's a Street View (or equivalent) picture with the name of the village at that location. But, it looks like Street View isn't available there. Google only shows me a single photo uploaded by a user in August 2016. (The photo appears to be watermarked with the user's name in the lower right.) — Newslinger talk 22:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
You're right - on closer look it's not even clear that photo isn't photoshopped. SportingFlyer talk 04:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I took another look at the photo, and the watermarked name is the same as the username of the article creator ( Faisal mushtaq ( talk · contribs)). The only piece of supporting evidence for this village's existence is a photo uploaded to Google Maps by the article creator himself. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
That definitely fails WP:V. Good catch. SportingFlyer talk 22:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Restorative justice. Merge requests should be made on the talk page, but there was already one, so this is pretty much the only result possible. Content can be merged from page history if it isn't already there. ansh 666 17:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Circle justice

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

This should be merged with restorative justice. I have just moved over any content in this article that is not in the restorative justice article already. Anywikiuser ( talk) 14:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Redirect - seems like a good faith WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Give that the content has already been moved over I'd be happy for this to be a redirect rather a merge. Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect merge requests don't belong at AfD. Since the merge proposal was opened in March and the only comment was in agreement, this could just have gone ahead. More comments would have been nice, of course, but there was no opposition to it. Still, I guess this is one way of getting more eyeballs on the question. Anyway, I agree with the above that Restorative justice § Precursors in indigenous groups covers this adequately for now (and could be expanded), so the page should be redirected to that article. Mortee ( talk) 01:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 Super 8s

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

Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 23#Structuring of UK season articles the decision was not to have a separate article covering all three Super 8s competitions but to cover the SL Super 8s in the article on Super League XIII, the Championship Shield in the article 2018 Rugby League Championship and to create a separate article for the 2018 Rugby League Qualifiers Nthep ( talk) 10:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 12:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep: The views of 4 people on a project discussion isn't a good enough reason for deletion to me, especially when it is written according to policy. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 22:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

All content which will be duplicated as it is included in the other articles mentioned. While the concept of the Super 8s merits an article, artificially divorcing a third of a season's fixtures from the top two divisions into one mashup solely because they share a concept name for a phase of the season does not make sense for the reader. Nthep ( talk) 18:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 12:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Christiana Leucas (actress)

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

Film actress that might become sufficiently notable for Wikipedia but isn't quite there yet. The references provided do not constitute significant coverage (in fact four out of five are basically photographs of Leucas). Pichpich ( talk) 15:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep as meets NACTOR #1 and #3 and IMHO meets BASIC. – Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty sure you did not mean that she meets NACTOR#3 because that criterion is Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I'm ready to discuss notability all you want but let's be reasonable here: she doesn't even come close to NACTOR#3. Pichpich ( talk) 19:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. No sign of any significant roles in notable productions. No sign of anything that is unique, prolific or innovative. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

~~*Keep~~ Played significant roles in notable projects like The Last Stand, The Lottery and more. added 2 more independent reliable sources today. Peaceking ( talk) 06:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply

OK Peaceking, let's start with the first, in what fantasy world is her role in The Last Stand a significant role? duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Struck Peaceking's vote, as they have been blocked indefinitely (per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sathish1127) as a sockpuppet of the article creator, who has already been blocked.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 03:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete a possibly prolific but non-notable actress; minor roles do not encyclopedic notability make. For this reason I feel the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR, as reliable sources have not been cited that deem her contributions to acting innovative or significant, and while coverage does exist it is mostly concerned with films the subject had a role in and not about Leucas herself, so even GNG could be failed if one wished to push the issue. It should also be noted that (per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sathish1127) the article was created by a now-blocked editor as part of a paid editing sockfarm, which while not explicitly a reason for deletion should be noted.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 23:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Laura Ikeji

AfDs for this article:

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

Sister of a famous blogger and married to an ex soccer player, per WP:NOTINHERITED that does not make her notable. I have known Laura for close to a decade and one thing is that she always pushes herself to be in the news, however, I can't seem to place my hand on what makes her notable for Wikipedia. As an actress, she fails WP:NACTOR, as an entreprenuer, she fails WP:NOTABILITY (people). The abysmal net worth in the infobox is not only laughable but very incorrect. Her sister's wealth is not her wealth. This well-written article was created by a "new editor", but the state of an article is not a reason to keep an article, what matters is passing the notability guidelines. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 18:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm ( talk) 20:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm ( talk) 20:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm ( talk) 20:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep The article meet WP:GNG as we all know, she also meet WP:CELEBRITY criteria 2 which stated having a large fanbase following. She's verified on Instagram with over 968k followers, almost a million following. She meet WP:ANYBIO being honored by ECOWAS and also for her to be listed on YNaija magazine on a list to celebrate African women means she has contributed to her field. Also note if she hasn't contributed to her field she wouldn't be a brand ambassador of any of the brand most importantly "PayPorte".. Just like it is stated by Wikipedia, a person only establish notability by meeting at least one of it guideline but here I don't see her meeting one or two but three. Also sorry to say you keep saying this "New Editor" like it not possible for someone to make research before doing something, I have watched YouTube videos, read articles online and I understand how Wikipedia work's so please stop using the word "New Editor" as a means of kicking my article's into nomination like you did before HandsomeBoy.. Thank you. -- Timi422 ( talk) 05:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If you get a reliable source that speaks about her having a cult following, that will give better credence to your argument. Social media following has never been a valuable argument for assessing notability. There are numerous individuals and organizations with one million followers on IG that are not notable, besides people buy likes and followers on IG.
ECOWAS, AU, UN honour people regularly, that is not a big deal. Most actressess, singers, humanitarian, etc are UN Youth ambassadors.
Please be careful not to mislead readers of Wikipedia by using sources that does not substantiate a statement. Wikipedia is serious business. I went through this source and didn't see anything that said she was one of 50 incredible women women in Africa by Ynaija as stated in the article. And even if she was listed in their countdown - I go through YNaija countdown list regularly, and less than 50% are usually notable for Wikipedia. The online blog can only solidify notability, not confer it. In terms of media houses in Nigeria, they are not even a top media site so their ranking can't be held in high standards.
Being a brand ambasandor means nothing, my friend was a Google ambassador at my university, and Google is even bigger than Payporte yet he is not notable.
Your articles were nominated because I didn't think they met the notability guidelines. Period.
Regards. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 18:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment You first said "Laura likes to be in the news" indirectly you condemned the fact she meets WP:GNG then you went forward and said "ECOWAS, AU, UN honour people regularly, that is not a big deal. Most actressess, singers, humanitarian, etc are UN Youth ambassadors" are you also trying to say also meeting WP:ANYBIO doesn't count. This wasn't my write up but it is stated in the guideline whereby an article meet at least 1 of it criteria but here am seeing two. Let me give chance to other editor to contribute then I see thing's from their point of view. -- Timi422 ( talk) 04:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply

She likes to be in the news for trivial info such as "Laura Ikeji flaunts a new Gucci bag", "Laura Ikeji thinks all Nigerian men are after sex", etc. GNG is interested non-trivial significant in-depth independent coverage, such as an essay on the Punch titled "The entrepreneurial drive of Laura Ikeji" or "How Laura Ikeji is redefining fashion through blogging" on Guardian. What I mean is the process to becoming an ECOWAS youth ambassador is not one that is very thorough by WP standards. Besides, I just went through the source and she was not chosen as an ambassador neither was she honored directly by ECOWAS, rather it was just a female association attached to ECOWAS ie ECOFEPA that honoured her and some other persons. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 12:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note I made a clear statement "The ECOWAS Female Parliamentarians Association (ECOFEPA) on Monday, May 21, 2018 in Abuja, honour" it even written on her article Laura Ikeji. I never said ECOWAS honor her rather I said a body attached to ECOWAS which is a subsidairy of ECOWAS. Also this are example of WP:GNG Vanguard.-- Timi422 ( talk) 13:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep She meets WP:CELEBRITY Buzzy anslem ( talk) 10:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The weight of WP:PAG based argument comes down in favor of deletion. And while I am not discounting the two comments from editors with potential COI issues, their responses were unpersuasive. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Identity 3.0

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

This is a non-notable buzzword that hasn't been the subject of significant coverage; the independent references are only tied to the topic through WP:SYNTH. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note sure if this is how you comment: but here goes;

I'm at a loss to understand how this is flagged for deletion; yes this entry is based on original research, however the term / research comes from;

* 
Phillip Hallam-Baker
* Tim Mather
* 
The Open Group 
* 
Jericho Forum
* 
Cloud Security Alliance
* the Global Identity Foundation

As a Security and Identity expert, who has been in this field for a LONG time (see: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2316916/infrastructure-management/the-50-most-powerful-people-in-networking.html?page=6#simmonds) this IS a term in common use - in fact Identity is currently one of the hottest topics in Information Security - and this Wiki page is referenced in numerous industry presentations.

If Wikipedia wants to be the pre-eminent source of information then it is critical that articles such as this are included! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmondp ( talk • contribs) 07:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Just added the "Other Coverage" section to show the term in widespread and diverse (but contextual) usage within the industry globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmondp ( talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Also a previously undisclosed WP:COI for this article and for Jericho Forum, apparently. Bakazaka ( talk) 15:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Violates WP:PROMO as an advocacy piece. The article states a "need to move [...] to Identity 3.0" and "need for a paradigm shift." The entire Principles of Identity 3.0 section reproduces a presentation written by the article creator ( Simmondp / Paul Simmonds), which would be a copyright violation if it were written by any other user. — Newslinger talk 14:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- Added WP:COI notices to Identity 3.0, Talk:Identity 3.0, Talk:Jericho Forum, and User talk:Simmondp. — Newslinger talk 14:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Identity 2.0

AfDs for this article:

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

An "ill-defined" buzzword. Article is full of 2007 hype. Newer uses seem largely unrelated to the current content. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. I agree with power that the term seems ill-defined, although this blog post cleared it up a bit for me. I did some searching and was unable to find that many people (i.e. SIGCOV) talking about this term itself (as opposed to just using it), which by NEO means we shouldn't have an article on this term yet. Enterprisey ( talk!) 03:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:NEO due to low usage per Google Trends. The article describes OpenID and CardSpace as two technologies in the "Identity 2.0" category that are "on the rise" and expected to hit mainstream adoption between 2009-2012 (2007 plus 2-5 years). This Google Trends comparison, which has a time range from when this article was created to today, shows that the term "Identity 2.0" was never significantly used even when OpenID and CardSpace were at their peaks. — Newslinger talk 13:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Visa-Gate GmbH

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

The sources do not provide sufficient evidence of notability and are mostly advertisements Polyamorph ( talk) 12:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 13:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 13:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant coverage from reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 14:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: Not sure if anyone checked the history, but this was originally a redirect to H-1B visa at the title H-1 visa until it was hijacked and moved by Moetekxge (see also User:Moetekxge/sandbox‎ as the same material). I've restored the redirect there, and the creating (Moetekxge) user should now be notified. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Ah OK, that makes sense now as when I checked the history and thought the redirect was inappropriate. I didn't check it well enough to notice that it was because H-1 visa had been hijacked! Polyamorph ( talk) 10:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and Newslinger's rationales. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 18:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Alternative Culture Centre

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

Fails WP:GNG in both English and ~~Spanish~~Portugese The Banner talk 11:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby
miss
fortune} 16:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby
miss
fortune} 16:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby
miss
fortune} 16:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

This recent reference might be added:- Anniversary in 2016 Jzsj ( talk) 12:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Aha, the jesuits announcing that their own project was having a party. Do you have any independent sources conform WP:RS? The Banner talk 14:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Do you have some competency issues or do you pretend to not understand the appropriateness of sourcing required to establish notability? ∯WBG ^converse 11:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Sources do not establish notability. 96.127.242.226 ( talk) 04:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete-The article-creator ought have been blocked for this Jesuit-mess long ago. COI, Spam, Zero notability and what not..... ∯WBG ^converse 11:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Ifnord ( talk) 12:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 13:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete A google search returns a lot of results, but further analysis reveals that the coverage is of other organizations with similar names. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 16:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. Merge makes little sense as neither the movie nor the organisation that made it are mentioned at Bannon, not is Bannon mentioned here. Fram ( talk) 13:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Hope and the Change

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

AFDs of articles created by the same editor

None notable propaganda film. Plus, the creator of the article Lionelt ( talk · contribs) seem to have major COI with the subject based on his statement "The best part is if you get an article to 1500 chars you can get the article advertised on the Main page and in front of 17 million eyeballs" Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

delete as promotion. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete-Non-notable. ∯WBG ^converse 13:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete, not notable. Binksternet ( talk) 14:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge/Redirect to Bannon. Not separately notable but worth including somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Steve Bannon. The Politico piece is good, but the other two sources are unreliable opinion pieces. I can't find any other reliable sources offering significant coverage. — Newslinger talk 20:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete as failing WP:NFILM. Ifnord ( talk) 12:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Steve Bannon#Filmography. Content can be merged from page history.

This was close to being a no consensus, but in the end it seems like the general agreement is that the sourcing isn't independent enough from Bannon for its own article. ansh 666 07:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Torchbearer (documentary)

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

This is little more than a listing for a utterly non-notable propaganda film., whipped up by an editor who's stated that he's doing it for promotion "The best part is if you get an article to 1500 chars you can get the article advertised on the Main page and in front of 17 million eyeballs" -- Calton | Talk 11:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Calton | Talk 11:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

AFDs of articles created by the same editor

-- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - I tried in earnest to improve the article, but the coverage is very shallow and mostly occurred during promotion of the film at Cannes. The article is unlikely to be expanded beyond a single short paragraph. Fails WP:NFO. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting the propaganda of the far-right/alt-right.- Mr X 🖋 11:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment You might also be interested that I had nominated his other article The Hope and the Change for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hope and the Change for the discussion. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep The documentary has received significant coverage, therefore should qualify under WP:NFILM. There is nothing to suggest that this is promotion (the nom appears to misunderstand WP:PROMOTION), also if an article can be nominated for DYK, it does not mean that it will appear there. Hzh ( talk) 11:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

the nom appears to misunderstand WP:PROMOTION Since I made no reference whatsoever to WP:PROMOTION, it's kind of hard to see how I "misunderstand it". But looking at it now, I see applies completely, gaslighting by you and Lionelt notwithstanding: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. Lionelt's talk of the article getting 17 million eyeballs obviously has nothing to do with promoting Wikipedia in general -- not unless he's claiming that the existence of this article will cause a spike of 17 million readers rushing to read it. -- Calton | Talk 14:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Hzh: Could you point out some examples of significant coverage? I couldn't find much of anything.- Mr X 🖋 16:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

There are already some given in the article e.g. [8], there are sources that talk about the film, most often discussed in relation to Steve Bannon - [9] [10] [11] [12], not to mention those from Christian sites [13] [14] [15]. Even those that just give passing mention to the film show that it has significance - [16] [17]. Hzh ( talk) 19:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep: the article clearly demonstrates significant coverage in reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. This article is a stub meaning it is a prime candidate for expansion. Agree with other editors, nominator appears to have a misunderstanding of WP:PROMOTION. Wikipedia has a critical new editor retention problem. Encouraging new editors to participate in DYK is a strategy of engagement--not promotion. I'm trying to assume good faith, but the ad hominem comments by nominator display a certain personal animus. – Lionel^(
talk) 19:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Well you wording seem to imply that "he best part is if you get an article to 1500 chars you can get the article advertised on the Main page and in front of 17 million eyeballs" [bold added for emphasis]-- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The raison d'être for DYK is promotion. Whether you call it showcasing, highlighting or even advertising, it's just semanics. From WP:DYKAIM: DYK aims to achieve the following five goals:

1. To showcase new and improved content...

2. To highlight the variety of information...

4. ... contributing to editor retention

Bolding from original except #4. I repeat: there is a basic misunderstanding or WP:PROMOTION. – Lionel^(
talk) 23:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

No, I understand it quite well, thank you. Your talk of this article getting 17 million eyeballs obviously has nothing to do with promoting Wikipedia as a whole -- not unless you're claiming that the existence of this article will cause a spike of 17 million readers rushing to read it.

It's not that you're a propagandist, it's that you're not a terribly subtle one. -- Calton | Talk 14:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge to Steve Bannon. The sources are reporting Steve Bannon and Phil Robertson rather than talking at any length about the film. Here's the Independent UK newspaper talking about how Bannon used the film as part of his campaign to make a ton of money and to fool a bunch of Americans into voting for Trump. Binksternet ( talk) 22:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
delete Not sure this is major enough (or there is enough) for a merge. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Steve Bannon-I trawled through quite many sources but not one of them devotes anything significant to the film.Not much to merge, either. ∯WBG ^converse 13:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect/Merge as suggested. Therei s insufficient content and significance for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect/merge as suggested above. Not independently notable, but I see no harm in a redirect. Neutrality^talk 00:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
~~Redirect to Steven Bannon.~~ Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. The Hollywood Reporter is the best source cited by the article, but its coverage isn't significant. The other sources just offer passing mentions. Here's my analysis of Hzh's sources:
1. The Hollywood Reporter (different source than cited in article): Insignificant coverage of film itself
2. Sight & Sound: OK. Author is "Celluloid Liberation Front," which is a bit questionable
3. NewsOK (Associated Press): Passing mentions
4. NPR: Insignificant coverage of the film itself
5. Keith Koffler: ~~Passing mention.~~ ~~OK.~~ Not a reliable source. The author Keith Koffler operates a site called "White House Dossier," which Koffler describes as an attempt to "try to do some of the traditional accountability that journalism stands for." His authored articles on Google News are primarily opinion pieces. There are 2 books on Amazon with his name on it: the first one is The Obama Scandals: The 22 Worst Outrages of the Obama Administration, and the second one is Bannon: Always the Rebel (this book). It doesn't look like this book would be any more reliable than Breitbart News.
6. Christian Today: Insignificant coverage. Not a reliable source. Footer copyright is 2017.
7. The Christian Times: Not a reliable source. Footer copyright is 2016.
8. CNSNews.com: Not a reliable source. The parent organization, Media Research Center, states that their mission is to "expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left."
9. The Independent: Passing mention
10. The Washington Post: Passing mentions

— Newslinger talk 20:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Heavens! The book actually gives quite a lengthy passage of many paragraphs on the film. I wonder what you consider to be not passing mention. Significant coverage does not require the subject to be the main topic of any source. Hzh ( talk) 22:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

~~Keep. Sorry, I didn't properly click through from the Google Books previews. 2 sources are adequate to pass WP:GNG.~~ — Newslinger talk 23:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I would suggest that the book just proves it is part of Bannons story, it does not establish independent notability. Slatersteven ( talk) 07:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

~~Redirect to Steve Bannon.~~ Amended evaluation above. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Changed !vote. See below. — Newslinger talk 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep: Article is well-sourced and meets WP:NFILM. There's nothing wrong with encouraging others to improve an article so it can be posted on the main page -- not only do several uninvolved editors look over those nominations before they're approved, but getting an article on the main page is sort of the point of improving articles, as it is the community recognizing the work put into improving it. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 18:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

You've been into this POV pushing, over here too? I assumed fringe-science was your favorite venue but I stand corrected. ∯WBG ^converse 10:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

That comment is messed up on multiple fronts, and shows how little you actually know about me. Rather than engaging in WP:UNCIVIL and WP:PERSONAL attacks, you should respond to the actual substance of my !vote. Your comment is especially ridiculous considering that the vast majority of my edits have nothing to do with the topics you mentioned. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 12:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Also, WP:NPA, specifically, states "comment on content, not on the contributor." The user's comment above ignores the content and falsely attacks the contributor. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 22:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep enough independent coverage to establish WP:GNG. Redirect is not going to be helpful. Orientls ( talk) 13:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

See Newslinger's analysis. ∯WBG ^converse 10:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete as failing WP:NFILM. User:Newslinger is commended for the analysis of the references. Ifnord ( talk) 13:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. Just added NYT, WaPo, Breitbart, and Politico. There is more, but this ought to do it. Significant coverage received, so broadly passes WP:NFILM. -- 1l2l3k ( talk) 14:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. Regarding the 4 newly added sources:
- Politico Magazine: OK
- The Washington Post: Passing mentions
- Breitbart: Not a reliable or independent source
- The New York Times: Passing mention

In my opinion, the coverage in Politico Magazine and Sight & Sound is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. These 2 articles each cover multiple films by Bannon, but they offer enough detail on this particular release to meet WP:NFSOURCES even though a substantial portion of the analysis is directed toward all of the films as a set. WP:SIGCOV states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." — Newslinger talk 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge to Bannon's article. I see a lot of coverage of Bannon's movies, typically covered together, and coverage of Bannon and Robertson themselves, but I don't see a lot of in-depth coverage specifically about this film apart from the general subject of Bannon's movies. I don't think it needs to be deleted, as the sources about Bannon's movies are sufficient to include in his article. Happy to reconsider pending sources specifically about this film rather than about Bannon's films collectively (and aside from passing mentions). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Steve_Bannon#Filmography. Only notable due to its affiliation to Bannon. One or two sentences could be added from the article history. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Tregunter Road

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

An ordinary residential street with no claim to notability. The only statement in the article which is cited to a source is a statement about what the area was called before this road was built, so there is no source at all actually about Tregunter Road, even after the article was tagged for sources for almost five years. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - this article does not actually say what is notable enough about this street to distinguish it from other residential roads. Vorbee ( talk) 18:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - No different to any other residential road in London. Anyway fails GNG. – Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - the article does not offer any evidence show that the street has any more notability than any other. Looks like a clear case of failing GNG. Dunarc ( talk) 18:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Steve Bannon#Filmography as a reasonable search term. ansh 666 07:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Battle For America

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

AFDs of articles created by the same editor

-- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Poorly-sourced one sentence article about a non-notable film. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFO. - Mr X 🖋 10:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. This is literally just a listing for a utterly non-notable propaganda film., whipped up by an editor who's stated that he's doing it for promotion "The best part is if you get an article to 1500 chars you can get the article advertised on the Main page and in front of 17 million eyeballs" -- Calton | Talk 11:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment You might also be interested that I had nominated his other article The Hope and the Change for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hope and the Change for the discussion. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. ∯WBG ^converse 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete, not notable. Binksternet ( talk) 14:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - at least one in-depth article at http://slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/10/blowing_up_stuff.html. It's also used as a repeated example in https://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc57.2016/-krzychStockFootage/2.html. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I found the first one, (in my search) but how's NFILM satisfied? ∯WBG ^converse 15:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I was taking a look at Jump Cut whose activities include to profile these particular media stuff, from a narrow domain (along with other things) and me thinks, it hardly lends any additional credibility.Is it a good source to verify stuff? :--Yes. Is it a good source to demonstrate notability? :--No. ∯WBG ^converse 15:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Probably so, which is why I just commented, instead of !voting. It didn't seem really notable, but those two articles made me wonder if it might sneak in under our definition. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge/redirect to Bannon--not sufficiently notable for a separate article, DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Steve Bannon. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. The Slate article is good, but the column from The Washington Times isn't a reliable source because it's an opinion piece. I can't find any other reliable sources offering significant coverage. — Newslinger talk 19:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete as failing WP:NFILM. Ifnord ( talk) 13:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. While there are some questions as to justifications provided, there is more than sufficient consensus that there are suitable sources pertaining to the article subject (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Pluto Press

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

No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. References are passing mentions, inclusions in lists, blogs, the press's own web site, etc. (PROD removed by an IP editor who gave no explanation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 10:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

KEEP. I read through the article and a number of the citations and the subject matter is notable under the rules for WP:ORG for the following reasons.
- The authors and books published by Press are themselves notable. Almost every one listed in the article has their own wikipedia entry and fits notability guidelines.
- The article has SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE in MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT, RELIABLE, and SECONDARY Sources.
- The publishers had obituaries in the Guardian.
- Entries in a academic work Revolutionary History.
- Coverage in Michigan Daily about controversial decision to no longer distribute publisher.

If anything, the article could be expanded. -- Auldhouse ( talk) 15:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep per Auldhouse (who knows what he's talking about after a career in the publishing industry). -- NSH001 ( talk) 07:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep per Auldhouse as well. Sources have significant coverage and the press releases by the company are notable. AmericanAir88 ( talk) 15:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep - Passes GNG. Significant left wing publisher. Carrite ( talk) 17:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Comparison of project risk analysis software

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

Product catalog violating WP:CSC (non-notable entries in an incomplete list), WP:V (just adding an unspecific root domain in each row is not "sourcing", the entire page uses exactly zero independent sources), WP:OR (a lot of the content seems to be based on the original author's own research and analysis of these products). This comparison fails several basic content requirements and should be deleted (or re-draftified). Wikipedia is not a host for personal research results, nor a directory for indiscriminate unsourced information ( WP:NOT). GermanJoe ( talk) 10:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe ( talk) 10:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe ( talk) 10:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. None of the entries in this list have their own articles. List is not sourced well enough to meet WP:OR requirements. — Newslinger talk 15:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOT. Most list entries are non notable and content is poorly referenced (there are refs that don't point to anything in there). Ajf773 ( talk) 20:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOT, WP:CSC, and WP:V.-- 1l2l3k ( talk) 18:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Absurd. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG ^converse 10:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Facta Loquuntur

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. » Shadowowl | talk 09:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Merge/Redirect - To Absurd. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - No reason given by nominator for why the article fails WP:NALBUM. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I think partially because it doesn't have any references. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Per WP:NEXIST a current lack of sources is not a reason for deletion when the article could possibly be improved. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm inclined to vote delete. The article itself has no references and the album isn't in any secondary sources, last I consulted the all knowing search engine -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 07:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Azme Alishan

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

I don't think this event was so significant that WP needs an article on this topic. No encyclopedic value with very little coverage, mostly routine. Fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: unsourced original research. Fails WP:NORG / WP:NEVENT. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep Azme Alishan Campaign (2010 - 2013) was a nationwide social awareness campaign in Pakistan. I was able to find news coverage on this campaign by 3 major newspapers -- Dawn, The Express Tribune and The Nation (Pakistan). So I have added 8 new references to the article from them. True, the article was left unsourced to begin with. Looked to me that article title (Azme Alishan) was also incomplete. It was a 3 year campaign according to the newspapers, so I Moved page to add the word Campaign to the article title. Redid the article as best as I could. It reminds me of "Just Say No" drug awareness campaign launched by former first lady Nancy Reagan in the 1980s in the US. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 20:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

By the way, sorry I forgot to mention for our non-Urdu-speaking readers, Azme Alishan Campaign means The Great Resolve Campaign. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 20:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - No impact in longer term, part of routine patriotic events, fails WP:NEVENT. Reagan's campaign created impact hence meets WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Störm: No impact? How can you say that with such AUTHORITY? Many independent newspapers gave the campaign news coverage for 3 years. Can you be also asked to back your conclusion up with a reliable reference here that the campaign had no impact? Just because you are a Deletion nominator, you should give it a thought before you dismiss so quickly other people's work on this Discussion Forum. I have spent some time improving this article. I at least acknowledged above that the article was unreferenced, when you nominated it for Deletion. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 15:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete : Let's graciously sidestep the WP:OR violation and cite WP:NEVENT. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment Again, It was NOT a SINGLE EVENT lasting for a couple of days somewhere. It was a nationwide Social Awareness Campaign where music concerts by famous musicians and sports events for its benefit were held for a period of 3 years in the 2 largest cities of Pakistan -- Lahore and Karachi. News coverage of this campaign by many independent reliable newspapers persisted over a period of 3 years. Please note that Original Research (OR) and the article being unreferenced problem was solved, when I spent time on improving it and redid the article and provided 8 new references. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 14:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete-Fails to NEVENT. Otherwise there's an automatic bias in favor of one-time events, which manages to gain a few articles during that span against events that happen consecutively every year (for a few years) and hence manages to get the same number of articles, every year at the time of happening. Thus, as I look at whether the event has been any mentioned in a significant manner post-completion of it's course or mentioned in any scholarly source/book(s), I spot nothing which emphasizes the failure of NEVENT. ∯WBG ^converse 11:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. When it's inevitably recreated in a year or two, please make sure that proper attribution is maintained. ansh 666 07:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The Good Doctor (season 1)

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

TV series. Copied from The Good Doctor (TV series). The series only just finished one season and second season in 2019 has yet to schedule. No reason to have 2 copies or split them. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 12:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC) CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 12:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 12:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 12:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep The second season is merely two months away, not 2019. We usually allow splits of season articles out one a second season is confirmed (and episodes have begun to be scheduled); by the time the seven days end, 80/20 that ABC announces the premiere date for S2, thus it would be pointless to delete this at this point. Nate • ( chatter) 21:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep as per past consensus explained above for a valid split article from a parent article that is notable, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep as long as someone is going to put a bit of work into. - adamstom97 ( talk) 02:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Then it should be moved to the draftspace. - Brojam ( talk) 02:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Strong delete Not enough content to split per WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:LENGTH and per ignored discussion on show's talkpage Talk:The Good Doctor (TV series)#Creating article for episode list. Not to mention the split was done incorrectly and without proper attribution. - Brojam ( talk) 02:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- Comment Nobody has added a talk page comment since April, so whatever consensus there is has long expired. Deal with it here; don't cite outdated and little-trafficked topics about a split-out. Nate • ( chatter) 02:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  That was only three months ago, and WP:CONSENSUS does not state a time limit. -- Alex ^TW 03:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  Indeed. The entire idea that consensuses expire is daft. —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  Comment: There is no reason to be rude. Nate: discussions does not "expire". Instead the assumption is that if nobody objects (anymore) and a discussion goes "silent", that is taken to mean "consensus by silence". In other words, if you don't agree you need to speak up - letting a matter lie is taken to mean you do not disapprove! If you think about it you will hopefully realize why handling it this way helps Wikipedia more; otherwise please read WP:SILENCE. Regards CapnZapp ( talk) 08:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  - Comment Wow, I didn't expect it to read that way at all; from my experience, many editors like me don't usually deal with the talk pages because most editing items are dealt with in the article and editing history itself outside of move discussions, and we don't usually check talk because all that's there is (80% of the time rejected/blank) IP edit requests and bot notices. Apologies if this came off as brusque, but just relating my experiences that 'list of' talk pages usually don't have much activity. Nate • ( chatter) 05:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per Brojam; not enough content to satisfy a separate season article, with exceptionally little production information and zero reception and ratings information. Move it to the draft so that it can be properly changed to a valid season article that can stand on its own away from the series' parent article. -- Alex ^TW 02:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per Alex and Brojam, amount of content does not justify a split. I agree with Alex, move it to a draft space to improve on for the time being. QueerFilmNerd^talk 06:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Merge back to main article and delete. We do not need split articles until WP:Article length criteria are met. The fact that people from WP:WikiProject Television (in which I am a participant) keep splitting articles without due cause doesn't make it right, just a WP:CONLEVEL problem. Obsessive splitting like this is also a maintenance drain on editorial productivity better spent elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Just a comment, but the active WP:TV members and participants are actually pretty stern on not splitting too early. The issue of splitting early is normally due to random editors that aren't aware of Wikipedia's and WP:TV's guidelines. -- Alex ^TW

I'm an active WP:TV participant and I do not approve this message. -- Netoholic @ 09:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Can you provide examples of active WP:TV members and participants being the cause of early splits? -- Alex ^TW 12:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - the main page is at 82k bytes right now, which per WP:SPLIT puts it well past "Probably should be divided" level and closer to "Almost certainly should be divided". -- Netoholic @ 07:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The WP:SPLIT table concerns "readable prose", and not the entire size of the article. I think there's a script for determining how much readable prose there is... -- Alex ^TW 08:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

If you find such a tool, please add it to WP:SPLIT. I think that table though should go by source size, since that is the size most important to editors and to the database storage techs. The principle and my vote stands. -- Netoholic @ 08:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:RPS lists two methods, one of which is XTools, which gives 9,245 bytes/characters of prose. Well under the correct interpretation of the SPLIT table; more "Length alone does not justify division". -- Alex ^TW 08:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:CHOKING gets to the heart of the matter - the size of the article for both mobile viewing and editing need to be taken into consideration. The principle stands - int two months, information about the 2nd season will start being incoroporated into this article. It is inevitable, barring some out-of-left-field cancellation, that the 2nd season will proceed. I don't understand the fighting over this. My vote stands. -- Netoholic @ 09:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying your !vote needs to change. I'm just letting you know that you misread SPLIT and interpreted it incorrectly. That's all. -- Alex ^TW 11:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete – per WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:LENGTH, and especially WP:CRYSTAL: there is absolutely no harm in waiting. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 06:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. No reason to fork this away from the main page, from which it was obviously copypasted and not attributed, nor was anything additional added outside of the episode list draft. — Wylie pedia @ 12:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete As argued by others, there is no valid reason to split, and not every season is notable enough to warrant its own article, certainly it's presumptuous to assume that. Hzh ( talk) 12:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete—The character count of the main article, including the content in tables and section headers (though I didn't copy the infobox or references section) is about 29k characters or 4.7k words. A split may be appropriate once the third season approaches though.— Alpha3031 ( talk | contribs) 06:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Interstate 75 rock-throwing death

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

No evidence that this is any more than just a run of the mill crime (see WP:MURDEROF. Multiple crimes as this have occurred over the years, including others on I-75. Refs are typical news reports, not indicative of this case being any more notable. Bneu2013 ( talk) 07:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep on a combination of WP:PROFESSOR, ~~(which she does not quite meet, but comes close,)~~ and WP:NCRIME - which I think this article does pass. The professor who was killed, although young, had a attained degree of impact in her field that has caused her work to continue to be cited and to be revisited, most recently in a 2017 book, Educational Leadership and Music: Lessons for Tomorrow’s School Leaders,. More to the point, the crime itself was not treated as "routine," it got SUSTAINED coverage that had GEOSCOPE, in part because one of the defendants fled, but mostly just due to public outrage at the senseless behavior of stone throwing from highway overpasses that kills people. Note that with a 20-year-old crime editors will need to have access to news archives to view the extent, depth, and ongoing nature of the coverage. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note also that we have Category:Deaths by rocks thrown at cars. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Actually, looking at the stuff that comes up when you click: Find sources: "Julie Laible" scholar, she may meet WP:PROFESSOR, despite having been killed when she was quite a young professor. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

E.M.Gregory This might mean the article should be about the professor, not the event. Bneu2013 ( talk) 08:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It might. Adding this to AfD lists. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep there seems to be enough WP:RS sources to satisfy WP:GNG. AadaamS ( talk) 17:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - enough for WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 10:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep - National level coverage. [18] [19] [20] + some authorship of works by deceased and mentions of her in works by others, e.g. [21]. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment. Very sad incident, but not remotely a pass of WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe ( talk) 11:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC). reply

While I accept that the dead professor did not quite meet WP:PROFESSOR, this does not negate the fact that this murder meets WP:NCRIME and passes WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:HEY I have tweaked, expanded, and added souring to article to show that that the WP:INDEPTH, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:LASTING, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE sourcing on this WP:NCRIME meets WP:EVENTCRITERIA as well as WP:SIGCOV. Note that much more coverage can be found in searches using diverse mixtures of terms, such as: "university of Alabama" + professor + overpass + rock. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep: a fairly unusual crime; meets WP:LASTING. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep based on the credible claim of notability substantiated by dozens of reliable and verifiable sources about the incident demonstrating that this is much more than a run-of-the-mill crime. Sandstein, what ambiguity is there about community consensus to keep this article? Alansohn ( talk) 16:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article has been speedy deleted by Dlohcierekim under WP:G11. ( non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 16:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

PotHoleRaja

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

Interesting project but the article is advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 09:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

delete Notability is not temporary, and this seems to be, and it lacks longevity. As no says, promotional. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete per WP:G11. This is an infomercial in text form, and would need to be completely rewritten for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article creator is also the creator of this project ( Bprathap79 / Prathap Bhimasena Rao) as named in the article. — Newslinger talk 15:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- Added WP:COI notice to User talk:Bprathap79 — Newslinger talk 15:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Bholu Brothers. Redirects are cheap and further, anything merge-able can be deemed from the page-history. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG ^converse 10:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Goga Pahalwan

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

Subject is not independently notable. References only mention in passing the subject, if at all. Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 08:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 08:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

DeleteThere are a number of Pakistani sources that seem to mention him. I don't know much about the different sources to determine if they are a RS or not, but I am not finding any of them that have more than a passing mention of him, therefore either way fails GNG. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment - His article could possibly be merged to Bholu Brothers. Nikki♥ 311 23:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I can't find any sourced material in the article that could be merged... Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 07:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Content might not need to be merged, but that could make a redirect target - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete I proposed this for deletion when the sole reference was a self-published Geocities site. Since then several references have been added.

This sources his date of death and names of family members, so doesn't establish notability.

This references the names of several members of his family, describing him as a "renowned wrestler". This source isn't really permissible per WP:DAILYMAIL, at best it's an indication that reliable sources might exist due to how it describes him.

This doesn't even mention him.

This simply says "The family were wrestlers since 1850. The golden generation – brothers Bholu, Azam, Aslam, Akram and Goga – practiced opposite the independence monument in Lahore and behind the shrine of a famous sufi saint", so doesn't really establish notability.

This says "Umpires were Goga Pahalwan, Anwer Pahalwan and Hajinder Singh, coach of the Indian team". This is trivial coverage, and since it's a 2010 article it doesn't appear to be referring to this person who apparently died in 1981.

It's quite possible the person is notable and that reliable sources exist, particularly non-English ones, but it would have to be demonstrated that a reliably sourced article can be written. I can't really support a merge to Bholu Brothers, as at present all that can be reliably sourced is something along the lines of "Another brother, Goga, was also a professional wrestler". The Bholu Brothers article has enough problems of its own regarding sourcing without transferring the problems from this article to it. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:8DA0:EBD4:4257:5B93 ( talk) 10:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Whatever relevant mention is needed should be made at Bholu Brothers. based on this passing mention. Apparently there are more than one Goga Pahalwan in Pakistan. The one alive is doing referee job [22], not sure If its the same. @ Lee Vilenski:, since u checked all refs, Please add any useful source/ref from this article to the Bholu Brothers article.-- DBig Xray 12:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 10:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Keith B. Dixon

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

Some notability exists, but mostly it fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Also, by the tone and grammar of the article, it looks quite self promotional. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 06:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete, seems wholly promotional and inappropriately written, clearly an advert for Dixon and his photography business. If there are any claims to notability, I can't see them (or find any online). Sionk ( talk) 23:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for promotional articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete this is a promo, not an encyclopedic article. Lepricavark ( talk) 18:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Agree with above Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Water Lilies Food

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

No evidence of notability; a speedy was declined back in 2009 so it has to come here. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Some minor coverage of a new factory lease and some product recalls, plus a passing mention in a business article. No significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete: Searches find a variety of food recall notices, passing quotation of company officials in articles about food sector growth, and the opening of a new facility, but nothing to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. AllyD ( talk) 07:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete There doesn't appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

ML1 Media

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

Appears to be an utterly WP:NN media organization that hasn't even been able to garner coverage of itself. Article appears to have been created and almost exclusively edited by undisclosed WP:COI/ WP:SPA editor(s) here only to promote this company.

This article was {{ prod}}-ed by @ Sp33dyphil: in 2011, but the article creator objected and removed the prod. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: An article on a digital marketing firm going about its business. No evidence of notability provided or found. AllyD ( talk) 07:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete no reliable sources. Tera TIX 08:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. EM Gregory's argument was the swing-factor. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG ^converse 10:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Schofield/Rothschild shootings

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

Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources. In case you fail to understand what secondary sources are, news coverage is primary source. Also fails WP:NOTNEWS. John from Idegon ( talk) 05:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note, however, that with articles on recent events, the guideline is WP:EVENT or WP:NCRIME, and recent EVENTS can be sourced from WP:RSs, like reliable news articles. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 05:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 05:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

delete based entirely on what, unfortunately, is routine news coverage of a depressingly common crime. Mangoe ( talk) 11:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment: I am page creator and thus will not be offering a vote, but I will offer some comments. It is sad to see that JFI, a very experienced editor, has not shed his condescending and offputting attitude towards other editors. I did create this page when I was much less experienced, but I disagree that the page fails GNG as it received coverage not just in local but also regional and international newspapers. Also, there was a debate about the page's notability months ago on the talk page where another editor indicated that NOTNEWS was "one of the most vague and controversial grounds for deletion" on here. Etzedek24 ^{(
I'll talk at ya) (
Check my track record)} 13:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
~~Delete~~ - Local routine news reports mostly. The death toll stood out to me for a second, but that alone does not establish lasting significance or any sort of notability Wikipedia is concerned with. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 11:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep Like Icewhiz, I missed the legislation. Hence my—and Wikipedia’s—pet peeve on lasting notability is achieved and I can no longer support deletion. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per Mangoe. Sadly ordinary. Bearian ( talk) 23:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Note that I have added a couple of more probable searchbars, readily bringing up ONGOING coverage. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep because, Whoa, this spree shooting had IMPACT. Bill toughening penalties for harm and threats to family lawyers heads to Wisconsin governor. A bill called Sara’s Law ,named for lawyer Sara Quirt Sann, one of the victims n this spree shooting, "makes it a felony to harm or threaten a lawyer, corporation counsel or guardian ad litem for work on a family law case, the Wausau Daily Herald reported here and here. Lawyers’ family members would also have the same protection. Judges, district attorneys, law enforcement officers and court officers are already covered." Gov. Walker signs ‘Sara’s Law’ as tool to better protect family lawyers. Adding a searchbar on "Sara's Law". Article passes WP:NCRIME. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 04:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep - the incident resulted in a new law approved by the Senate and signed by the governor; the law is named after one of the victims of the shooting. Furthermore, the law could result in cascading legislation in other states or at the Federal level: "National expert: ‘Sara’s Law’ could set national case study for protecting family lawyers"^[1]. XavierItzm ( talk) 08:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It should be pointed out that the Wisconsin State Bar used this incident as a case study in their analysis of physical risks to legal professionals.^[2] XavierItzm ( talk) 08:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. I was on the fence watching this AfD. The shooting itself had coverage, but did not sway me either way to !vote (quite a bit of local coverage, some national coverage around the event). This spurning an act of legislation, which I either missed or overlooked in my BEFORE, makes this a clear pass. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep The reliable and verifiable sources here demonstrate that the notability standard has been met, particularly based on the impact on proposed legislation based on the incident. Alansohn ( talk) 16:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn - Yup, I missed the legislation too. If someone else can motivated to write about the law, perhaps this could be merged there. John from Idegon ( talk) 16:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The existence of the law supports the notability of the crime. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep per above due to legislation. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep as creator per others. I have updated the page with the new information. Nom withdrew, why is this still open? Etzedek24 ^{(
I'll talk at ya) (
Check my track record)} 22:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Happy to provide you a draft, Mbhbchange, if you'd like to keep working on this ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 10:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Brock Lichthardt

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

Subject does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Being a cast member of a play and singing backup on an album is not automatically notable. Google search for name results in 62 pages, none of which discuss the individual significantly. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep: I feel that this article can be improved on, especially as the artist continues his career. However, at Wikipedia, I feel that it’s important to provide information to others that’s reliable, and, when there may not be enough elsewhere, there are appropriate circumstances to step in and be the first. To remove this article may remove an important figure from Wikipedia. I understand the concern, and reasoning for the request for deletion, however, as time goes on, and more users contribute to the article, I feel that it will resemble something that would never be considered to be deleted. Additionally, the artist has recently released his new album with 10,000 plays in the first week, which I feel should make him more notible, and eligible for a Wiki Page. Thank you for your time, and effort with the page. Mbhbchange ( talk) 19:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete There are mild stirrings of vague potential for notability and a lot of links in the article, but nothing that rises to genuine notability is in the article or can be found in a Google search. That the edits by {{|Mbhbchange}} appear to be almost entirely connected to the subject doesn't help matters here. Alansohn ( talk) 19:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom subject is upcoming at best a case of WP:TOOSOON Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 07:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Guri (singer)

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

Fails WP:NSINGER. Google News gives no substantial coverage. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 15:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 16:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - Meh?!? : Isn't this AfD for "Guri (singer)" a bit of a charitable AfD when /info/en/?search=Guri(singer) has already been deleted. -- DexterPointy ( talk) 21:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It's the redirect that's been deleted, a speedy delete and not relevant to this. Hzh ( talk) 11:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Non notable WP:NSINGER& has been deleted earlier /info/en/?search=Guri_(singer) this time User:Yuvrajwaraichpublished the page using a space between page name "Guri_(singer)" Heshiv ( talk) 12:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment. Have you searched in the Punjabi language? Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Also, searching for his full name, Guri Khattra, in English and Punjabi might be worthwhile. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Possibly a undisclosed COI. Accesscrawl ( talk) 14:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep Singer has reasonable level of coverage in news sources e.g [23] [24] [25], and two of his songs appear to have been ranked among the top 10 Punjabi songs of 2017 - [26]. Should qualify under WP:MUSICBIO. Hzh ( talk) 11:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for more input regarding sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 05:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG as non-notable individual. Onkuchia ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete--The Indian media outlets has a reputation of paid-promotion in entertainment-industry and the pieces resemble unadulterated PR.On a side note Radio&Music is an unreliable fan-promo-blog. ∯WBG ^converse 10:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. The relevant notability guidelines place priority on sourcing, there aren't any arguments here that the sourcing is adequate. Hut 8.5 21:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

7 Days (U.S. TV program)

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

Not every TV program that airs on every cable TV network is notable: this one is not – no mentions at all in Variety (and I looked), which generally means program is not notable. And unsourced since at least 2013. IOW, this is a WP:GNG fail. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Yup, you're right; we don't need to catalog every cable program ever. Yet another Biography clone for then-current NASCAR drivers that I don't doubt was produced by their media arm to fill time on Speed where an infomercial or race couldn't go, and nothing more. Nate • ( chatter) 16:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment @ Mrschimpf: It's like no one reads the notability guidelines before contributing to afd discussions, specifically WP:RPRGM which states "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." So yes, while they may not all be notable, nationally produced television series are probably more notable than you think, so next time it would behoove you to do the proper legwork before giving your two cents on an AFD discussion by tossing in a presumably lazy "yup".-- Americanfreedom ( talk) 21:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Um, no – Mrschimpf is correct here: WP:TVSHOW "supplements" WP:GNG, it doesn't "overwrite" it. (And, in fact, WP:TVSHOW needs a new polish from WP:TV on this point, but that's neither here nor there...) In any case, "airing nationally" does not free you from the requirements of WP:GNG, and in fact many shows that air on "national" cable networks are ultimately not notable as per GNG... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I know the policies left and right, and there is no compelling reason I see for this article to stay. It's a generic Biography show mixed with a generic NASCAR-produced show that I can easily predict never had any segment where drivers denigrated each other or their bosses regularly and was produced solely to fill time on a channel and promote the circuit's drivers. We have a lot of cable TV shows, but most of them, like this one, usually go on and off the air without much notice from the public. This is why only Speed's notable programming can earn articles here, and why programming seen by the public and channels as basic filler won't get an article here. It's also why we never usually create program articles for shows on QVC and HSN; they're self-admitted WP:ADVERTs. Although having every show ever on Wikipedia is a laudable goal, it is in the end, impossible because some shows may have had only small viewership not applicable to a broad audience. Nate • ( chatter) 23:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete - No luck finding sources. The only non-DAB incoming link is from List of programs broadcast by Speed, which would not be harmed by deleting this content. It's a bullet entry with no context there, so a redirect isn't worthwhile. Argento Surfer ( talk) 19:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep - finding a few sources, but many false hits so having as keep for now. Probably should be listed under Sports too. Wouldn't have expected much NASCAR in Variety. StrayBolt ( talk) 04:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt ( talk) 17:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Cellink

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

A remarkable amount of PR--none of which is usable for notability and most of which does not seem to have any claim to reliability or editorial control. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 04:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 04:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 04:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 04:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

delete very obvious corporate marketing in the biotech space. Jytdog ( talk) 16:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete references are directory-type links. This is not notable. Natureium ( talk) 17:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Brian Surewood

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award listed "XRCO Award – Unsung Swordsman" is not significant and well-known. Criminal charges do not rise to the leven of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO + he appeared in over 1200 movies. Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) 15:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

AfD results since 2016 say that niche awards like Unsung Swordsman/Unsung Siren do not satisfy WP:PORNBIO as major. Examples include Roxy DeVille, Shelbee Myne, Kristina Rose, Mark Ashley and Brandon Iron. Also, X number of porn films was deprecated as a notability criterion 11 years ago. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO as nominator states. Lacks sufficient coverage by independent reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC or WP:PERP. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Negligible reliable sourcing regarding anything but his role in the criminal killing of a child. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 22:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete We have consistently said the awards he won do not lead to notability. If his award level passes NPornbio we need to rewrite the criteria to make it clear that someone in such a situation does not. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors can disagree, in good faith, as to the precise levels of coverage sufficient to overcome our notability bar. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG ^converse 10:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Marcus Bastiaan

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

Stumbled across this article from WP:BLPN here. Subject has never held notable public office. Meatsgains^(
talk) 02:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Prominent conservative political powerbroker in the state of Victoria, comfortably passes WP:GNG (see Google News). (I'm the one who posted it to WP:BLPN because it needed some assistance enforcing BLP from political opponents, but that was a situation for cleanup, not deletion.) The Drover's Wife ( talk) 02:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. I'm right with The Drover's Wife here. The article has had quite a few problems, but with the help of some independent editors has become much improved in the past 24 hours. The subject is a significant and influential player in state politics, with somewhat unusual and extreme tactics, and gets plenty of media coverage. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Has not held public office of any sort, internal political offices are not notable. The allegations of entryism are interesting and perhaps significant, but I think as a subject of coverage Bastiaan had certainly had some, but again it's more about the political machinations rather than the individual. Shritwod ( talk) 07:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. That is not a rationale for deletion. Passes WP:GNG with flying colours. Frickeg ( talk) 10:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete He fails any presumption with WP:NPOL as he's never held elective office, so we must go to WP:GNG and he clearly fails that too. A simple Google News search isn't enough to determine WP:GNG, as there's plenty of WP:MILL political reporting where he only gets name dropped, and it's borne out by the sources in the article: there is only one article about him at all and it's about how he's tipped to succeed someone as a leader of a state political party. No other sources are directly about him. May be notable enough in the future, but fails WP:GNG at the moment. SportingFlyer talk 16:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- "Only one article about him at all" is nonsense: even if you exclude all the substantive coverage of his political work and only accept profile pieces, there's still a good bit more than that. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 21:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  - I've just performed a Google News search of him and there's not even a single article where his name is in the headline. I see a Sydney Morning Herald video on him, but again he clearly fails WP:NPOL and even though he's received a lot of mentions in local newspapers, at the end of the day he's someone who has never been elected to office, has never held party leadership, and has a bunch of name-drops in local articles. SportingFlyer talk 04:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
    - "Local coverage" is massively misleading - these are some of the highest circulation newspapers in Australia, and the coverage in them is a hell of a lot more than passing references or name drops - it is detailed coverage (and a lot of it) of Bastiaan's various machinations, on top of multiple profiles of him personally. "Never been elected to office" and "has never held party leadership" are not, in fact, arguments for deletion. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 05:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
      - No, but since he's a politician, he require "significant press coverage" per WP:NPOL. With only one article and one video directly on him that I can find, this is not even close to being met. At present, he's simply someone who isn't even in charge of his local state party (yet?). Not to make an otherstuffdoesntexist argument, but a quick search shows the party currently in charge of the state, the Labour Party, doesn't even have an article for their president, much less someone who doesn't apparently hold formal power? I would assume the level of local coverage would be similar in this instance. SportingFlyer talk 05:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
        "One article" is absolute nonsense. He has multiple individual profile pieces and hundreds of articles about his political machinations. We determine notability on significant press coverage - "isn't even in charge of his local state party" is also not an argument for deletion. The president of the governing Labor Party, Hutch Hussein, has 35 Google news hits - several times less than Bastiaan, and considerably more trivial coverage than the substantive articles about Bastiaan, so your assumptions would be wrong in this instance. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 06:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
        Where are the multiple reliable individual profile pieces? I understand local politics gets a lot of coverage in Australia - but just being mentioned in local political articles does not on its own allow a politician who has never held office to pass WP:GNG. This feels similar to me to the recent Zara Kitson AfD - lots of little mentions across Scottish political articles, but not notable on her own. SportingFlyer talk 14:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
        There's a problem with the language you're using there SportingFlyer. This is not about "local politics". In Australia that term refers to municipal council elections and the politics surrounding them. Outside the really big cities, I'd agree with an absence of notability there. This is about state level politics in Australia's second most populous state, and about one of the two major parties nation wide. (In fact, the party that is in power nationally, and which only lost the most recent state election by a whisker.) Bastiaan's machinations will impact candidate pre-selections for next federal election. We're really talking national politics here. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
        I'm defining local politics as non-national politics. Being the vice-president of a state party requires significant coverage, and while I think he's close to significant coverage, there's only about two or three articles at most which talk about him significantly, and one of them is a blog/unreliable source. SportingFlyer talk 00:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
        Just like Humpty Dumpty, you can use whatever definition you like, but my comment was just a tip for you in an environment where you're talking to a lot of people who will automatically use a different definition, and potentially misunderstand you. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep: Passes WP:GNG per others, extensive coverage in mainstream media. Does need improvement though. Counterparts in other parties and states don't warrant their own pages because they aren't as notable. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 11:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep Michael Kroger has a page dedicated to him and he has not held public office. No one has nominated that page for deletion.
- Comment president of a major party in a state and a director of ABC would seem to lend themselves more to notability, as a comparison. Shritwod ( talk) 12:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Anja Juliette Laval

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award listed, "Brussels International Festival of Eroticism X-Award - Best German Actress", is not significant and well-known. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 02:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany -related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 02:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 02:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - meets of the WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man ( talk / en-2) 11:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. Trade show awards generally fail the "well-known"/"significant" standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 16:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz .Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 10:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete getting fluff awards in an industry that chooses to create awards instead of working on quality of production does not show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete for failing WP:PORNBIO, the award she won is not notable, compare it to the AVNs which are mentioned in mainstream media. Ifnord ( talk) 15:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. There will clearly be no consensus to delete this, at least not at this point. ( non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^t
c
csd
new 04:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

2018 Toronto shooting

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

WP:NOTNEWS Minor incident, alot more people are killed every day in major cities across the West, including Toronto, than were killed yesterday. If we let this article stay, then it begs the question: why do random shootings in which a compatible number of people died and that happen every day in large cities do not deserve standalone articles? Openlydialectic ( talk) 01:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep — clearly meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." For similar events, see also: Danzig Street shooting. 174.116.222.58 ( talk) 01:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) Comment The nominator spelled "a lot" as "alot". ^Semi _Hypercube ✎ 01:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
- While I don't mean to use this as an excuse, I get the feeling that you don't realize the majority of people on the Internet are not native speakers. A large chunk of them didn't even get any formal education in the language. Openlydialectic ( talk) 04:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep — nominator seems to be coming from a general perspective; in a Canadian context, this is exceptional and unusual, thus worthy of note and analysis. Radagast ( talk) 01:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep. Ridiculous nom. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep — I agree with previous commenters that this meets WP:GNG, the references cited shows significant coverage in reliable sources, not only locally but large domestic and international publications. It should be added that a mass shooting of this scale in Canada, or Toronto, are few and far between, as demonstrated by the media coverage, and therefore it is not WP:NOTNEWS. That in some other jurisdictions this may be considered normal or not noteworthy isn't particularly relevant to this shooting's notability. UmpireRay ( talk) 02:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep - I don't understand why the idea of how many people are killed should be a defining factor. This is noteworthy. -- S ^talk/_contribs 02:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 02:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 02:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 02:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 02:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Amusing this is called a "minor incident". This is huge news in Toronto and Canada. Such shootings like this are rare. Coverage of it will be ongoing and long lasting. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 03:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. — The editors above have listed good reasons. This wouldn't be as noteworthy if it were somewhere more prone to violence, but given the context and location, the article will remain significant. Tkbrett (✉) 03:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep : How can it be non-notable ? As said above , the number of people killed does not matter when the event is happening in a thickly populated area . Kpgj hpjm 03:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep: Agree with the above commenters. For Canada, a shooting of this scale is very unusual, this'll remain in the news for a couple weeks now. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep: I strongly agree with the above commenters as well. This is extremely significant, given that it happened in Toronto, which is known for a low homicide rate. Not just that, but it reached international press coverage as well. Note the Danzig Street shooting as well. Johnny Au _{(
talk/
contributions)} 03:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep Small and forgettable when viewed from space. Big and lasting in Canadian cultural coverage. Like when a single gorilla is shot in the US. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep It has international coverage e.g. [27], [28], [29]. David O. Johnson ( talk) 04:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 20:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

10 Mani Kathaigal

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

This is not written as per Wikipedia's guidelines. It seems like advertisement and it has poor source. ~AntanO4task ( talk) 01:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete no indication of notability, only one source. ^Semi _Hypercube ✎ 01:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 02:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television -related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 02:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 02:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete NN run-of-the mill TV show. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:TVSHOW. Ifnord ( talk) 15:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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

[1] ttp://voiceoftheisland.com/kibristan-katilan-tek-orgut-wutc-olacak/85037/

[2] ttp://www.wsaw.com/content/news/UPDATE-Saras-Law-passes-Wisconsin-Senate-with-no-debate-heads-to-Gov-Walkers-desk.html

[3] ttps://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/article.aspx?Volume=90&Issue=6&ArticleID=25665

[1]

[1]

[2]

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook