Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 May	14 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thunderbolt-compatible devices

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY - list of mostly non-notable products without articles. List would not even be feasible to keep up to date, which it is not.

"Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted."

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Samsung devices —DIYeditor (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say the same if we had an article on all devices with USB. It's too vague a list and almost impossible to maintain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn984 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, etc. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Court Square Place

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

Original discussion was closed as "no consensus" in 2006. I think it's time to revisit this. Two local-interest newspaper articles at the time the building was built, with nothing since and nothing outside the New York Area, does not constitute encyclopedic notability.

As a side note, "tallest building constructed in the area since 1989" is one of the most meaningless claims to notability I've ever seen; if that constituted notability we'd have an article on every McMansion in every county in the US. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ROTM. Not notable considering the context of it being in New York City. Would be notable if it were some town in the middle of Kansas. Acnetj (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is in Long Island City, not Manhattan.

~~Keep~~ This building is very historic being the tallest building in the area (Long Island City, not Manhattan) for many years, just as the Key Tower in Seattle or the Russ Building in San Francisco. The article does need re-write and could use a photo. However, that doesn't mean that it should be deleted because it's not in the best possible shape. Keep in mind that Wikipedia allows football player articles even if they only played one or two games or if someone played just one game of the Yugoslav Basketball League so the tallest building in Long Island City for many years is not unreasonable. Cowdung Soup (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any actual in-depth independent sources that might verify that this is a historically notable building in the context of WP:GNG or WP:N? I could care less about the state of the article; if I'd found any sources worth using I would've added them to the article instead of AfDing it, but I didn't. "Tallest building in the area" is totally meaningless as a claim to notability unless there's some independent sources that discuss that as being a notable quality. Your examples, Key Tower and the Russ Building, both have reliable sources that demonstrate their notability in that context. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be some confusion. The Citicorp Tower (One Court Square) across the street is taller and older. That building is not in dispute. The one in dispute is built in 2006 and is shorter and far less remarkable. So it is not historic by any means, or that it was ever the tallest in the area. Acnetj (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the facts but agree with the conclusion. I mistakenly thought this building was the old building which used to be tall for the neighborhood (but would be short in 2018). That building was torn down and probably replaced by Court Square Place. That building may have been the tallest building in the area until 1989, then surpassed by the huge 50 story Citicorp building. It was torn down and the 16 story building built. If information can be found on that old building, it is likely article material but the replacement described in this article is nothing special (and would be a delete vote, in my opinion). I have stricken my original "keep" vote, above). Cowdung Soup (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Nothing to establish notability. WP:MILL 16-story building in greater NYC. MB 02:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this building was a pioneer in an area previously low-scale and is now high-scale. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to substantiate this. There are two sources in the article, the first sounds like a press release and the second is a NYTimes search which is a collection of articles that seem to have minor mention of this building only. Not enough the WP:GNG MB 19:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to pass [[WP:GNG]. wikitigresito (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pip Kembo

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

This article doesn't adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. The subject in question of this article pertains to a low-profile figure, without quality secondary references to back up the claims this article made. Pip Kembo is an employee and a non-executive producer working for Artist Publishing Group, and hasn't achieved eminence in his field yet to be seen as a public figure. While Pip Kembo is working as a producer in Los Angeles, USA, his contributions hasn't been noticed by any mainstream American media or publications, hence most of the references made in this article coming from local Zimbabwean websites or his employer's website. Regarding the status of Pip Kembo as a public figure, he hasn't achieved national nor internet recognition as of now. He has approximately 1200 followers on twitter and 2600 on instagram which calls into question his relevance as an entertainer. Furthermore, the author wrote his own biography on this article, which brings into question its partiality. The page comes off more as a piece of self promotion than a serious topic about a recognized public figure in the field of entertainment. ExposingScrubs (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Personale (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little strange nomination that suggests that the nominator somehow knows the subject. However, notability shall be determined based on the article. Considering the tone, the accusation of COI written/edited might be true. More important is that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability according to WP:GNG and google does not produce anything beyond short mentions in articles about others. wikitigresito (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three (Canadian universities)

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

The creator of this article appears to have also created the term "Big Three". The only source cited in the article to actually use the term "big three" is the first source cited, a blog post. After creating the term "big three", the author then goes on to provide a history of these three universities, along with their rankings. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nominator said, there was only one reference provided in that article that uses the phrase "big three," and its from a post on the College Confidential forum (not an encyclopedic source). There also is no postsecondary association known as the "big three" (like Canada's U15, or Australia's Group of Eight). I don't even think "big three" is a thing, colloquially speaking. Leventio (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator here. This name is pretty commonly used on college forums and Canadian media. Especially commonly used on sites like College Confidential, YConic, Reddit, etc. and I thought it might have been a bit spammy to link all of them. I originally created the page but didn't know how to rename it -- just figured it out just now. Also on Canadian news sites (Globe & Mail, TorStar & National Post), the three schools have been referenced as the Big Three and Canada's Top Three for the last decade in passing -- "Canada's top three" have been what I've been able to find within news of the last few months. (It's not easy to dig through news articles month by month just to find this term, given that Google ranks the news chronologically). Anyway, I updated the name to what the cited articles use -- "Canada's top three"; I've seen a lot more but again, they mentions the name in passing and I'm not sure how to incorporate it. Any input is appreciated. U423310 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leventio, Big Three is not a formal organisation, such as U15, in the same sense that Big Four accounting firms aren't an organisation. It is a colloquial name for the three schools in Canada that are often referenced together in regards to ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U423310 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any reliable sources using that term, nor have I ever heard it "in the wild" myself. "Canada's top three" is not the same thing, nor is it any more significant or noteworthy than "Canada's top ten". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Big Three" or "Top Three" are neologisms or convenient verbal shorthand for describing three Canadian universities. None of the current sources discuss this as a topic. There is no significant coverage of this topic in independent, reliable sources that I can see. The sourcing now in the article is terrible. We've got blogs, Reddit, and primary university sources. All the material about the history of the three universities is extraneous and irrelevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, you can find mentions of a top three, a top four, a top five, a top six, a top ten, a top twenty Canadian universities, and so on. I found all of these phrases by searching online, and none of them are notable. There's no particular reason to stop at three. The most common phrase seems to be "top 10 Canadian universities" with "top 3 Canadian universities" a relatively uncommon phrase. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hey sorry for commenting twice. I found an article dating back to 1945, having President of UBC announcing that UBC joins the big three in the headline -- I included a photo in the history section. I believe this warrants reconsideration. U423310 (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, the article you found is a primary source WP:PRIMARY. Also, the phrase only occurs in the headline, not in the text, and headlines are not usually considered accurate. This is certainly not a WP:RS. Secondly, it refers to UBC being second or third in terms of total enrolment, which is not how you are representing the meaning of the term in the WP article, suggesting this use of the term is irrelevant. Thirdly, did you also search for "big two" or "big four" or any other phrase involving a "big" number of Canadian universities? Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

primary sources not verboten ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Primary sources not verboten for supplementary verification of stray facts unimpacting upon notability, such as a company's name and address or a person's educational background, after notability has already been fully covered off by WP:GNG-eligible reliable sources. Primary sources are verboten as support for notability in and of themselves, however. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term 'big three' appears to be that of the point of view of the article creator. Otherwise sources don't establish any notability of this distinction, as most of them are unreliable. Ajf773 (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not going to gainsay that those three universities are Canada's three largest and most prominent, but I am going to gainsay that this is the standard or reliably sourceable term used to express their trinitarianness as a concept — usage on "College Confidential, Quora, Reddit, YConic, Student Awards Forum", etc., is not reliable sourcing for the purposes of Wikipedia content. I can think of no significant or reliably sourced context in which these three are isolated as a group separately from the rest of Canada's most prestigious and elite but technically smaller universities, such as Queen's and Dalhousie and Laval. If there's a Canadian "Ivy League" at all, it's the "big three" and the three others that I just named in the preceding sentence, and I know of no context where the "big three" are isolated as a separate grouping in their own right from the other three. Bottom line, this is original research that synthesizes a bunch of statistics — it is true that stats can be found to support that these are the three big kahunae, but those don't reify "Big Three" into a name for them as a group. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harris (North Carolina politician)

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

WP:BLP, created as a redirect to an election article in 2016 and then spun back out as a standalone BLP last week, of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- people get Wikipedia articles by winning the election and thereby holding the seat, not just by being candidates. But this offers no strong evidence that he has preexisting notability for any other reason. So this needs to be either deleted, or reverted back to the original redirect -- he'll qualify to have a Wikipedia article if he wins the seat, but nothing here is a strong or substantive reason why he'd get one just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been very involved in nominating articles like this one for deletion. I created this one because I do believe that the news coverage of him and his life is significant and has persisted over time, including coverage of his time as president of the Baptist State Convention and involvement in leading the charge to pass Amendment One, so that he does pass WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject certainly passes GNG – beyond that, he's won an election: the primary against the incumbent, Pittenger. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearcat means the general election. Being Rep-elect would pass WP:NPOL, winning the primary does not meet that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Winning a primary does not pass WP:NPOL. He has to win the general election in November to become notable as a politician, and absent that he gets an article only if he can be demonstrated as already having cleared WP:GNG for other reasons before he even stood as a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the Republican nominee for Congress in a largely Republican district. He may will win, and that's not idle speculation. JTRH (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a nominee is not a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. He has to either already have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy itself, or win the general election in November. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Muboshgu - being prominently involved in politics for years and defeating an incumbent in the primary should be enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, defeating an incumbent in a primary absolutely should not be enough, and nothing stated in this article suggests a level of "prominence" in politics that exceeds that of any other non-winning candidate. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a valuable article to refer to, and has plenty of reliable sources. econterms (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - feels WP:TOOSOON to me. There are a couple good articles about him so it's closer to a keep than most of the ones I'd vote for, but all of the articles are either directly related to his candidacy or are not sufficient for notability (the mention in the AP article, for instance.) The problem with political candidates are most articles about them are WP:MILL unless they are elected, and I don't see anything here that's not a run of the mill candidate article. SportingFlyer talk 20:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He unseated a three-term congressman in the primary - and has been the only candidate to do so thus far this cycle. Roger Marshall (politician) (who held no high office at the time) was created the day after he defeated incumbent Tim Huelskamp in August 2016. I grant you Kansas's primaries are much later in the election cycle, but that isn't really what we're debating. I can't cite any Wikipedia policy here, per se, but I would at least keep it until the November elections, after which this article can be deleted should he lose. Woko Sapien (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument is notability is not temporary: either he's notable now and always will be, or he's not yet notable. SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My argument was more towards recent precedent, for what it's worthWoko Sapien (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- just because he has a good chance of winning the general election does not mean he passes WP:NPOL. All the coverage of him is associated with the election. If he wins in November, the article can be recreated. I would even support userfying the article for now.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Rusf10, may I suggest you remember several important principles, when participating in Afd?
- Our decisions as to whether to keep or delete articles is supposed to be based on the inherent notability of the topic, not the current state of the article. A cursory look at the article's references may suggest ALL media coverage about Harris is about him as a political candidate. That is why you really should conduct your own web search, if you want to leave an informed opinion.
- Afd robots are just stupid robots, and, when the article title is disambiguated you have to roll your own web search. I "Mark+Harris"+"North+Carolina"+-primary&oq="Mark+Harris"+"North+Carolina"+-primary&gs_l=tablet-gws.3...42482.48033.0.48873.9.9.0.0.0.0.100.734.8j1.9.0....0...1c.1.64.tablet-gws..0.0.0....0.A5Nuaj-d2k4 "Mark Harris" "North Carolina" -primary when searching for "Mark Harris" "North Carolina" gave me too much reporting on his recent political campaigns. Result? Lots of coverage not related to his recent campaign... Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Individuals who don't measure up to GNG can nevertheless merit an article under the supplementary notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN. And the opposite is also true. Political candidates -- individuals who don't meet POLITICIAN, can measure up to our inclusion standards when they measure up to WP:GNG. Here are links that show Harris measures up to GNG [1],[2]. Geo Swan (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those articles are about him — they both just namecheck his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else, which means they do not aid in getting him over a notability criterion. GNG is passed by coverae about the person, not by coverage of other things which happens to mention his existence. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to draft. Based on what I'm reading here, he is likely to win the general election and would then qualify for a page. It sounds rather bureaucratic to delete a page now, when there is a good chance that we will want it back in less than six months. If he doesn't win in November and doesn't acquire lasting notability in another way by then, delete away. Vadder (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every single candidate in any election could always make the exact same claim that we have to keep it because we might have to recreate it in six months if they win. Per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions — we do not keep candidate articles pending the election results and then delete them only if they lose, we wait until they win before we start the article at all. Administrators, further, have the power to restore deleted articles after the fact if there are valid reasons to do that, so the idea that the original work would be lost if he wins is not a reason why it would have to be kept in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per most arguments above, potentially revisit later in the year if he is not elected Guyb123321 (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the two above arguments are a classic WP:TOOSOON. Once you're notable, you're always notable - there's no revisiting in a few months if a notability-conferring event triggers or not. SportingFlyer talk 16:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a perennial candidate. FWIW, I'm a Democrat. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Running twice does not make him a perennial candidate, and even if it did being a perennial candidate is not a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- political candidate who nevertheless measures up to GNG, as per above. Geo Swan (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Every candidate in every election everywhere would always "measure up to GNG", without exception, if the amount of coverage shown here were all it took. Routine campaign-related coverage, in the district's own local media where such coverage is merely expected to exist, is not enough to make a candidate notable just for being a candidate per se — candidates need to be shown as special cases to qualify for Wikipedia articles without winning the seat first, not just to be referenced to the exact same volume and depth and range of coverage that every single candidate could always show. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - People who win a Victoria Cross, get a knighthood, or hold national office, are exceptions. They can have their notability established by "one event". Most individuals have their notability established by weighing and adding up various factors that establish notability, none of which would be sufficient to establish that individual's notability, all by itself. So, it is unfair and unreasonable to argue that this particular factor, or that particular factor, falls short of establishing notability.
    The nominator claimed ALL the references out there were about his participation in the campaign. The Reuters article, from 2012, has six of 33 paragraphs talk about Harris. Yes, the article is not about him, but 15-20% is not a mere passing mention.
    Those references establish that Harris's press coverage does not all revolve around his political campaign. Geo Swan (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say anything about "one event" whatsoever. Winning a Victoria Cross, getting a knighthood or holding national office are not "exceptions" to anything I said — such people are notable because they receive ongoing coverage in a context that cleanly passes the people will still be looking for this article ten years from now test. There is no such thing, for instance, as a holder of national office who wins the election but somehow fails to ever actually do anything in office or get media coverage for it — so the person is not "notable for the single event of winning an election", they are notable for the ongoing event of holding an office of permanent encyclopedic interest. The notability test is not "does this person happen to be getting some news coverage today in a context that isn't inherently notable otherwise?" — it is "will people still be looking for this article in 2028 and beyond, because their notability exists in a forever context rather than a temporarily newsy context?" Officeholders pass that test, while candidates normally do not except in extraordinary circumstances which haven't been demonstrated here. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current sourcing of the article appears to satisfy WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources. If I search for his name and look through the results, I can see there are many more articles that discuss him, including several non-local or national news sources.[3][4][5][6] The widespread national coverage indicates this candidate and this race are notable. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error

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

Almost entirely unsourced, about several unrelated topics:

The first part of the Human behavior section could be part of one or more standalone articles about mistakes. (A move from Mistake may be required.) However, it is almost completely unreferenced and may consist of original research.
The last subsection of Human behavior contains no content and instead directs the reader to Medical error.
The first part of the Science and engineering section is already covered at Observational error and two related topics.
The second part of Science and engineering should have a standalone article at Design error.
The last paragraph of Science and engineering and the entirety of the Numerical analysis section are already covered at Approximation error.
The Cybernetics section does not explain what the term means in cybernetics.
The Biology section is a duplicate of Mutation. Other types of error not mentioned in the article also exist, such as chromosomal abnormalities.
The Philately section is a duplicate of Errors, freaks, and oddities.
The Law section needs to be merged into the standalone article, Error (law).
The Stock market section is a duplicate of Fat-finger error.
The Governmental policy section could have a standalone article or be merged with Intelligence cycle management, if it could be properly sourced.
The Numismatics section is covered at Mint-made error.

Additionally, Error (disambiguation) should be moved over this title because there is likely no primary topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the best of articles, but it is the primary topic. Bands, albums, songs and fictional characters are not. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An orientation survey article is needed for a broad topic like this. From here the reader should be able to access the more specialized discussion articles, which would obviously have the cites lacking here. Don't take away the umbrella article. Why should I have to dance between the raindrops to get an idea of what 'wet' means? Shenme (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BROADCONCEPT. Error has meaning in a lot of different fields, and describing that in a single article is better than having a disambiguation page in place at the base title. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BROADCONCEPT. Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a second curious nomination, although not poor enough to warrant a speedy close I fancy. BTW, per above, broad concept applies. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:SNOW. The literature is so vast you should be able to find something to add. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tinapa Shopping Complex

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

Sounds like an advertisement in Wikipedia for a run of the mill shopping center. There has been a tag for a decade (10 years) asking for citations. There is not a single reference. 10 years is long enough to wait for a reliable sourced reference. Cowdung Soup (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like an advertisement. It's gone unsourced for so long because there is no reliable third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the websites are travel forums, there is no coverage about the subject by reliable sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced puffery advertisement. The article is out of date, describing an at that time unrealised project, and even though it would appear to now be built a (very quick) glance for sources comes up with nothing appropriate. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article should have been part of Tinapa Resort. No independent sources, basically everything relies on what search from "Tinapa" brings up. Edidiong (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ROTM mall, no evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH as well as WP:GNG. The resort page itself is also problematic. All advertising in nature --Quek157 (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SNOW, WP:ADVERT, WP:MILL. Pick one. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Player

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

This horse is not notable per WP:NHORSERACING. He has not won any major races or titles. He has not received significant media coverage (I could find no media coverage), and has not sired any notable horses (and depending on the age of gelding may have sired no foals). The relatedness of the horse to other notable horses does not make him notable. DferDaisy (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- most of this article is about who the horse is related to -- but notability is not inherited, so that does not make the horse notable. Winning horses, like Secretariat, probably have thousands of descendants. I don't know if the two races the article says the horse won measure up to a special purpose notability guideline. If they don't I think it would be hard to support retention. But, even if he did, the horse is named after the WP:BROADCONCEPT of a fringe player, from literature(?). The Fringe player article should be about the underlying concept, not the horse. Geo Swan (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent, reliable sources. I couldn't find anything other but the name is not very distinct, so if someone can present some evidence I would be open to change my mind. wikitigresito (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability. no stakes wins, much less G1. a gelding so no offspring. Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Numerically, it's 21 delete to 16 keep. That's not a clear consensus, so we have to look at the arguments.

As Jeff5102 writes, "one side sees references from established, third-party news outlets, while the other side disqualifies them because they are opinion pieces." That's the core disagreement in view of which I need to weigh the arguments.

WP:QS, part of WP:V, excludes sources "that rely heavily on ... personal opinion". WP:GNG likewise requires "reliable sources" in the sense of WP:RS, which in turn allows "opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable" for "statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact" (WP:RSOPINION).

My reading of these rules is that opinion pieces alone are insufficient to establish notability, because the purpose of our notability guidelines is to ensure that there are enough reliable sources to base an article on. And as seen above we can't write an article, which always includes assertions of fact, based solely on opinion pieces.

For these reasons, in my view, the majority of "delete" opinions is also based on clearly stronger arguments, and the article must therefore be deleted. It can be recreated if more coverage of this topic in reliable sources that are not opinion pieces is found. It can also be editorially redirected, as a plausible search term, to Eric Weinstein#Intellectual dark web. Sandstein 19:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Dark Web

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

Previously deleted and redirected to th3 article on Weinstein. Re-created recently by a sock puppet, deleted, and now re-created again, this time by a good faith editor. We have a list of names, a definition which is a repeat if the section in the Weinstein article, and a colour piece. In fact the only substantive change from last deletion is one more colour piece, covering substantially the same very small factual element. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear why this article would not just be marked as a "stub" and people invited to add more rather than deleted altogether? It seems like a current significant social movement that is getting the attention of the New York Times. I'm also unclear why you removed all the content related to race/ prejudice that was sourced/ referenced and why you indicated that it was not? The addition of the some of the ideas, which you deleted, that define this group (free speech, etc.) and their ideas re: race/ prejudice seem to be an important contribution to the topic on wiki. --Hantsheroes (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are plenty of things this article has yet to cover and it is easy to find sources. There are many different opinions about what this loose affiliation means and about whether it's a good or bad thing. Do the people named in this article embrace the term? Are there other people who were once alleged to be part of the IDW before they rejected it? All of these should be discussed. Connor Behan (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received considerable media interest. The first AFD's result was merge to Eric Weinstein. Since that a major article in the New York Times with interviews a photo-shoot by a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer [7] appeared this lead to several subsequent articles in press: The Chronicle of Higher Education[8], National Review [9], Washington Post[10], New Statesman[11], a humorous piece in the Guardian[12]. Due to this media interest and discussion on the talk page the closer of the original AFD leaving it void. Several people have deleted and recreated the article since.

I was the person who first performed the merge to Eric Weinstein, but it did not feel like a particularly good solution, much of the information in the original article did not fit the bio of one of the minor players. --Salix alba (talk): 22:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment In response to comments about sustained coverage, there are more sources from before the NYT article, these are currently in deleted revisions, Conatus News, January 18, 2018 ^[1] Rubins Report, Jan 30^[2] Big Think, March 15^[3] Provident Journal, March 22 ^[4] Sam Harris April 16^[5]--Salix alba (talk): 03:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those is a reliable independent secondary source. Most are primary and have a vested interest. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although we should be prepared to move the article as the name changes. The NYT editorial is sufficient for notability, but probably not for naming names. Since I will be reverted, I will not remove the list of names, even though they present a probable WP:BLP violation. I'm not sure what would be sufficient; I only know that neither source so far provided is adequate. The NYT column seems adequate for the names, but the list of names was probably taken from clearly unreliable sources. It needs to be carefully watched, to avoid BLP considerations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle of Higher Education article is interesting as it gives an insight into the process of the NYT article from someone who declined to be included. Those with photos have agreed to the photo shoot associating their names with the project. Other post NYT articles offer criticism of the term for many of the same reasons editors have expressed here. --Salix alba (talk): 22:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it might have been borderline at the last AfD there is now unquestionably enough coverage to ring the WP:N bell. The only question is whether or not there is enough reliably sourced content to build a stand alone article that isn't doomed to being a perma-stub. I believe there is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Intellectual has an established meaning. Shouldn't be thrown about to refer to Dave Rubin (youtube show for a year or two) or Eric Weinstein (Biologist protesting race center policies). A NYT article glorifying a group of people is not the same as creation of an entity. These individuals, bound by political views and very questionable stances on ethnicity and mental capacity call themselves "intellectuals". A NYT article isn't enough reason for them being referred to as intellectual. I'd hate to use a more direct Nazi analogy, so I won't. Paulthemonk (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term is being used by a lot more than the NYT. If you have a disagreement with the manner in which it is being employed you need to take that up with the sources. All we do here is repeat what the sources are saying. Nothing more and nothing less. It's not our job to say they are wrong. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They don't call themselves "intellectuals". Eric called them "intellectuals". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the term is being used by multiple reliable sources. Until the sources change their language that's what we go with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the last AfD for this, I was one of the editors who suggested "Merge" because it just did not have enough notability. The NY Times piece and the associated writings and controversy in reaction to it put the subject clearly in the "notable" column for me. Dozens of mainstream and respected writers writing in mainstream publications reacted to that piece and not only commented on the piece itself and its author but debated, often passionately, the merits and demerits of the philosophies, personages and concepts associated with the term "Intellectual Dark Web", adding significantly to its notability and visibility in the public fora. Marteau (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What has this to do with "conspiracy theories"? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Over the last few days it has ceased to be an issue whether this article should be retained. Google makes clear that legions of triggered ideologues in the mainstream press are swarming what they imagine to be politically "correct" battlements in self-righteous attempts to put the genie back in the bottle. In this way they have legitimised the situation as clearly notable. The movement, if that is what it is, was overdue twenty years before Trump became president. There needs to be a restoration, or at least a semblance, of rationality, Enlightenment aspirations, and respect for what is true. Unfortunately, Eric Weinstein didn't widen his perspective enough to think through the implications of the name he suggested. To my surprise, I find myself agreeing with Arthur Rubin, hi Rubin, that we should "be prepared to move the article as the name changes". As Buddhists say, in connection with the worst curse they can conceive, "interesting times". --Epipelagic (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Salix alba. Coverage in reliable sources appears sufficient to meet WP:GNG. DynaGirl (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has changed since the last time this was deleted. The only thing added was an op-ed fluff piece. Why are we here again? --Tarage (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to determine notability of the subject, not just blindly compare the way the article was then with the way it is now. And for what it's worth, there's more than just one "fluff piece" added to the article since then... a lot has changed, and it's still a work in progress. It's a very young article.

Anyway to address your question: What Changed Since Last AfD? A LOT changed since then. Last AfD was closed 9 May. A google search for "all" occurrences of "Intellectual Dark Web" JUST since 9 May returns SEVENTEEN PAGES of results. A google search for "news" occurrences of "Intellectual Dark Web" returns four pages of results. JUST since May 9. Just since six days ago.

Literally dozens of newspapers and magazines carried articles addressing the "fluff piece" and the ideas the "fluff piece" brought up. Writers from The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner, National Review, Chronicle of Higher Education, "Reason", The Village Voice, The Boston Herald, The American Enterprise Institute, Vanity Fair, New York Magazine, Esquire, Spectator UK, Media Matters for America, Washington Free Beacon, Los Angeles Times, and dozens others all had writers who discussed the "Intellectual Dark Web" NY Times article, and most of the directly addressed and debated the issues that article brought up. AND THIS WAS ALL SINCE MAY 9. Whether or not those writings will make it into the article as a citation is not the question. The question is, is the subject notable. The fact that so many big name writers from big name organizations discussed the issue is proof that the subject is notable in a big way. This explosion of interest is well demonstrated by looking at Google Trends for "Intellectual Dark Web". They use a relative scale of 0 to 100 with 0 being no interest and 100 being maximum interest for that subject. On May 5, interest was at a "2". Today, it is at "100". In nine days, interest in the subject has increased FIFTY TIMES.

THAT is "what changed" Marteau (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON --Tarage (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something became a blip on the radar doesn't make it notable. What will you say if interest vanishes over the next few days/weeks/months? Should we have a wiki article about every briefly mentioned phrase? Better draft an article on 'bae'. I'm not convinced that an opinion piece and responses to said opinion piece are notable. Nor am I convinced based on a google search history. Neither even remotely count towards something being notable. --Tarage (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on bae. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example but my point stands. --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that your point stands. While I feel that contemporaneous news coverage is not a secondary source, the consensus is to treat it as such for the purposes of determining notability of recent events. Various "pop culture" terms are as a result included, despite the possibility that they may just be an irrelevant fad in the long term. I believe there are plenty of "Tea Party" or "Occupy Wall Street" articles created based on that theory which might not survive AfD today.

Notability is not temporary, but how the notability of current events is perceived sometimes is. When the media covers The dress, we have an article on it. When the media covers the latest neologism for contrarian political thinkers, we have an article on it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard we should be stalking every opinion piece that someone writes that gets replies. I frankly don't agree with that in the slightest. This is not a neologism. People have to USE it before it reaches that point. I don't see anyone using it in reports outside of replying to the opinion piece. It was fine when it lived in the article it's been ripped out of numerous times. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for inclusion in the encylopedia is not whether you see people using it. Here's nine pages of google results where people obviously not on your radar or in your social circle who were talking about it before April 30 of this year (i.e. before the NY Times article) It was a thing well before the NY Times article, and before everyone replied to it.

And how many of those are reliable sources? How many actually matter? Are we just going to create articles on whatever bullshit search terms people find amusing for a second? Also sign your post. --Tarage (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the press insists on talking about this for some reason. The article is going to be a nightmare to write and keep compliant with NPOV and BLP policies, mais c'est la vie. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Delete. I agree with Power. There's very little reliable content, but there's enough. For those who are unaware, the NY Times piece everyone is talking about is clearly marked as opinion. We generally do not use opinion sources for facts, so if it's used in the article it should be done with care. I also agree there's a BLP angle here that needs to be watched for. After all the Guardian source calls this thing "the supposed thinking wing of the alt-right." (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote per WP:SUSTAINED. (See Jytdog's reasoning below.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me why the New York Times article is not referenced in the footnotes of this article at all even when it is referenced in the body of the article. Further, the fact that the NYT article is an Op Ed piece doesn't negate that it is discussing a fact - a group of people have identified themselves with the Intellectual Dark Web. The opinion isn't whether or not the group exists or what it stands for - the opinion is evaluating the merits of the group. We can be cautious about elevating this opinion as fact, but not dispute that this group of people exist. The NYT article can be used to reference/ prove the group exists and what it stands for. Why would attacks on/ opinions about the NYT article and the IDW be okay to reference with footnotes from other newspapers but not the NYT article itself? Please clarify.--Hantsheroes (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic for this AfD. I responded on the article talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was not familiar with the concept of this (I found the Intellectual Dark Web article from a reference from Jordan Peterson's wikipedia page). From it, I learned that Peterson's point of view is not unique; the IDW is "notable", and the WP page directed me toadditional well-founded sources and references, both pro and con. Thus, the article serves a valid purpose and does so without prejudice and in a balanced way. Thus, "keep". Dr. Crash (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is currently undergoing rapid editing, with various editors adding and removing large amounts of oftentimes contentious material, and there is much disagreement over what should and should not be included. Just something to keep in mind when determining your position on the deletion or retention of this article... the current version will almost certainly be significantly different once the dust settles and we achieve some sort of consensus on the content (which we have not yet achieved, as a quick visit to the page history will confirm). Marteau (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and admonish the nominator for persistently (and unsurprisingly) source-stripping this, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's neither AGF nor accurate. Guy has been removing unreliable sources. That ain't source-stripping, there's nothing wrong with it, and this isn't the forum for admonitions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has been SELECTIVELY removing sources and saying they are unreliable. For example, removing a Boston Herald source saying it is "an unsigned editorial" while at the same time insisting that an unsigned satire piece be used in the second sentence of the article to link the IDW to the "alt-right". Marteau (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither the time nor place for that, Marteau. The sources in question are all readily available, and consensus is forming around your keep position. Please let it rest. As I said at article talk, if you have issues with Guy's behavior you'd be best off raising them on his user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect ~~Seems to be clearly notable as I have seen/heard it discussed by various people, though not RS. Sources should improve overtime.~~ As other comments have pointed out, if nothing else, it isn't ripe yet. I am changing my !vote to redirect to Eric Weinstein and if RS sources come along later the redirect can get expanded. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 21:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC); edited {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 23:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator should accord zero weight to this comment. "I've heard of it" (like "I've never heard of it") is not a policy-based reason to keep, especially when — as the user concedes — this knowledge does not come from reliable sources. See WP:IKNOWIT (one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Neutrality^talk 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, see my revised !vote. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 23:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Why does the community so consistently blow off WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED? Yes there is a little media circus. WP is a lagging indicator of notability - we are not part of the blogosphere. Where is the sustained coverage? (it takes effort to tell because of the incompetent citations - whoever added that shit to WP thinks readers and other editors care when that editor "accessed" the source. Nobody cares about that. What matters is the date the source was published.). If you waste your time like I just did and click on every one of the refs to see when they were published, you will see that all but one is from the last two weeks. One is from February. That fails SUSTAINED by a very long way. "Everybody is talking about it now!!!!!" is not an N criteria. Jytdog (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON per review of available source. Ill-defined concept with insufficient sources to build an NPOV article. Eric_Weinstein#Intellectual_dark_web already covers it and this is sufficient. Can be redirected to he section in Weinstein's article as a plausible search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without prejudice) - It is too soon for prime-time. K.e.c's suggestion to redirect to the Eric Weinstein article as a home for what little encyclopedic information presently exists is an excellent interim solution. If / when quality, in-depth secondary reliable sourcing on the subject becomes available, a stand-alone article can be reconsidered. "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia ... when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic". All we have at present is an indiscriminate collection of opinion pieces opining about a recently published opinion piece. WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTPROMOTION are requirements that have not been met. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm simply not seeing significant, in-depth coverage. Some passing mentions plus one or two op-eds is not enough to be WP:SIGCOV, especially for neologisms. I think a brief mention in the Eric Weinstein article would be fine. Neutrality^talk 23:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after an initial "no consensus" closure because of a participant's assertion that arguments provided in the second half of the discussion could sway opinions. Let's see how that goes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all prior participants to invite them to respond to the recent comments (starting with Jytdog). --22:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended content
Hantsheroes JzG Connor Behan Salix alba Arthur Rubin Ad Orientem Paulthemonk Marteau Epipelagic DynaGirl Tarage Power~enwiki Dr. Crash Andy Dingley Neutrality zchrykng Jytdog K.e.coffman Xenophrenic

Delete per reasoning of Xenophrenic and K.e.coffman. wikitigresito (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as before, and my comments on the inappropriateness of the nominator stripping sources from it still stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Please be careful not to count this as a double vote. I'm sure that wasn't Andy's intention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with this new policy where AfDs are closed and re-opened repeatedly until they give the right answer. I was pinged specifically, to re-submit my !vote, and so I did. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not a clearly defined and coherent concept. It's impossible to build an encyclopedic article about a loose term that has no sustained and signiicant coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no objection to a redirect. There are two problems here. One is that the topic is a neologism that is only very minimally notable, as demonstrated by the small number of Google News, Google Scholar and Google Books hits. The reliable sources verify that the term exists but do not show it to have a particularly coherent meaning or to hold much traction. The second problem is that the article is unclear to the point where it almost completely fails to explain what the subject actually is. At times it sounds like the subject is "Lefties on Youtube" and at other times it sounds like it is "People abusing lefties on YouTube", which seems to be closer to correct. The sources seem to disagree between that latter option and a broader idea of "Various non-mainstream politics on YouTube". As far as I can tell the subject can be very broadly construed as "people talking about politics and trying to sound edgy and clever on YouTube" and even in that broadest definition it has nothing to do with the actual dark web at all. Is there anywhere on the web less dark than YouTube? People are on YouTube to be seen not to hide. So we have a minimally notable neologism, which is itself confusing and poorly defined, being explained very poorly. How does it serve our readers to keep such stuff? Even if it were notable it would be a TNT case. As I say, a redirect to Eric Weinstein would be OK as there is a short section there on the subject. Even that is pretty woeful though. Of its three sentences only the first is actually on topic before it goes off on a complete non-sequitur which looks a bit coat-racky. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The potential confusion with the dark web and the fact that some of us would have personally preferred a different term is not relevant. Diminishing interest in the neologism is, but some people are missing the fact that reliable sources talked about the "intellectual dark web" before it was called the "intellectual dark web". Look at how much coverage some of these events generated. A proper article would give a mini-biography of each member which mentions the controversies that propelled him or her into this loosely defined group. For Peterson it could be the opposition to a civil rights bill. For Harris it could be the Murray fiasco and so on. We could then discuss the Weiss article, the reaction to it and the uncertainty some people have about whether they are in this movement. Cathy Young is an example. The main reason I haven't started adding all of this is that I don't want to put the work in when the article is still unsafe. Connor Behan (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That you think "dark" does not mean what they think it means is irrelevant. That you think they are trying to be "edgy and clever" is also irrelevant. Answering your question, How does it serve our readers to keep such stuff? as you may have noticed, coverage on this has been unbalanced and divided. We have the opportunity to do a service unavailable from other sources and provide balanced coverage... something which is sorely lacking in not only this, but in other controversial political topics. Marteau (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments. Michipedian (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe things that exist in the sphere of 'opinion articles and reactions to them' are notable without sustained coverage or events happening that were influenced by these opinions. Article name would have to be changed if we did keep this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable 'thing' that is receiving mainstream coverage. The participation in the AfD reflects its notability as do the searches that return coverage in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:F15F:D980:8971:23A0 (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that has been up for AfD before is bound to already be on quite a few people's watchlists and attract a bit of interest if it is put up for AfD again. That doesn't make it notable in itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, and there are lots and lots of AfDs that see much more participation and end up with Delete outcomes. Not to mention that there are well-known systemic biases at Wikipedia and editor interest should in no way, shape, or form play a role in determining the outcome of any content discussion. This is actually addressed directly by WP:INVOLVE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation or redirect. I believe that this is a thing we are going to want to have an article on, but the sourcing we need hasn't been found or created yet, and this particular iteration of the article is not in good shape. Vadder (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Let's wait for these people to accomplish something, and have continued coverage in media. However, nominator should read WP:RAPID. wumbolo ^^^ 19:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to WP:RAPID isn't very fair. The article was already deleted twice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: you do realise that all the references in the article are newer than the last AfD? wumbolo ^^^ 11:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly relevant. Guy's "rush" to AfD was eminently reasonable purely from a procedural perspective, given the article's deletion history. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Editors should not thread their double votes as extra votes. The AfD was relisted, but it's not a new vote. If they want to re-affirm, they should start a thread with a Comment or Re-affirm starting the thread. Or enter their comment under their !vote. Dave Dial (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Per Jytdog and DanielRigal. Reading the discussion here and reading the article and sources, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED apply here. As well as the reasoning DanielRigal gives. Op-eds & the discussion of those(mostly in a derisive manner) don't cut it. We do our readers a disservice with this article name. The Dark web isn't YouTube or Twitter, and it's an absurd title. Put their names on List of YouTubers article and mention the op-ed in the Bari Weiss and Eric Weinstein articles. Dave Dial (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you consider the term absurd or not, or whether or not it has anything to do with the Dark Web or not is completely irrelevant toward the question of its notability. Marteau (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the large amount of reliable sources. For me, it looks like an article to avoid editing, because that would be as much fun as tractor pulling in a swamp. Just see how the game of "raising the WP:RS-bar for sources I disagree with" already is played by some; that drains all the joy away I get from improving an article. But WP:IDONTLIKEEDITINGIT is no valid reason to dismiss it. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know how this term will evolve in the future or if there is something else to be said about it right now, but the subject is still notable. --MaoGo (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't pass WP:NEO. Nearly all these sources are opinion pieces and op-eds; the article literally has only a single sentence that isn't just quoting someone's opinion, cited to the only non-opinion source. This fails the bare minimum of sourcing necessary for any article - we need at least two sources we can cite for statements of fact, and as it stands we only have one. I'm just not seeing how people can support keeping it based on these sources - they're really, really poor. A handful of op-eds is not enough to support an article on a neologism. This could support a sentence or two on Eric Weinstein, but there's clearly not enough to support a full article. --Aquillion (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kishere, Jacob (January 18, 2018). "What is driving the rise of the 'Intellectual Dark Web?'". Conatus News.
^ Rubin, Dave. "What is The Intellectual Dark Web?". YouTube. The Rubin Report. Retrieved January 30, 2018.
^ Beres, Derek (March 15, 2018). "10 challenging books from the Intellectual Dark Web". Big Think.
^ Daum, Meghan (March 22, 2018). "My Turn: Meghan Daum: Speaking truth to identify politics". Provident Journal.
^ Harris, Sam. "The Intellectual Dark Web". Waking Up with Sam Harris. Retrieved April 16, 2018.

Keep. While it currently fails WP:SUSTAINED from my googling, it seems certain that the term still stick, so deleting it now just means it has to be remade in 3 months. Why bother? Might as well keep it and expand it as the term spreads. There's lots of RS right now. Deleet (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation, there seems to be a strange, sharp split between editors saying there are lots of reliable sources, and editors saying there are no or very few reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That is because one side sees references from established, third-party news outlets, while the other side disqualifies them because they are opinion pieces. I believe both sides have a point. The dillema here is that both Wikipedia's policies on opinion pieces, as well as the tendency of today's media outlets to prefer opinions above facts, make it hard to write an article on present-day intellectual discussions without that "strange, sharp split." The best solution would be something like delete without prejudice to recreate it in 2068, if notability by then is established, but maybe someone could discuss this issue on one of Wikipedia's boards on guidelines instead.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I google the term to see if its been getting attention, I see articles in a quite wide variety of outlets, including: Vox, Slate, Reason, The Guardian, DailyBeast, Chronicle, WashPost, National Review, the Federalist, and of course NYT. Seems unlikely this term will just disappear again. Sam Harris is going strong from what I can tell, and there's many other of these talk host people (e.g. Stefan Molyneux) who talk to the IDW 'members'. The culture war is raging at full strength right now (judging from e.g. divergence in social media), so IDW movement will continue to have left-wing extremism to react against. Deleet (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is new (hit-)piece of The Outline; [13], about Bret Weinstein identifying himself “[a]s a member of the Intellectual Dark Web...” I do not know if The Outlook counts as a "reliable third-party-source" (in this case, IDW-fans will disagree, while those who hate it will consider it as acceptable), but at least it contributes somewhat to the notability of the IDW.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff5102: in any case, it is an opinion piece and not useful for establishing notability. wumbolo ^^^ 11:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per K.e.coffman. Very clearly WP:TOOSOON, given that the best sources on offer here are op-eds. An op-ed is not a good secondary source for anything. A Train^talk 22:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a useful term with some breadth of use that refers to a discrete (albeit shifty) intellectual movement. Lukacris (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These votes are divided into two groups. People claiming the article subject is "reliably sourced" and notable, and people claiming this is sourced to opinion and commentary sources as a recent neologism. I just clicked on every source listed in the article footnotes, and every source listed here in this discussion. The result: only one half of these voters are actually telling the truth, and my vote reflects this. If this is allegedly so widely covered in reliable sources, when will these sources be added to the article? They are not there now. TwitterBird (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TwitterBird: This article is filed under "News and Politics". wumbolo ^^^ 23:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly an opinion piece... the writer uses the words "pencil necks", "Wingnut Avengers" and "libtards" and in keeping with Village Voice tradition it's sloppy to boot... twice they call it the "Dark Intellectual Web". Several delete voters here , including this one, say there are no reliable news sources... I disagree, I count two, the Spectator Life piece and the Examiner one. Those, combined with the blizzard of opinion pieces in very high profile publications by very high profile writers satisfy the notability guidelines to me. Others, obviously, disagree. Marteau (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice article, albeit clearly an opinion piece, and I do now feel that I have a clearer idea what the subject actually is after reading it. The trouble is that the key message it has for us, here on this AfD, is in the phrase "History suggests the IDweb phenomenon will be evanescent and mainly benefit its promoters". That was published two weeks ago so it is far too early to say that they have been proved wrong about that. So we do have a Reliable Source opining about the subject (which is a small plus point for its notability) but the opinion is that it is just a short term thing with little chance of sustained notability (which diminishes that already small plus point into a vanishing point). --DanielRigal (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that this is sourced to an opinion piece which is attempting to discredit a group of thinkers by attaching a sinister label to them. Keeping the article on Wikipedia would wreak a rather unpleasant sort of mischief. So, WP:TOOSOON - perhaps if the term is actually in mainstreamuse in a year or two the situation would be different. Bmcollier (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEO. This is a neologism which was first ~~published~~popularised in the NYT by Bari Weiss. (Note that although it has been pointed out that an article in Spectator used the term in February 2018, there was no follow up or commentary about this piece). I have seen the references which have been brought to the discussion and it seems that every reference is an opinion on the Bari Weiss article. Each reference refers to it roughly in this way: "...referred to as the Intellectual Dark Web by Bari Weiss in the NYT...". We should keep articles about such neologisms only when multiple journals, books and academic sources refer to it frequently. It needs to be demonstrated first that the neologism has entered into common parlance. It would be hard to assess that right now as the coverage is still fresh (it has been less than a month) and we may be suffering from a recentism bias. I suggest deleting this article right now or moving into draft space and letting it be there for the next 6 months. Based on the coverage at that point, we can then decide if we want to restore the article.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC) (slight edit- added main reason and corrections based on comment below) --DreamLinker (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... this is a neologism which was first published in the NYT by Bari Weiss. The very first reference in the version you yourself reverted to this evening was published several months before Weiss's piece.

I have seen the references which have been brought to the discussion and it seems that every reference is an opinion on the first article. Incorrect. Besides the first reference, your categorizing sources which mention Weiss's piece as just "an opinion on the first article" is misrepresenting them. Most of them (if not all of them) do a lot more than just opine on Weiss's work, but go into detail above and beyond what Weiss wrote.

It needs to be demonstrated first that the neologism has entered into common parlance What policy or guideline says that? It's a specialized term used by people who are particularly interested in politics and philosophy. A "common parlance" requirement would rule out thousands of specialized terms in the sciences and arts. Marteau (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I stand corrected that the article in spectator (in February 2018, 3 months earlier) did use the term. However there was no article which used it after that (till May). The next article which used the term in a reliable source was the NYT opinion piece by Bari Weiss.

Almost every source is a response/commentary on Bari Weiss's piece. I stand by this fact. Whether they have extra information doesn't diminish the fact that it is a follow-up on the original piece. The interesting question to ask is, if the NYT piece was not published, would these followup articles be published as well? Would they also use the same term? (This is a WP:RECENTISM bias we are seeing here).

Regarding "It's a specialized term used by people who are particularly interested in politics and philosophy", WP:NOTNEO is the relevant policy. If this is indeed a specialised term, could you point me out to at least 3 article in reputed academic journals, over a period of time which uses this term and critically examines it? (It doesn't need to be "layman's parlance". Specialised terms in philosophy are OK. But I would at least expect some discussion of these terms in academic journals).--DreamLinker (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not a true movement or network. The IDW has no existence outside of Bari Weiss' mind. Alice Dreger [14] criticized, almost to the point of mockery, the mere concept of an IDW — and she was one of the people whom Weiss sought to include in the article that presented the idea of the IDW, which only highlights the non-existence of such a group. So far, the term is nothing but a cringy, mauvais mot launched by a young writer who doesn't have much of a name yet. The article made a splash, mainly due to backlash (at least from where I'm standing), so the creation of this entry may have been a manifestation of recentism bias. We're taught in the guidelines to avoid recentism, not least because events or ideas may soon lose their relevance even if they made a lot of noise on their introduction. And in the case of the "IDW", this has been happening for a while already.Rafe87 (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IDW has no existence outside of Bari Weiss' mind. Did you even look at the references? In particular, the first one, published months before the Bari Weiss article? Marteau (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The is beautiful! Even some of the people alleged to be in it don't know what it is and don't want anything to do with it. It almost seems like there is something akin to astroturfing or, given that they just want to provoke a response, trolling in it. If the subject becomes notable to the point where we need an article about it then these will be the sources we should use but, for now, it is not our job to do other people's PR work for them. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Association with a political or philosophic category is not always voluntary, see Mike Cernovich who objects to being called 'alt-right'... does not stop reliable sources or our encyclopedia from labeling him as such. Marteau (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a common objection to the viability of the article is a lack of reliable, non-opinion based sources, I feel it is appropriate to note that today, "El Confidencial", a Spanish digital newspaper specializing in economic, financial and political news, published an article about the IDW called "Cómo ganar un millón de euros al año siendo un intelectual (oscuro)"... Google translates the title as "How to earn one million euros a year by being an intellectual (dark)". I find no mention of the source in the relaible sources notice board, however a search for their URL in Wikipedia returns 1290 results, most of them showing the source being used as references. It appears to be news and not opinion. It also refers to a documentary about the IDW called "A Glitch in the Matrix" by David Fuller which, now that it has been referenced by a reliable source, I will add to the article, if not in the body, at least in an 'External Links' section. Marteau (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider Google translation as an evidence that the term has entered common parlance. In particular. Cómo ganar un millón de euros al año siendo un intelectual (oscuro) is also translated as How to earn one million euros a year by being an intellectual (obscure). The article itself is again a commentary on the original article by Bari Weiss. ...although it has been a controversial report by Bari Weiss published in the opinion section of ' The New York Times ' which has popularized the term and has opened a debate about the role and intentions of this group... (Google translate). As per WP:NOTNEO, I would look for evidence that this is not a temporary news spike but a sustained usage of this term. This can be achieved by showing that reliable sources use this term and discuss it independently. Currently what we are seeing is a discussion and commentary on the NYT article by Bari Weiss.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Keep’’’ enough has been written about the IDW to sustain an article Prelogger (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled Nintendo games

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

Relies heavily on unreliable sources. Other entries are unsourced. Even if reliable sources could be obtained, the topic of cancelled games for "Nintendo" platforms is not a cohesive topic in and of itself. There are lists of canceled games for each individual system elsewhere on wiki. TarkusAB^talk 20:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept it needs a new title since Nintendo Games makes it sounds like we are taking about cancelled games that were going to be made by Nintendo not cancelled games that were going to be on one of their consoles.--69.157.253.30 (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel most of these sources are not as "unreliable" as the persion who proposed the nomination pretends. And if the website "NINTENDO64EVER" is though to be unreliable, it should be demostrated that they got some things wrong to show that. In the meantime, you can just put a require addional sources template next to each of these sources to point out the need of addictional verification. And Even if we exclude all the sources from NINTENDO64EVER, there are still plenty of reliable sources that this article uses, such as exerpts of magazines from the time period. The article could still be considerable long without all the content from the so-called "unreliable" sources. Therefore, I think this article should be kept. Emass100 (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did add an external link at the bottom of the page. While the page it goes to is not in itself reliable, it contains details of magazine issues and pages that can be used as reliable sources to note the intended release of those games before cancellation. Deltasim (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources can always been found and placed and there are some existing ones currently. I agree that the title can be changed to something like "List of cancelled games on Nintendo systems". I disagree with putting all cancelled games together as the number would be enormous on one page. I also disagree with putting cancelled games on the list of games on the respective systems, because those lists contain officially released games and the cancelled games are more like extras. Ideally you would want the most notable cancelled games on the list such as "Super Mario 64 2". Deltasim (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we put the issue of sourcing aside, I don't think my other concern can be addressed. That is, the topic of "games cancelled on Nintendo systems" is not a topic discussed by journalists. I have seen articles that discuss games canceled for the 64DD, or games canceled for the Super Nintendo, but never seen an article that discusses games cancelled across Nintendo platforms all together. Therefore, we are creating a made-up topic. TarkusAB^talk 21:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it might be true that this topic has never been addressed so broadly, the topic of the games cancelled for each individual consoles certainly has. We could separate this article into into one article for every consoles listed here, and it would adress this issue. We could therefore see this article as a merged topics article. Emass100 (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we could separate into separate articles for each console, but a merged topic article like this one currently fails WP:NOTESAL. TarkusAB^talk 03:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this fails WP:NOTESAL. This is an article made out of multiple lists, all of which pass WP:NOTESAL, grouped together because of their affinities. Emass100 (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those consoles such as Virtual Boy would be pretty short considering the few cancellations. In addition to a list, there would have to lengthy sentences to explain the reasons for the cancellations and the efforts that were put into the games (which fit better in the individual game articles. I can't see going in this direction as making this one list a big improvement. Deltasim (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you all don't think this fails WP:NOTESAL, then can someone provide a reliable source where cancelled games for Nintendo platforms are "discussed as a group or set". There isn't one on the page. TarkusAB^talk 11:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However, needs work, namely in the addition of viable sources and removal of unsourced non-notable titles per WP:DIRECTORY. Not every single game has to be included. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this was just for actual Nintendo games, I would vote to keep in concept, but as this is for literally any game meant for a Nintendo console that got canceled, it's too large in scope. Why stop there? Where is our cancelled Sony and Microsoft games lists? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An individual page that have a list for cancelled Sony games or one for Sega games can be created. Consider this page as a sample for other future lists of cancelled games. If this Nintendo page works, the same could be applied to other major systems, provided that notability is established. Deltasim (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm pretty sure there's a way to make an article out of this, I'm just unsure of how to rework the scope that makes sense. "Nintendo games" is confusing in definition and scope. But cancelled video games are frequently covered by reliable sources. I'm not sure how it'd make sense to split up. Might be possible just make a "List of canceled video games" list and have the inclusion criteria be games that have their own dedicated articles, so it'd be restricted to, let's say, major ones like Sonic Xtreme rather than everyone one of the 9 cancelled Sonic games. Or maybe just do it by dev/pub comapny? Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where the confusion lies. You might think by "cancelled", those games were cancelled altogether such as "Sonic Xtreme" which never saw release on Sega Saturn or any Sega console to follow. The scope is for games that were intended for release on one or more Nintendo consoles/handhelds, but never made it to the particular platform(s). For example Aero The-Acrobat 2 was released on SNES but was cancelled for Game Boy Advance. It might qualify as a cancelled port/remake if you will. The list I put together includes a combination cancelled games that were never released and games with cancelled ports and remakes. Deltasim (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The misunderstanding was more that someone moved it to a new title after the AFD started, from List of cancelled Nintendo Games to List of cancelled games for Nintendo consoles, and didn't make note of it really here. The title is an improvement, its timing and implementation was just...not ideal. The new title gives it a clearer scope at least. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title makes all the difference, in my opinion. Gives it real scope rather than just an infodump. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the same note can someone move Lists of Nintendo games since it had the ssmme issue as the old title for this article?--69.157.253.30 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs work, but it satisfies the notability guidelines. Felicia (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rework so the scope is limited to only games Nintendo was developing and/or was going to publish. A list of every canceled game on a Nintendo platform regardless of developer or publisher is way too broad. JOE BRO 64 19:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where would the remaining games be listed in that case? Deltasim (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deltasim, Please strike one of your 'keep' votes. You are only allowed to vote once. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my vote. Look carefully and you'll see it is TheJoebro64's. Also check the edit history at 21:23, May 16, 2018‎ . I was not voting a second time, just asking a question about the scope. Deltasim (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list is shit. I've just removed the unreliable sources (160 of them!). If you keep voters don't make any attempt to improve the sourcing on this article, I'm going to start culling it. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What would complicate the scope of the list is listing games that were released in one region such as NA/USA but cancelled in PAL/EU for example. Personally I don't think this list really needs to expand to that scope because indicating the existence of the games on particular platforms is what the list is all about. Indicating the cancelled regions can be done easily on the individual platform lists (such as List of Nintendo Entertainment System games) with the correct references provided. Deltasim (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that if a game was released in some regions and not others it’s the release in those particular regions that was cancelled not the game itself.--69.157.253.30 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There's a tag already on Wikipedia that helps to categorize which title was planned, cancelled or went unreleased for the NES. We all need to place the exact source as to which "X" game was planned or not. I suggest to delete this article and put to good use the Category:Cancelled Nintendo Entertainment System games tag. KGRAMR (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This "tag" is only for the NES though. Some of these consoles don't have this tag system. Also: having this article around will help you make good use of the good use the Category:Cancelled Nintendo Entertainment System games tag because of the sources here. there is no harm keeping both, and they are not duplicates of each other. Emass100 (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Categories do not provide references and don't establish notability. Some articles have no references to suggest that those games tagged cancelled games were ever planned or in development in the first place. This list compiles the references together, so you can be sure if a cancelled game is a hoax/rumor or for real. Deltasim (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Emass100:@Deltaism: You can both apply the tag and a reference talking about the cancelled port or even make an article about a particular cancelled NES game. That's what i tried to do with the List of cancelled Atari Jaguar games article that i single-handedly created, by adding all of the references that i could find but unfortunately i gave up on it once a Wikipedia user going by the name StraightDown came a started making that article a complete mess (That dude acts under the agenda of trolls that are moderators at AtariAge and Ross Sillifant/Lost Dragon/The Voice of Truth/Last Shogun/roguetrooper/Rogue Trooper/LD/Chryssalid/The Furthest Man From Home/themekon, a dude that will "correct" you in regards to unreleased games on all platforms, by self-referencing his own interviews and articles that he has posted from multiple websites to no end and most of the time posts comment without actual proof of what he's talking about). Now, i would love to help in finding stuff about unreleased NES games but sadly, due to that bad experience i had 2-3 months ago, i suggest to delete the article. I'm not doing this to be the bad guy so keep that in mind. KGRAMR (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KGRAMR: You might not consider this list a new experience to do you good for what the Atari one did, however if you have any suggestions on improving this Nintendo list I'm open to them. Deltasim (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deltaism: I'll keep that in mind! KGRAMR (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not about cancelled Nintendo (as in the developer) video games, which to me would make some sense, but about games that at one point have been announced for on any Nintendo console. It also included multiplatform games, even if they were released on other platforms. It's largely unsourced. It's also confusing and vague. Klonoa 2: Lunatea's Veil does mention in the article that it was announced to be released for the GameCube, Area 51 however doesn't mention Nintendo. South Park was released for the Nintendo 64, but not for the Game Boy Color, so it is listed there. That's WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly but surely fixing those problems with at least one reliable source for each game. I'm narrowing the list down to games that actually did have a planned or coming release before cancellation and removing the ones that were rumoured to have cancelled releases. I'll check out the games you linked and see if they are official cancelled ports/games or not. Deltasim (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think one of the key problems here--TarkusAB's question to Deltasim about whether there are reliable sources that describe the subject as a set--has not been sufficiently addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:47, 29 May 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)} 15:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the references that have been added are not news citations about any particular game's cancellation, but previews, announcements, or other notices just mentioning the game, proving it was in development or at least was an idea at some point. It's true that finding sources explicitly mentioning cancellation will be impossible for many games because most just become vaporware, but likewise, assuming cancellation becomes WP:OR because some may have been reworked into other games. And as mentioned above, many of these games were released on non-Nintendo platforms, again bringing into question which I still don't know the answer to: "Do we have sources that demonstrate the notability of cancelled games for Nintendo consoles as a group or set?"

From researching sources myself, I believe the answer to be no. I have seen many listicle articles titled "25 Games We'll Never Get to Play" or some variation that discuss games that were completely never released, but I have never seen articles that give weight or discuss any notability of those cancelled specifically for Nintendo platforms. Furthermore, I haven't identified any weight given in how cancelled games are reported so far as making any list short of "List of cancelled video games" would not be satisfactory, and that would be too large. We have CATs for all this: Category:Cancelled video games. TarkusAB^talk 18:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I think the only people who can establish notability for most if not all the cancelled games as a set are Nintendo themselves. The best I can do is find two or more cancelled games on a single article. The best success I've had so far is 6 cancelled Wii U games and 25 cancelled Nintendo 64 games. The problem with categories is that they can be tagged on any article. Several articles such as Tomato Adventure, Trap Gunner and Wario Land 4 have been tagged as Cancelled Game Boy Color games, but I have found no evidence or references that GBC versions of those games were ever planned. Another problem with categories is that it cannot be applied to cancelled games that do not have an article of their own such as "Titus Jr". Deltasim (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making a list doesn't solve the problem of folks mislabeling the games as canceled. In fact, half of the entries on this list are currently unsourced and nothing can stop editors from adding unsourced entries in the future, or entries with dubious or unreliable sources. As is always with Wikipedia, readers are responsible for conducting their own due diligence and reading the articles and checking sources themselves. Regarding games like Titus Jr., if it is not notable enough for its own article, we don't need a special list to ensure they are cataolgued. TarkusAB^talk 20:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lot of blue links on that list, so it aids in navigation. Also far more useful than a category since you can see the Cancellation date, Developer, Publisher, and which Nintendo console it was to be released on, all in one nice comparison list. Ample reliable sources to prove the information is correct here and in the linked articles. Dream Focus 19:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Someone please enlighten me? While I have played video games I am not a "gamer". "IF" we are to consider a very large list, possible because there are blue links that aid in navigation, that at most has 25 members (I think that is the most I have seen) then:

1. What would be looked for (or what audience) that would be helped with this list?
2. How do we justify members of a "group" if there are/is sources that confirm only 25? Would not the rest be synthesis and even OR when lacking sources.
3. Considering the above how can mix-and-matching games from separate consoles be in accordance to notability guidelines?
4. How is a list that includes games that someone was "developing and/or was going to publish" be verified by other than primary sources?
5. If this is a list that aids navigation but is about related items that share the same name (Nintendo) would this not be a set index article? Otr500 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 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 Tom Sachs (artist). And merge as appropriate from the history if anybody cares to. The references provided in the "keep" opinion don't seem to have convinced anybody else. Sandstein 09:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knolling

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

Poorly sourced. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge with Tom Sachs, per comments below. There are a few sources out there-- Curbed, and some photo blogs. It's a word for a new hipster practice that has not been mentioned in any books. Tom Sachs promoted it ("always be knolling"), but when you put it together there is not enough here to say that there is SIGCOV In multiple reliable sources.104.163.159.237 (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into the Tom Sachs article, as the trend seems to have originated with him? But generally agree with IP that the coverage is not SIGCOV. --Theredproject (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator I would vote to ~~Delete~~. I think the word could be called a neologism. Because the sources are lacking I think the article is promoting the term. Having said that, I will concede that it may be a useful word. But we should reflect what already has received adequate sourcing. Merging it into Tom Sachs would also be acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would merge to Tom Sachs and leave a redirect as it is possible that sources will improve to the point it justifies an article with time. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 14:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Discussed in multiple sources independent of the creator over a period of many years. [15] [16] [17] [18][19][20][21][22] Including books. [23][24] [25]ResultingConstant (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Youtube and blogs and askmen.com are not terrific references.104.163.139.33 (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is interesting and has received enough press coverage to be considered notable. ₪RicknAsia₪ 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The God File

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

Article, written more like something approaching an original research critical essay rather than a proper encyclopedia article, about a novel whose author does not have a WP:BLP, and which does not have a strong or properly sourced claim to passing WP:NBOOK. As always, every literary award that exists at all is not an automatic free pass that exempts a novel from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media -- the extent to which a literary award counts as a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the extent to which media cover the granting of that award as news. But the only source here for the "Independent Publisher Book Award" is the award's own self-published website about itself, not independent third party coverage in media, and there are no other valid sources being cited to get it over WP:GNG any other way: the only other citation present here at all is a book review on a user-generated public relations blog for independent authors, not a real recognized source of professional critical reviews. And overall, the article is written more like a critical essay, possibly trending into original research given the lack of quality sourcing to support the motifs and themes and character analysis. The sourcing here simply isn't cutting the mustard, and nothing stated in the body text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut mustard. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not take the lack of a Wikipedia article about the author to be evidence in favor of deletion. However, the nominator's point about the minor award is apt. An award that is not discussed by reliable independent sources is also not evidence of notability. The lack of professional reviews is the most important reason to delete, and amateur analysis by Wikipedia editors cannot make up for that shortcoming. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created and developed by two WP:SPAs to summarise the contents of a novel. The book was published by MacAdam/Cage and republished as an e-book by Dzanc Books, indicating some selectivity. However I don't see the brief Kirkus Review note and the already discussed review on "The BookReporter" site as sufficient for WP:NBOOK criterion 1, or the 2003 Independent Publisher Book Award as sufficient for criterion 2. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, as above, the bookreporter, kirkus reviews, and award aren't enough, a gsearch has brought up nothing else. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAgree that this seems like original research.--Jaldous1 (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about outer space

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

Unreferenced. Although it specifically excludes non-notable films, it is still very long and likely to be grossly incomplete. I found no evidence of a comprehensive list online, but there are a number of "best" lists with this scope such as [26]. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We cannot legitimately delete a list of things, all with internal links, just on the grounds that it is unreferenced. The references are in these internal links! While the list is probably currently incomplete, it will eventually gain more and more titles. And there are no comprehensive list online because this is the comprehensive list, made in a period of 13 years by the power of voluntary contributions, which no one else will be able to make. Emass100 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can, per WP:BURDEN alone. Lists too will need to be referenced. WP:LONGTIME is not an argument. Wikipedia is not about WP:EVERYTHING soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Science-fiction is a big aspect of many people's lives. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if true, that's not an argument. We're discussing List of films about outer space, not science fiction. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above comments. The topic is fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two above comments are both WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fundamentally, its a duplication of the Category:Films set in outer space and its subcategories. Some attempts have been made to add notes of significance, but the notes don't tend to amount to more than trivia unrelated to the reason those items were included in the list. -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename List of films set in outer space. It probably needs to be split up into sublists, e.g. List of films set on Mars, List of films set on the Moon, List of films set on space stations, etc., as there are a lot more than are listed, but that's a separate issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are literally hundreds of films that could be catergorised as being "about outer space". There does not appear to be any clear inclusion criteria. I concur with Clarifyfiend that the list might be suitable in subcategories but I don't support the article as it is. Ajf773 (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Is 2001: A Space Odyssey "about" outer space? Is Spaceballs? The Star Wars films? I beg to differ: these science fiction films are set in outer space, they're not about outer space. Trivial nonsense, not encyclopedic. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable list which makes clear that it includes films about as well as set in outer space, no need to refbomb it as there are plenty of confirming refs on the linked articles. It is also popular with the public with an average of 570 page views a day. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refbomb? It hasn't got a single reference. What's the point, the encyclopedic value of having the list? It has no information whatsoever, beyond the fact that certain films are set in outer space. "X in Y" is not informative. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly broad list, per WP:LISTCRUFT. It's unclear what "about outer space" actually means. Set in outer space? Mentioning it? For what portion of the run time? Seems arbitrary. For example, I'd argue that Alien is about an alien and the main character's fight to survive, not about outer space. Battlestar Galactica is about a ship's attempts to flee genocidal robots, not outer space._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarity. wumbolo ^^^ 11:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-argument: how does WP:CLARITY apply here? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: was referring to this not WP:CLARITY. wumbolo ^^^ 13:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, @Wumbolo, I didn't put those two together. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Soetermans is WP:BLUDGEON-ing every single "keep" vote. wumbolo ^^^ 13:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true, I didn't comment on Clarityfriend's vote. I don't see the benefit in their proposal, but it's not an unsubstantiated vote based upon personal preference. I've seen plenty of deletion discussions where the closer didn't look at arguments, but on a vote count (keep because "Science-fiction is a big aspect of many people's lives"? C'mon). Feel free to engage my other comments though! soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to category, misleading (films set in space aren't "about" space, much like films set on Earth aren't "about" Earth"). Sandstein 10:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps editors participating in this debate could answer the question whether the concept of "films about outer space" is notable or not. If it is, this list should be kept. If it isn't, this is listcruft.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notice there's a Category:Films set in outer space with subcategories. I'm pretty sure even trying to present a list of films set in outer space will present WP:DIRECTORY. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this list should be a category. In fact, there IS a category: Category:Films about outer space Vadder (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I have seen actually potentially useful lists get quickly deleted because they are "just lists". This is a list with no clear criteria for inclusion and no informative value.
Delete, specifically because of the word "about". These films are not about outer space, they take place there. Netoholic said it first and said it best. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 18:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily defined topic and having a category of the same name, is not a valid rationale for deletion. The "about" vs. "takes place in" is taken care of in name change, no deletion. References can be easily migrated from the main articles. --RAN (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why a page is needed when a category exists.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- there doesn't seem to be a useful reason to replicate the category, the list is extraordinarily crufty, and the whole concept hinges on the ambiguity between films that are set in space and films in which space is the major focus. Reyk _YO! 10:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think I've seen enough. I wanted a bit more discussion about sources, but I think it's clear that more discussion probably isn't going to help things along, and the atmosphere of the discussion is devolving. The consensus is that significant coverage exists about this topic in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Mz7 (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1Lib1Ref

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

Unless and until, Google is playing up, I (with with my limited access to certain American libraries), am not seeing an iota of decent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.

Some of the current sources (including ) belong(s) to WMF and whilst providing accurate information about the event, are non-independent and consequently do not lead to passage of any notability. A blog source, though hosted on diglib.org is written by a Wikipedian, to promote the event and whilst usable, fails to establish the rigor of passage of notability. Two of the remaining sources, from library-associations, are (largely) event-circulars which fails to prove anything beyond the existence of the event. One is a library-blog covering about how a few enthusiasts did participate in it, which seems to have been written after some gentle prodding by the organizers.......

Barring a lone NPR source, I did not manage to retrieve anything (other than unreliable blogzines et al) that covers the event significantly and that proves the notability of the event beyond the circle of WP editors.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets GNG; the nom needs to find a better search engine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy, you ought to do better.Sources, please.......~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is notable and significant events affecting it are notable. It's not unreasonable for an encyclopedia to lean towards covering its own history, as long as it does so in a neutral and verifiable way. --agr (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm notable.....My parents are notable.....All the teachers who taught me in my montessori are notable....My brother's would-be grand-childrens' spouses are notable....Are you fucking serious?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And, we can certainly cover our own history, as much as we like, in the Wikipedia namespace.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Winged Blades of Godric: I get that you disagree, but it is unnecessary to use aggressive language in order to make your point. Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while borderline, there's enough coverage and/or mentions out there for me. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] (Also, there's nothing in policy that prevents us from covering notable on-wiki events.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed, that's a straw-man.Unless and until you wish to state that you are in favor of bending our notability guidelines for covering on-wiki events, your last line is nonsensical.And, well routine mentions of an event do not make notability.But, then again, it's insanely difficult to delete any article about WP from WP, provided iy has garnered some specks of scattered mentions here and there.03:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs)
Keep Not that super-notable subject, but I believe this is notable more than thousands of professional footballers stub that we host. Also found this Magazine's coverage substantive. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You have been a pretty decent participant at AfDs to know that other stuff/crap exists and that it's almost always a non-argument.And, we surely disagree about the significance of the source as to lending the subject a credible passage of GNG.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, could this be a redirect to the libraries wikiproject? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not having continued coverage. All sources can be construed as announcing a near-future 1Lib1Ref (and maybe mentioning the last one), and very short-term post-event coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 13:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Speedy without prejudice...... per WP:SNOWBALL. VitalPower | talk 19:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: The discussion is definitely leaning towards keep based on a head-count of voters, but I would appreciate just a bit more discussion centered around the sources available to solidify a consensus. Mz7 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two sources, one from a local news coverage. Getting local news coverage for an international event makes it more significant. Emass100 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just want to ping Merrilee, Ocaasi, and Sadads. They have likely seen this discussion but abstained from participating thus far (wisely, IMO), but also probably have the best sense of how much coverage there has been of 1lib1ref. As such, it would probably help discussion to know if there sources that Ed, et al. missed so far in this discussion? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What makes their views more important than the views of people who commented above? –Ammarpad (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammarpad: I created the campaign :P I have been watching the page for a while -- and would argue that it's notable -- its increasingly showing up in long-term scholarly pieces about the relationship of libraries and Wikipedia (see for example this Google search and discussion of the campaign is showing up in a number of more long-term publications (i.e. this coverage. However, because of my Conflict of Interest -- I am not going to place a vote in the concensus. Sadads (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to give the impression their opinions were "more important." They have the good sense not to jump in with a !vote here, but as people directly involved with 1lib1ref, I figured they may be able to save the rest of us some time/effort as we try to search for sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Murphy (journalist)

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

I cannot identify any chunk of work devoting any significant treatment to this person. There are a handful of news sources indicating the Polk award but I didn't see anything related to an Emmy award from a secondary source. Certainly, nothing providing a full bio (or several) of any sort.

Additionally, a user claiming to be the subject has previously attempted to WP:PROD the article.

Am happy to end up with e.g. a redirect to the Polk awards list, but that doesn't strike me as necessary. This should be deleted per the WP:GNG. Izno (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet inclusion guidelines and subject seems not to want to be included. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. – Joe (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Cheney (scientist)

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

Seems like a run-of-the-mill researcher with no evidence of meeting WP:NACADEMIC criteria for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Member of National Academy is an immediate pass of WP:PROF#C3 (unsurprisingly she also passes #C1), and nominating a member for deletion marks such a total lack of understanding of academic notability as to render the nominator unqualified for such edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:PROF#C3. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:SNOWBALL Case, per WP:PROF#C3. VitalPower | talk 20:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep with 32,000 cites on GS. I suggest consideration of a ban on this editor making further AfD nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
keep i got lost in reading her multiple achievements and the list of publications is impressive. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without any doubt, as a member of the National Academy of Sciences. I advise the nominator to refrain from any further ridiculous, disruptive and time-wasting AfD nominations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How ever could there be any doubt about this?--Ipigott (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep with a prediction of WP:SNOW. Minimal googling revealed article in NYT citing her (added to article) and a recent one in Smithsonian Magazine.^[1] Also, there should be a disambiguation page, because currently Dorothy Cheney goes to an article about a tennis player. Also, her husband and collaborator, also in PNAS, deserves an article of his own, IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Abhat, Divya (February 28, 2017). "Baboons Are Ruthless Reproducers". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved May 13, 2018. For decades Cheney has documented infanticide in baboons in Botswana, where the behavior accounts for at least 50 percent of all infant deaths.

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinion is unconvincing. "Unremarkable" is indeed a reason for deletion if this means that no reliable sources have remarked on the topic, which means we have no sources on which to base a verifiable article. Sandstein 12:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I-O Data

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable electronics manufacturer. Significant RS coverage not found; the sources presented at the last AfD are not convincing. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH.

First AfD closed as no consensus in Aug 2017. NCORP has been tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep "Unremarkable" isn't a valid reason for deletion. Looking at the Japanese article, this is a company of sufficient size and revenue that they would pass WP:N. They might not be well known, famous or particularly innovative, but we don't set our notability bar that high. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. PR piece without depth. Kierzek (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 04:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the first AfD, User:Michitaro unearthed a slew of ostensibly good references for the article; none of those have been added in the subsequent ~10 months. If Michitaro (or another Japanese speaker) would re-examine those sources and (if they're any good) work them into the article, this could be a WP:HEY situation. A Train^talk 22:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: I did not find the sources from the first AfD compelling; that's why I nominated the article. In any case, nearly a year since the first AfD is plenty of chances. It's time to let this articles go. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NExpress

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

An article about a system combining the libraries of several colleges that appears to not itself be notable. I can find no coverage outside of websites belonging to it or its member colleges. Fails WP:GNG. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any information on any of this, their own website is hacked/unrelated to the topic by this point. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. There's no real consensus here, but moving this to draft seems like a reasonable compromise, and WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jalen McDaniels

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

A search engine returns results primarily related to his statistics, plus two sources mentioning the draft. Per WP:NCOLLATH, a college athlete is only notable if they have gained significant attention from the media or have won a significant award, and I'm not seeing that either of these is the case. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep In addition to the sources that mention him declaring for the draft, I was able to find this, this, and this. Not a ton of coverage, but probably enough to pass GNG barely. His brother is a top recruit btw. If the consensus here is to delete, I propose userfying the article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I have would support moving to draft/userspace as well. While I maintain that he isn't currently notable, Wikipedia has lower standards for professional players. I imagine he will be notable in the near future; this article is just too soon. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above. There are just enough independent sources to justify keeping. With his entry into the draft, he is likely to have many more in the near future anyway.--TM 10:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not even played in one professional game and his collegiate career is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft per TOOSOON. Hasn't played a minute on the professional level. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial cpverage in reliable independent sources. Was a star in high school. Has made some waves in college. And is expected be drafted by a pro team. All covered extensively. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user space/draftify - I was going to be a weak keep but saw this in the paper[[33]]. From the article, he's a skinny 6-foot-10 forward who averaged 10.5 points and 7.5 rebounds last season, has started just 21 college games, weighs under 190 pounds, wasn’t named to the first, second or third all-conference teams in the middling Mountain West, wasn’t among the 69 players (including four from the Mountain West) invited to the NBA Draft combine in Chicago next week and doesn’t appear in any mock drafts. It's WP:TOOSOON, but I suspect that whatever happens on May 30th at the draft declaration deadline, he'll get more coverage and we can revisit. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:BLPDELETE and as a WP:ARBAP2 discretionary sanction, this article is speedily deleted and salted, and may not be recreated unless an admin determines, via WP:AFC or otherwise, that a draft exists that meets minimal levels of WP:BLP-compliant sourcing and editorial competence.

As I indicated in my first speedy deletion of this article, a WP:BLP article with contentious material requires proper sourcing in the form of footnotes. It is insufficient to just throw a pile of external links at the bottom of the article; rather, any sources must be cited in a footnote adjacent to the material they back up; otherwise readers have no realistic chance to verify whether any given statement is true. See generally WP:V, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes.

This is not a determination about notability, and if the article is recreated, it may still be brought back to AfD for reasons of notability or other reasons. Sandstein 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Sadler

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

A clear case of WP:BLP1E, that event being a provocative comment about John McCain in a White House meeting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true that many people first heard of her because of her comment. However, she was a regular reporter of Bloomberg for almost 3 years. Other reporters are allowed articles (for example, see Scott Baker or Rich Benjamin). Just because she put her foot in her mouth does not disqualify her. Another reason for the article is that there is widespread reporting over many, many countries. That makes her notable because of lots of reliable sources covering her. That makes it 2 reasons. Finally, 1 event is permitted (even though Sadler is a 2 event person). Look at one event people, like Lenny Skutnik, Marwan al-Shehhi, Yavor Hristov, Anna Harrison and Amanda Knox. Finally, this article is not an attack on Trump so Trump supporters don't have to try to delete this article. Cowdung Soup (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is substantially more to this person than the one obnoxious statement. If there is then we need to see that added to the article ASAP, and with solid RS references. If not, and we have an article about the Trump camp's feud with McCain, then maybe it can be mentioned there, very briefly, but certainly not in a separate BLP. We don't want a separate BLP for every minor participant in the myriad of undignified feuds that seems to comprise a large part of American "politics" these days. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was a moderately well known (not hugely famous) Bloomberg reporter for nearly 3 years. Other reporters qualify for Wikipedia articles, even local ones. Cowdung Soup (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a great example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Does not pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly exceeds WP:GNG. I have seen over 60 citations on her. That well exceeds GNG. Cowdung Soup (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is much more to WP:GNG than the number of citations. SportingFlyer talk 18:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. The citations must be reliable, like the New York Times and BBC. She has those. Cowdung Soup (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Albert Crampton

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

Fails WP:GNG. Currently unsourced with only one link on the entire page, and other searches bring up very little, or references to different doctors of the same name (not the same since they lived in the mid-20th century.) Also fails WP:NPOL on the mayoral position. SportingFlyer talk 17:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Per nomination. VitalPower | talk 19:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unless I'm missing something here, the article doesn't even make sense. Why would the Internal Revenue Bureau have a chief chemist?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the IRS probably had a chief chemist to look into trariffs on chmeicals. That doesn't make him pass WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep for now. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IBM New York Scientific Center

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

Astonishingly non-notable. This has been a stub for almost fourteen years! In that time, nobody has apparently found anything to say about it. My own searching, surprisingly, came up with very little. A bunch of mentions here and there, a few wiki-mirrors, but nothing substantial on which to base WP:NCORP or any other notability standard I'm aware of. I'm actually hoping people will find enough sources that I can withdraw this nomination, since it seems like the kind of thing that should be notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my nomination per Cowdung Soup, but the clock is ticking. I've got a calendar event for July 14th to renominate this. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No citation, not notable. Acnetj (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request hold I just called an IBM retiree and was told that that place was big stuff, but due to the era, most of the mention of the place is in print, not online. If the nominator agrees to withdraw the delete nomination for 60 days, I am willing to get this information. Cowdung Soup (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in part due to a delete !vote that remains present in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now given the information by Cowdung Soup. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, given the assertion that reliable sources exist. Smartyllama (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 04:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Ranken

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her work with Test Dept and DV8 would both swing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Associate artist" at Royal Shakespeare Company recognises "artists who have made an outstanding contribution to the life and reputation of our work", and widespread other coverage, some under full name of "Elizabeth Ranken". PamD 11:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as above Wpgbrown (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has been substantially improved since nomination and is now supported by several secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shri mamasaheb deshpande

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

Fails WP:GNG article created by a WP:SPA editor. All the sources are affiliated and nothing of interest found in a WP:BEFORE search Dom from Paris (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chihiro Hara

(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. Sigificant 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. The awards listed are for the videos Hara appeared in and / or are scene related. Being ranked in a distributor's poll is not a valid claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikitigresito (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Saturation

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

Non-notable band. The article was crated as a band article in 2013, coincidentally at the time they released their album. There has been on edit to text and no assertion of notability has been made since. Emeraude (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Harrison, Lord of Gobion's Manor

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy forum. This article refers to an individual who is wholly non notable. Contrary to what the article says, he was not Lord Harrison or a noble, probably a mere gentleman. Some of his descendants may well be very notable, but he does not "inherit" notability from them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERIT. Apparently a distant relative of Benjamin Harrison, but he has no independent notability. Gobion's Manor doesn't appear to be significant either. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; lacks significant coverage. Just a genealogy entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec athletes at international level

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

No evidence of importance of this article. VitalPower | talk 15:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Title is clearly not going to work, but a "list of athletes from Quebec" that retains just the notable examples would be pretty standard, and I don't see an equivalent in Category:Lists of people from Quebec. At very least it should be selectively merged into List of people from Quebec (again, notable examples only). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, in particular lumping multiple sporting codes into one article. Ajf773 (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article looks like a collection of statistics which violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.Knobbly (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Vela

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

While a working actress, simply doesn't meet the criteria as per wp:nactor. Similarly, while she has had some press, all of the in-depth coverage is in regards to her dating Sutherland. Notability is not inherited. Absent that coverage, not enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately all her roles appear to be minor or are in minor productions, therefore fails WP:NACTOR. Article can be recreated should she land more prominent roles in notable productions. Hzh (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of thousands of low information articles we have on people who never had a significant role in a notable production. Wikipedia is drowining at present in articles on minor actors that are essentially filmographies with birth and death dates of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's just enough sources to pass GNG. I found some articles about her on Newspapers.com in addition to what's in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this passes GNG, especially after the Newspapers.com sources were found. I added a few more into the article. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I am only saying a strong keep as I am supprised you want to delete this article... helloooo, WP:GNG?!. --VitalPower | talk 15:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NACTOR, and dating Kiefer Sutherland fails WP:NOTINHERIT. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly does not meet the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR guidelines. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 23:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barely passes GNG with sources present. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is coverage of her from before she started dating Kiefer Sutherland related both to her modelling career and as an actress in the viral video Exhibit B-5. She played the title role in a movie which won best feature film at the Boston Film Festival. I believe she meets the notability requirements. Million_Moments (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why pages about her in relation to Kiefer Sutherland should be discounted. WP:NOTINHERIT states, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." This article passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Kern Golf Course

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

Not notable public golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 13 May 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? 15:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chongqing No.68 Middle School

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

Non notable middle school. Unsourced and no claims of significance or importance. Was first PRODed but redirected per policy recommendations to its locality, but the redirect was reverted without discussion by the the creator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Middle school with no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no claim to notability. Also, WP:MACHINETRANSLATION as the exact text is obtainable from the Chinese language Wikipedia. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or, if the creator proises not to pish about with it, redirect per WP:ATD. But if they won't, we have to remove the opportunity to do so. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, probably speedy material both G11 and G12, per Jack's finding that it's an exact machine translation from Chinese Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only marginal claim to notability is statement "one of the ten most influential middle schools in Chongqing", but claim of being influential isn't demonstrated nor qualified as to how it's influential. Regardless of quality of the claim, the entire article is unsourced, failing to substantiate the claim. The article for the city also lists three middle schools (including this one) in section labelled "Notable middle school and high schools", but notability is likewise unsourced there, so if article is deleted, recommend removing mention from that article as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have supported REDIRECT but Since the REDIRECT per policy has been made into article again hence suggesting delete. Notability not eshtablished and unable to find it either. --DBig Xray 16:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable middle school. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW VitalPower | talk 20:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - read through the Chinese wikipedia article as a native Chinese reader and speaker, that article if using English wikipedia policies will be a straight G11. --Quek157 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, my reading of the Chinese one is on the zh, zh-ch (classical one) if applied here is an A1. --Quek157 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The only deletion argument besides the nomination is citing BLP for a subject that has been dead since the war. A Train^talk 10:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corny Ostermann

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

Unable to find any source for anything written about subject other than extremely brief discography references; no notability; no sources provided by article creator at time of creation or after seven months of waiting for something to justify the article's retention Sirlanz 13:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Some refs. can be found on Google Books. Though I'm not sure, if they are sufficient to pass notability. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DNB entry should be enaugh https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&cqlMode=true&query=nid%3D1061343367 - The above referenced books have a common theme of someone having worked with Corny Osterman with confers (real world) notability to these musicians due to fact that they have worked with someone more important. Agathoclea (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ANYBIO #3 Agathoclea (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hung verdict
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 04:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP which makes no claim of notability. Internet searches don't find anything significant, though admittedly that may not be definitive as he was declared dead 69 years ago. The DNB link above doesn't work for me, but in any case a musician working with a more famous musician doesn't confer notability. Neiltonks (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood. Notability was confered the other way (real world notability - not wiki notability) . The available book material also uses him as a prime example for the music style in the period. DNB lists his death in 1945 which would match with being declared dead later. So definetly no BLP. Agathoclea (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article about Ostermann in a German encyclopedia of jazz musicians by Jürgen Wölfer (now in article). The Discogs entry (now in article) is documenting 7 shellacs under his name; at least 4 titles are re-edited. --Engelbaet (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The article is unlikely to grow beyond a few sentences unless some researcher discovers and publishes more biographical details. The content, even with additions, is so sparse that merger into Jazz_in_Germany#Years_of_National_Socialism,_the_1930s_and_the_missing_1940s could be an option. However while Discogs falls under WP:NOTRSMUSIC, the fact that the subject's music, created under conditions of official disapproval and mentioned specifically in that context, has been re-issued many years after his death and that he has entries at various biographical indices suggests enough for WP:BASIC notability. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Make into disambiguation page. Sandstein 10:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrian Shepherd

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

This is just a former name of the Šarplaninac (and Karst Shepherd) dog breeds. I see no reason to have two articles on the same dog breed just because the official name has been changed. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont agree with the NOM to delete this, the reason is not sufficient for a deletion. After an independent careful searching on WP:RS as well as sites, I have come to the concluson that Illyrian Shepherd is an ancestor to the 2 distinct modern breeds Šarplaninac and Karst Shepherd based on this and Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI) data. The difference is nomencalture of the last two dogs is simply based on the region where they developed. Šarplaninac in Yugoslavia and Karst Shepherd in Slovenia. These 2 modern breeds are notable and distinct article on their own, per the WP:RS FCI. The common name of the dog breed In Yugoslavia is Šarplaninac. FCI Šarplaninac [34] and [35] And FCI Karst Shepherd in Slovenia. So I suggest creating a Disambiguation at this location with redirects to Šarplaninac and Karst Shepherd. Illyrian Shepherd is a candidate for redirect, but both the articles can be the destination based on the country, since it is an ancestor to both these breeds. I propose creating a Disambiguation page on the current location of Illyrian Shepherd

Illyrian Shepherd in Yugoslavia REDIRECTS to Šarplaninac
Illyrian Shepherd in Slovenia REDIRECTS to Karst Shepherd--DBig Xray 16:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Slovenia was, in fact, part of Yugoslavia. I basically agree with you, but the wording should be changed. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since FCI calls these 2 names, different breed both with a common ancestor, so the 2 new articles should be treated as distinct, so this is no longer a debate. As regard to Illyrian Shepherd, I think disambiguate is the best course of action. Vanjagenije So what is your proposal ? wording should be changed to what ? --DBig Xray 23:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposal to turn the article into a disambiguation page, exact wording can be decided later. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the agreement. Yes, I am open to any copy edit of the phrase in my proposal. --DBig Xray 21:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 04:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mall of Switzerland

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

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quick serch on Google shows notability. --VitalPower | talk 12:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've been trying to improve the article by cleaning it up and adding sources. The sources are not very reliable, but they show that the mall is notable enough that websites other than their personal one mention the mall.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 13:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Performed Google Search. Covered by Neue Luzerner Zeitung, Blick, Swissinfo and Radio Pilatus. I think, It meets the notability. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With 150 stores the second biggest in Switzerland. Even small malls like Richti Wallisellen exist on Wikipedia. Must be improved. --Netpilots (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a shopping mall. More appropriate for travel guides and advertising circulars. Not really suitable for an encyclopedia. Cowdung Soup (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of just Shopping Malls in Wikipedia. Most Malls are much smaller than the Mall of Switzerland. This is one more reason for the notability. --Netpilots (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's certainly not the best article ever, but in my opinion it's notable enough for Wikipedia. The "biggest shopping mall in Central Switzerland" seems like an important topic to me, and there are many, many shopping mall articles that exist that seem to be a lot less notable. And if you search harder across the Internet, you'll notice that there are in fact a lot of independent sources about this mall.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 22:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meet with notability but stub needed. There are lots of evidence I founded on Google News. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The biggest mall in central Switzerland is evidence of notability. As others have pointed out, very in-depth coverage exists. And nominating this article for AfD within an hour of creation [36] is bad form. --Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although there are a mix of keep and delete arguments, none of the arguments shows any substantial coverage from reliable sources for this original game, nor gives any other substantial argument for notability. Therefore consensus is that this topic is non-notable. There are sources for a sequel, which seems likely notable. Should anyone ask, I will gladly restore this content to a user sandbox per Izno so that the verbiage can be used as background for the notable topic (the sequel). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We Were Here (game)

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

Non-notable video game. The extent of the (reliable) coverage is an article in Rock Paper Shotgun and an interview at Gamasutra. Not enough to pass notability criteria. The sequel doesn't either, only getting a serious mention from PC Gamer and Adventure Gamers. Being forced to combine 2 games together to make them notable is not a very good sign that it is fit for Wikipedia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether Wikipedia should be inclusive or exclusive. I vote inclusive. The article does no harm to people not interested in the game. And people who are interested in the game can find out more about the game and its creators. I suspect it is harder for a Dutch game to attract a following than it would be for an American game, and harder for an indie game to attract a following than for a routine game by a big game company. "We Were Here" has won one award and been nominated for a couple of others. Why not give it a chance? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Give it a chance" suggests that if you put it on Wikipedia, it will become more notable. That goes against WP:NOTADVERTISING. The game should already be notable before an article gets made. I have no prejudice against recreation if one of the games is mentioned more in reliable sources, but currently both games are not individually notable on their own. The sequel has a number of reviews, but none of them seem to come from trusted outlets._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We Were Here Too reviews from the WP:VG/S list: PCGamer, Gamer.nl, Aventure Gamers, Just Adventure, and a number of other announcements and other coverage. Seems reasonably notable. We Were Here actually does not. Probably needs a rework to be predominantly about the sequel game. Keep generally. --Izno (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This page has virtually nothing about the sequel. Would that not be a "Delete" this as non-notable with no prejudice towards creating an article about We Were Here Too?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggested draftifying another recently in a similar circumstance, but that was two entirely disparate items (a company and its video game). The two topics here are likely to be significantly similar. I'd rather save the history and verbiage so someone else can take up the "rewrite this to be about the sequel" predominantly (and likely with a subsequent move). --Izno (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had asked this some time ago on the VG project after searching sources; the sequel got some attention that could be GNG notable but not the first, though the first is alluded to in the discussion of the sequel. To that end I was thinking this is the type of game better covered as a series article, both games fully discussed (not separate) in this series article, since there's no way the first game can survive as a standalone. So either have a standalone page for "We Were Here Too" that mentions the first game, or a series page for "We Were Here", but we can't have a standalone "We Were Here" game page. --Masem (t) 13:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the demonstrated RS coverage above. Phediuk (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --VitalPower | talk 12:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete the sequel appears notable due to the reviews, but I can't find if it has a page on the site. This page is promotional and unsourced and sourcing is weak - it does not pass WP:GNG and is arguably promotional in nature, and it does not inherit notability from the successful sequel. An article on the series would likely be notable. SportingFlyer talk 17:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing sourced to "keep". No prejudice against an article about the sequel if the sourcing exists. But yeah even that's a stretch—I wouldn't consider Adventure Gamers reliable (or Just Adventure, for that matter) (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the sequel and/or series is notable, write an article on that, but this isn't notable. Also, the text here doesn't seem very useful, though if someone wants it to write an article on the series no opposition to userification. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:14, 5 June 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 arguments to keep have failed to rebut User:Winged Blades of Godric's analysis of the sources. A Train^talk 07:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neel Bhattacharya

AfDs for this article:

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

Film actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORBIO. The subject has appeared in only one notable film ( brief appearance). Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Male lead in several notable television series, including one in which he won an award. Although just barely IMO, he does meet the criteria in WP:ACTORBIO. -- œ^™ 07:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OlEnglish: The award is not notable enough, at least by WP standards because it does not have its own standalone page. And I think, both TV shows have no national audience therefore I don't see thier significance. --Saqib (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think they have no national audience? -- œ^™ 21:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--As a native speaker of the language I can confirm that whilst the channel and it's shows has a state-specific audience, the awards ceremony, which is organized by the brodcasting channel, is typical PR Stuff and has zero significance.A few (2) interviews in Bengali entertainment tabloids are located but they do contribute nothing to notability.TOOSOON.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Male lead of 2 very notable Bangali television serials in premiere Indian channel ZEE(Bangla). The language medium of the channel being Bengali, is ofcourse watched by people who understand the language that includes people originating from West Bengal in India(spread across the world) and the entire country of Bangladesh. Some shows cater to people speaking a regional language. But Bengalis are present all over the world and the show is watched internationally as well on ZEE(Bangla) USA.The credibility of the Awards Ceremony can be found from many resources on the web.^[1] ^[2]

The awards show certainly has its own website where the whole telecast is present. But it is meant for India's national audience. ^[3]Other interviews in the media identifies him as the television heartthrob of Bengal. Please translate page. ^[4]. Also a facebook verified public figure as can be seen from the official page: https://www.facebook.com/Neeltjls/. There are many more articles in Bengali press and bengali media which do not appear directly on Google search because Bengali font being used. ^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayoni15 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

NOTE: User:Shayoni15 is creator of the BLP

And, obviously, the sources aren't editorially independent:--
Essel is the parent-corporation of the Zee-Channels.Anyways, that's a press-release, about sponsors et al and I fail to see any relevancy of it.

OZEE is ZEE's digital broadcast medium.And another irrelevant reference.No body is denying that the award-show did not take place or that the subject wasn't awarded.....

TellyDhamal is clear-cut unreliable source, with no known editorial policy.I'm quasi-certain that a RSN discussion has deemed it to be unreliable.

TOI's ever decreasing editorial integrity continues........(Seriously, who writes This unique family of Zee Bangla has strengthened its relationship with the audiences with every new endeavor. Zee Bangla Sonar Sansar Awards marks the culmination of this journey, filled with love, trust and friendship that has created an everlasting bond.).......The more I'm seeing TOI's coverage in these arenas, the more I'm getting certain about it's new grown love for churnalism.

As to the Ananda Bazar piece, one of the two interviews, mentioned in my above !vote.See WP:INTERVIEW.Fails to establish encyclopedic notability.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-As a native speaker of Bengali and a resident of West Bengal, I cannot find any fault with what Winged Blades of Godric has said. — F R ⁺ 15:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Rather than question the quality of journalism, which is a whole new topic altogether, I would like to emphasize on a few points.

According to WIKIPEDIA, WP:BASIC is met if multiple published sources, reliable,intellectually independent, independent of the subject are available, which can be found in references listed in the article. As WIKIPEDIA also states that for an actor, meeting WP:ENT or WP:GNG might be enough for consideration of notability. Neel Bhattacharya definitely meets WP:ENT. WP:ENT allows that notability may be considered if the actor has"had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" but does not mandate that the subject must also always meet the GNG. In this case, the subject has indeed done lead roles in multiple Bengali Soap Operas, invited as celebrity guest of honour in reality shows, and was part of a couple of Bengali movies, in one of which he has played the main protagonist. Again, according to WIKIPEDIA, Notability is not always a contest to see who is more popular in press. notability does not always depend the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual, nor that it be immediately available online. Having said that, there are multiple press articles listed in the reference section of the page which shows notability of the subject. Subject, being notable in a field where the language is a regional one, coverage is done mostly in Bengali media. Hence some articles do not immediately come up in google search owing to the Bengali font being used in those articles. But according to WIKIPEDIA rules, that shouldnt mean that subject is any less notable. WIKIPEDIA states failing GNG does not exclude him as long as the career is itself properly verified in reliable sources.Here the subject might be partially failing GNG but still meets ENT as there are multiple verifiable resouces establishing his involvement in multiple TV shows.

Subject meets WP:BASIC, WP:ENT and WP:GNG partly - and should receive consideration for inclusion in WIKIPEDIA as one of the leading Bengali Television Soap Opera Male Leads of current times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayoni15 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Shayoni15 is the creator of the article and has already !voted above. This vote should thus be considered null and void...[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR leading roles in two tv series and one film, has sig coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306-Could you please flesh out your comment for the benefit of the readers. I would also like you to read [this comment of TonyBalloni].Thanks — F R ⁺ 07:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As this is a BLP, it would be good if User:Duffbeerforme's references could make their way into the article. A Train^talk 07:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Whittington

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

I'm not sure what to make of this. It's a long-standing article about a guitarist that doesn't appear to have any evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO criteria for inclusion. I looked at a couple of his YouTube videos, and yes, he's good, but is he notable? The article, with all of its name-dropping and playing in gigs that "opened for" more notable bands, and ~~briefly~~ playing with one notable band (probably the subject's only legitimate claim of notability, which doesn't quite meet WP:MUSICBIO), gives this article the impression of a WP:GARAGE attempt, but without the hype. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I share the sentiments of the nominator. The contested article's main contributors, besides its creator, were notified in case they can provide material supporting the subject's notability. -The Gnome (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Unfortunately, the main contributors no longer appear to be active on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a little familiar with the article's subject. It pains me to say it, but I'm not aware of him fully meeting any of the individual criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. He is just under the bar for several: important member of one notable ensemble (but not two), frequently included in lists of "big names" performers (but never the subject of a major article), can't find a solid citation of charting or radio rotation (though this listing says "considerable airplay"), toured internationally (but I can't find "non-trivial coverage"). He was interviewed in the January issue of Blues Matters, but I can't find that interview online. It seems like he's an important figure in a music niche that doesn't put a lot of writing online. --Hebisddave (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, interviews are considered primary sources that wouldn't count as coverage for the purpose of determining notability. Strangely, so far we seem to have a consensus to delete without anybody actually !voting. I came across him while searching YouTube for ZZ-Top's song "Sure Got Cold After the Rain Fell" and found Whittington's excellent rendition of that song. He's a good blues guitarist... just doesn't quite reach our threshold here, unfortunately. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Briefly playing? Um, how is 15 years briefly? As for notability he gets reviews such as

Clark, Keith (30 November 2012), "Magical blues performance; Buddy Whittington. The Tunnels", Bristol Evening Post

Clark, Keith (3 December 2009), "Now buddy's top banana in his bunch", Bristol Evening Post

and articles such as

"John The Revelator haalt Bluesbreaker Buddy Whittington naar Bluestrain", IJmuider Courant, 10 May 2010 (Dutch)

"Buddy Whittington y Santiago Campillo, dos clásicos en Avilés", El Comercio Online, 13 October 2017 (Spanish)

Argiolas, Carlo (11 July 2012), "Buddy Whittington, ecco il blues d'autore", Unione Sarda (Italian)

Not that much but enough for MUSIC#1. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Did you find those online? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article certainly serves our educational and informational purposes, as I see it. Established sources verify history. Retaining the article improves Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete/merge Rezaeinejad to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, no consensus on Hosseinpour and Shahriari, default to keep. Though there were many different outcomes proposed for each of these articles, they could still be divided into two basic camps: the keep/rename camp (since the vast majority of keep voters appeared at least open to a re-naming, especially in the case of Rezaeinejad), and the delete/merge camp (since the delete voters all seemed to be of the view that the content could appropriately be contained in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists).

In the case of Razaeinejad, only one participant advocated an outright keep, and did so using a WP:OSE argument. Four more advocated a stand-alone article dealing with Rezaeinejad's death, and one of those was only weakly. In contrast, five participants advocating deletion, and a further four advocated merging (and, as noted, in the circumstances of this AFD, those options amounted to much the same thing. There was a very clear consensus (with only one dissenter) that Darioush Rezaeinejad should not continue to exist in its current form - the only real question was whether the death should be covered in a stand-alone article, or in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. In the end, the numbers (combined with User:k.e.coffman's clarification that their !vote for the former option was a weak one) are sufficient to give the latter option a claim to consensus.

Hosseinpour and Shahriari can be dealt with together, since every single participant advocated the same solution for both of them. The count on those is six advocating keeping, and seven advocating deletion or merging (with User:Clarityfiend expressing no opinion). The majority of the arguments on both sides—with the exception of User:Huldra's on the one side and arguably User:Johnpacklambert's on the other—focused primarily on the application of the WP:GNG. In my view, it is not possible to say that a consensus has emerged on the treatment of these two articles. Steve Smith (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darioush Rezaeinejad

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL / WP:BIO1E. Dead 35 year old post-graduate student and alleged member of Iranian nuclear program. Please see the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan which closed as a redirect to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists - following which this was redirected as well. There is no coverage of this individual of not besides his death and circumstances leading to his death. His death is already amply covered in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists - not much to merge, and topic-wise these deaths are treated as a group, and not individually. I am also nominating two other similar individuals. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BIO1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
~~Delete per nomination since subject's lacking independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

If the article changes title to Assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad I'd comfortably change my opinion to a "Weak keep" since almost all sources are about the event. As an individual the subject is not independently notable. -The Gnome (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We already cover this assassination in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists - at quite some length.Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes was not bundled together with an article about terrorist incidents because the victim was not a terrorist and his assassination was a case of mistaken identity. This seems to be the case, per sources, with the subject of the contested article: The victim was falsely assumed by the assassins to be Darioush Rezaei; Mossad subsequently claimed that the killed man was indeed working for Iran's nuclear program but there's no corroboration for this. Whatever we do with this article about an Electrical Engineer, it certainly does not belong in an article about nuclear scientists. -The Gnome (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not 100% clear who (Mossad or anyone else) was behind any of these. Nor is it clear what role any of these individuals filled in Iran's alleged program. However, electrical engineers do play an important role in any modern nuclear program - quite a bit of the staff at Sandia and LLNL are EEs. High voltage and rapid switching is quite important for nuclear detonators. There is no clear indication this is any sort of mistake - this individual was working at a national security facility.Icewhiz (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naah...but Israeli sources do an awful lot of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge", which is what they typically do in these cases.... (Read the Spiegel article) Huldra (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Icewhiz, a "national security facility" does not equate to a "nuclear facility." Western countries, to use an obvious example, have myriads of "national security facilicities," none of which are nuclear related. Second, when Mossad comes out and states that an assassinated person was working for Iran's nuclear program, then we can say with a rather high degree of probability that the victim was indeed targeted by Mossad (who, then, went on to justify the killing). Third, everyone working for a state service of Iran, especially in the armed forces, can be considered a legitimate target by your logic ("electrical engineers do play an important role in any modern nuclear programme"). Perhaps, to be on the safe side, Mossad should kill all Iranians with a college degree.

In which case, we'd have a huge number of Wikipedia articles to audit, of course, which is a problem. -The Gnome (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting into whether this was legit or not or who did this - there are obviously two issues here that muddy the waters - Iran denying having a nuclear weapon program, and no one clearly taking responsibility. However, Politico in 2018 when covering the alleged Israeli assasinations (which are notable as a group - this individual got a short paragraph) - wrote [37] In July 2011, a motorcyclist followed Darioush Rezaeinejad, a doctor of nuclear physics and a senior researcher for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, until he reached a point close to the Imam Ali Camp, one of the most fortified bases of the Revolutionary Guard, which contains an experimental uranium enrichment area. The biker drew a pistol and shot Rezaeinejad dead. - so it seems later sources do see this individual as connection to a nuclear program. Looking at the sources for this individual (and there aren't that many) - it seems there was an initial spin that this was a mistake. However, later coverage from Iran has glorified the group as a group - and it doesn't seem that some nuclear (peaceful, of course) connection is denied anymore. Electrical Engineers play a vital role in many fields (from medical devices, through signal processing, high voltage, and yes - nuclear programs as well - usually specializing in a particular field or aspect - nuclear engineering, in academia, is often a sub-department (or in less developed institutions - merely a few personnel in the interdisciplinary department) inside the electrical engineering department) - don't sell EEs short.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that is not convincing at all and I have no stomach for a discussion about Middle East spin. I suggest Keep with the intention of renaming the article later on. It's a subject with independent notability and deserves a stand-alone article. A link to the list of assassinated nuclear scientists in Iran would be, of course, welcome. -The Gnome (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ok, just ask yourself: if an Israeli with similar qualifications had been killed: would that have been considered notable? Hell, yeah,...and there would not only be a Wikipedia article about him, but also about every street, park or area named after him. Alas....when he is an Iranian murdered....he can be forgotten? Hell, no, Huldra (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is a non-valid argument which doesn't need to be countered, however as we may see in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben-Joseph Livnat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Danny Gonen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oron Shaul, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Yehoshua Weisbrod (nominated by Huldra herself) - this does not seem to be the case. Furthermore in this case - we already have an article on the event - Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoshua Weisbrod was an arbitrary victim, in the wrong place at the wrong time, as were all of the above, AFAIK. Clearly you can see the difference an arbitrary victim, and a targeted assassination? Also, all should note that the AfDs for Ardeshir Hosseinpour and Majid Shahriari both redirects here, so this is in reality a triple AfD vote. Huldra (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Targets may be non-notable. See WP:BUNDLE for how AfD bundling works - in this case since the individuals are highly similar (and the redirect undone in all 3) - bundling made sense.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, it seems you missed step III in WP:BUNDLE: "Add the remaining articles to the nomination." Huldra (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"la" + "find sources" were added for both, and the deletion nomination refers to the bundle -- I am also nominating two other similar individuals - I don't see how I missed step III.Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! I see it now...just unaccustomed to this format. Huldra (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, I'm loath to suggest any kind of "pro-Israeli" bias but in my experience here I cannot say I did not witness a pattern of alerts calling in votes on AfDs and of keeping up articles about subjects of quite dubious notability. Rather sad this. -The Gnome (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Gnome Yeah well, I once estimated that if you were a random victim of a violence in Israel/Palestine, your chances of getting a Wikipedia article were more than 100 times larger if you were Jewish, than if you were Palestinian. (Just count the number of civilian victims in the conflict (=the large majority are Palestinian) and compare it with number of Wikipedia articles on victims (=the large majority are Jewish) Huldra (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps the article should be called "killing of Darioush Rezaeinejad". The one event seems to be notable with numerous newspaper stories from around the world. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be important to keep it but altering the title to "Killing of Darioush Rezaeinejad","..... Hosseinpour", ".... Shahriari" might be a suitable fitting here.GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is basically built on subsubstantiated claims. It is a very clear fail of verifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point us, please, to those claims that are "subsubstantiated"? I'd be happy to change my suggestion if we find sources to be "subsubstantiated." Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the first one is borderline, but as an “Assasination of …” may be a week keep. Majid Shahriari appears to be notable for a stand-alone article, and so is the 2nd entry. Should probably not have been a bundled nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the bundling - note I did not nominate/bundle Masoud Alimohammadi who as a tenured professor should be evaluated more critically for PROF (which he may fail). Regarding Majid Shahriari - the bundle is appropriate. He has very little or no coverage prior to being killed. His known or alleged position(s) wouldn't qualify for WP:NPROF or WP:SOLDIER. And his publications - google scholar search for him (might include someone from a different field as well) - not many, mostly uncited by others, many of them conference/low-grade journals, and he's the co-author on most of them - shows no snowball chance in hell of passing NPROF by dint of his publications. Coverage of him and Rezaeinejad are the same (in relation to their death for the most part with some MEMORIAL type publications) and often done jointly (in the same articles).Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO1E ,WP:NPROF or WP:SOLDIER and there is a page Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists for this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. I see little notability outside the circumstances of his death and the references used to write the article, as noted above, are mostly unsubstantiate claims. Redirecting to the relevant article where there is existing context regarding circumstances of his death is the best course of action here. Peacock (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Rezaeinejad to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists#23 July 2011. A few details about the possibility of mistaken identity would be good, but the incident itself doesn't warrant a standalone article. Not sure about the other two, who were actual nuclear scientists; that would depend more on their academic standing. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for fellow editors who suggest only a mention in the "List." Was not the assassination a notable event? If title and content change and focus on the assassination, doesn't that have independent notability? The Wikipedia article about the person who ostensibly ordered the assassination, Mossad's then-chief Tamir Pardo, is overwhelmed with sources relevant to the event: The Sydney Morning Herald ("Mossad shot dead Iranian scientist"}; Der Spiegel ("Mossad Behind Tehran Assassinations, Says Source"); Middle East online ("Mossad behind murder of Iranian scientist"); UPI ("Israel killed Iranian"); Haaretz ("Israel's New Mossad Chief Behind Assassination of Iran Nuclear Scientist"). -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had this been a long list (with one liner entries for each event) - you might have had a point. However - Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists is not a list, and covers (at length, and could possibly be expanded) 6 connected assassination (and attempts) events in which Iranian (alleged) nuclear scientists were targets. These men were not targeted individually - but rather as part of an (alleged) campaign. There is little reason (or policy justification per BIO1E / NOTMEMORIAL) to have an individual article for each one as opposed to covering the entire (alleged) campaign.Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article titled "List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots," with coverage of more than "one line" for each one of them. And then we have an independent article for each of those attempts and plots, successfully or unsuccessful. Those people were historically targeted because they were presidents of the United States; not for individual reasons. Having a list about those attempts and the assassinations, cumulatively, does not preclude Wikipedia from having separate articles about each one. Same with Israel's targeting of Iran's nuclear program: We quite correctly have bundled together all known attempts and assassinations in one article; we can also have, quite easily and rightfully, an independent article about any subject in there that possesses independent notability. The assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad quite evidently does. That's all there is to it. -The Gnome (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection between US president assassinations, whereas in this case this is (allegedly) one campaign in a limited time frame of a few years agajnst individual government workers of little note (beyond being killed). The content in all these cases has not reached WP:SPINOFF turf. Most of the lasting coverage here is of the set of killed scientists as a group - and not of individuals - try finding sources discussing any of the nominated articles that do not cover the other individuals in the set (by contrast - it is not hard to fidn sources focused on JKF or the attempt on Reagan).Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. If "there is no connection between US president assassinations" then why do we have an article in Wikipedia that bunches together all attempts, plots, and assassinations of them? Because they are related, that's why. They're not related operationally, but on account of being acts against the life of a sitting U.S. president, throughout History, whatever the reason each time.

As to the Iranians, we don't get to decide when an item has achieved spin off status; reliable sources do. The plentiful of sources is evidence of independent notability for the assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad. That independent notability is, of course, entirely independent of the notability of the other assassinated persons. Can your logic truly be "either everyone or no one"?? Surely it can't. Something seems to be bothering you, what is it? -The Gnome (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, the event within which these deaths have a modicum of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "modicum" of notability?! Hah. Each and every one of these assassinations received extensive coverage in both the western world and (much more so) in the Middle East, including Israel. The only error made by the creators of those articles was that they titled them with the name of the person, e.g. " Darioush Rezaeinejad," instead of focusing on their assassination, i.e. "Assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad." And on this easily amendable, technical error rests the whole case of those who want to see the articles disappear. This is why they keep invoking WP:1E, a fig leaf of an argument.

By the way, there's a campaign afoot to delete each and every article about those individuals from Wikipedia. They want them all buried inside the "List" tomb, with minimal information and a couple of sources for each one. Every deletion proposal links to this AfD. I will not speculate as to the motives behind such a campaign. But someone's using a multiple-head missile. -The Gnome (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO1E is a Wikipedia guideline - not a fig leaf. The campaign of killing these individuals is notable as whole - individual events are not. We do not have a separate article for each day in the Battle of France (where there are spinoffs for some battles - but not a day by day article) - even though we could find extensive coverage of each and every day. Nor do we have, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, pages on non-notable individual casualties or the killing of said casualties in the Battle of France (and again - we could find several notable incidents - merged into the main article or its spinoffs). Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists is not a list - it describes a campaign - and what is in each individual bio can be (and in fact, for the most part already is) covered there at length - as this is a total of six assassinations.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're twisting my words. WP:BIO1E is not a fig leaf by itself. I did not say this. What I said is that basing your argument on that guideline makes the argument a fig leaf, since the situation is easily amendable by renaming the contested articles. (But, of course, people want to seem the articles deleted; not fixed.)

As to your whole line of argument, it actually makes the very List itself, i.e. the article bundling together all the assassinations, even less tenable, and the existence of every individual article more justified! "Only six" killings?! How can we have an article about such a small lot? How about this: let's delete every mention of these assassinations from Wikipedia. This would follow logically: Too small a number of persons has been liquidated, none of these individuals is worth independent notice, it's all misinformation, etc. So, you propose a multi-delete by having one AfD, this AfD, in actual fact about all the independent articles. Based on the outcome of such efforts in the past, I'd say you will succeed. -The Gnome (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not on all of them. There are 6. 1 was deleted. 3 are up for deletion. 2 aren't (Masoud Alimohammadi doesn't pass SIGCOV (outside of 1E) but NPROF needs to be evaluated separately. Fereydoon Abbasi - the head of the Atomic Energy Organization and various other things - seems to pass regardless of the assassination attempt).Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, 3 are up for deletion through this AfD. Three birds with one stone. As I said, I'm sure you will succeed. The whole Iranian nuclear scientists thing thing will shrivel and contract to an insignificant mention in Wikipedia. Well, only themselves to blame they have; they shouldn't have got involved. -The Gnome (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for why these 3 are connected - Contrast gNews for "Darioush Rezaeinejad" with gNews "Darioush Rezaeinejad" -"Shahriari" or gNews "Ardeshir Hosseinpour" -Shahriari vs. gNews "Ardeshir Hosseinpour" - these 3 are almost always discussed in conjunction with each other - the exceptions being an image captions in an unrelated article, coverage of a visit to the family, or old coverage of an individual that was killed prior to the other individual. They are discussed in outside sources - as a set.Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lord knows what you're on about. I never disputed the killings were connected. They are connected; they're part of the blatantly obvious pattern of Iranian nuclear scientists being the targets of assassinations. (By whom? Probably the Martians.) They're also "connected" in the narrow sense of each case being mentioned in the media along with any new one. But this is standard background reportage! Whenever we have, for instance, a mass shooting incident in a US school, news reports are bound to mention previous such incidents. In this sense, the shootings are "connected." Does this mean Wikipedia should bundle them together all in one article? No, and neither should the attempts on the Iranians, because each one of those incidents possesses independent notability. The rest is noise. -The Gnome (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed - I think keep the articles on Hosseinpour and Shahriari, merge the article on Rezaeinejad. The former two were academics that, while they didn't meet NPROF, their work/death "had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (criteria #7) and their deaths seem to me to have been very significant in Iran and to fit in an encyclopedia. I prefer titled without the words "assassination of" for those two, but don't feel strongly about it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect this article to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. This is a person notable for a single event, and while it was notable at the time, particularly for the claims of mistaken identy that the others don't seem to have, I can't find any evidence of notability lasting beyond 2012. I would like to see the person's bio section expanded as part of the merge, including the argument for mistaken identity, although not necessarily as extensively as in this article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vidalenolone

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

All chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This one does not. It does not appear in the chemical literature beyond the description of it being identified. A Google search turns up nothing more than routine/automated database listings. There is literally nothing more to be said about this chemical compound than what's written in this one sentence stub. We can say it has been identified and really nothing more. ChemNerd (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, not notable for a standalone article but of encyclopedic interest for a list or inclusion in a parent article. Not a chemistry afficionado so will leave it to others to determine the merge into article or list, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any appropriate target for a merge and redirect. ChemNerd (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to have received no coverage in the 16 years since it was published. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. If you really want to merge the info somewhere, I guess you could add it to the somewhat bizarre List of compounds with carbon number 13? Other than that I can't find a suitable redirect target... Ajpolino (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Randall

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

This person has left the modelling industry around 2011-2012 that she has decided to give up her modelling career and pursued with degree of law. This now fails within WP:NBIO. ApprenticeFan work 10:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er, surely it always did. If she's left modelling, change "is" to "was" in the first sentence and that's it done. If she's notable or not is a separate issue, but this nomination seems to be based only on her having left. Emeraude (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added additional citations to the article which show significant discussion and interest about this subject over time.[38][39][40][41][42][43] Easily passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL model. Delete.2001:A61:4E6:C500:5DD1:DCD9:3049:64D7 (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What issue do you have with the multiple reliable, independent sources that cover the subject in detail over the course of years? Additionally, I read WP:MILL, which is an unofficial essay as opposed to an official guideline, but even so I couldn't find any examples that apply to this subject. The examples of run-of-the-mill topics include residential addresses, commercial buildings, local sports, local clubs, local festivals, side streets, a bank, regular political rallies, and local lawyers. Which of these applies to this subject? Lonehexagon (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete I think this falls under WP:BLP1E~~, the event being her participation on America's Next Top Model; coverage of her modeling career such as [44] is trivial. Weak because [45] does seem somewhat substantial and is about something other than the show. I'm unsure how reliable "observer.com" is, though, it's a purely digital media company with a "irreverent sensibility". power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She has received significant coverage for her role as a New Jersey politics commentator. Even if you don't include the New York Observer coverage,[46] there are other examples of coverage on that position, including New Jersey 101.5 and Politico.[47][48] Lonehexagon (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional links. It's still a borderline case, but my !vote is now Weak Keep. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:46, 2 June 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Binayak Giri

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

Unremarkable U-16 Cricket player, Fails WP:NCRICKET and WP:GNG. Quoting WP:CRICKET Notability guidelines - " Youth players (e.g. members of under-19 teams) are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." Razer(talk) 09:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cricketer is notable so i suggest to keep player it doesn't matter in age cayse he has played many national games and references also shows that. MTKASH^{TALK Contribs} 09:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC, having not played any 1st class, list A nor T20 games or any national games at a suitable level. Does not pass WP:GNG for me. I can't find a page for them on cricinfo. Spike 'em (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our notability guidelines for cricket players, which are absurdly broad as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails N:CRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. Smartyllama (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see anything that's not run of the mill coverage at the stage, so I don't see how this can get close to the GNG. There may be further Nepalese sources which go into extensive detail on the chap, but the ones presented in the references are really only standard passing mention stuff I'm afraid. If the press coverage is there then I'd consider keeping, but otherwise not. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem of the United Federation of Planets

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

Small nugget of fan trivia, with no significant coverage online in WP:RS. Prodded by a second editor, prod contested by a third without comment. I would have tried merging it to United Federation of Planets, but that article truly does not require any more poorly sourced fancruft and WP:OR. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, dear Lord. OR and fancruft so minute that it shouldn't even be merged into the main UFoP article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to !vote merge, but I think ^{• whaddya want? •} is correct - as it stands, it would simply not warrant either by evidence or weight a place in the primary article. In any case, there certainly doesn't seem sufficient suitable sourcing available for keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Beemer69, "OR and fancruft". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real out-of-universe importance. (Although I think part of it could go into United Federation of Planets, even if the entire thing probably shouldn't.) /Julle (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. I'm a fan, but I don't think this is notable. I'll change my mind if out-of-universe (pardon the pun) sources can be found. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Clearly no great urgency on the part of the community to delete this article. 104.163.137.171 has improved it significantly since nomination, anyway, so this might have been a WP:HEY even if anyone had chimed in. A Train^talk 10:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shynola

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

No apparent notability, no sources, reads like a CV. Single exhibition in 1996 Heliotom (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is factual-- they seem to have done everything claimed. I found and added nine sources quite quickly, which means there are many more out there. In reference to the "single exhibition" mentioned by the nom, Shynola produced mainly video works for music and advertising, which, given the calibre of the musicians they worked for, had to have been seen by many millions. 104.163.137.171 (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Hogan

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

Fails WP:GNG There is only one verifiable source a piece in the Daily Mail written by the article's creator. Theroadislong (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. There are clearly some reliable sources available which have not been added in the previous years, I think it should be reduced to a stub and worked on. Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the page I feel now I am being punished for uploading photographs that were refused as I am new to wiki and just needed help. I was blocked and vandalism was mentioned. Now you wish to take the whole article down. It is not just based on the daily mail. I cited The Autobiography of a Thief by Bruce Reynolds. I cited Crossing the Line by Bruce Reynolds. I cited The Who's Who Of British Crime by Jim Morris. My fathers obituary is in The Guardian 26 jan 1996 Final Curtain for Robber who got away, with a full document of his life. His is in other media writings and I appeared on the BBC One show which is on Youtube regarding him. I think personally someone does not want me on here I cant tell you how upset I feel kareenzaKareenza (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context Kareenza has never been blocked on Wikipedia. She was blocked and then unblocked on Commons. -- SLV100 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo advice You can try uploading them here on Wikipedia instead if they at least fall under fair use. Take this advice with a grain of salt, as I don't have much experience with uploading photos. -- SLV100 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the debate about the photo, my impression of the article is that it contains content that is likely true (being provided by Terence Hogan's daughter), but either needs to be supported by references in the text, or else deleted. Oral history, father-to-daughter, cannot be used. If content can be supported by writings from Reynolds, Morris, etc., cite those. The objections are not intended to be personal to Kareenza, or in objection to TR being an article. Rather, they are standard (and common) when a person's family members contribute to an article. Example of what has to be deleted: "The last phone call he made was to say he wished he could have taken a different road in life, and that he regretted everything, including the crime and his intermittent alcoholism, except his wife and children. He paid for his crimes with his life, and his psychiatrist said to his daughter after he died, "there was nothing his family could have done to save him, it was all in his childhood". As none of this is from a published, independent source, it cannot be in the article. David notMD (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much David David notMD I will take that out now. I have added citations and my tv appearance on BBC The One Show, where they had a great team of researchers and I had to be recored with absolute facts of the crime and Dads participation. I have added the youtube link to my page. Of course I am probably making mistakes and am in awe of what great people like you and ZfJames and NinjaRobotPirate have done for me, I know i need to tidy it up and will have to learn. I am very very new to all this and its hard when you feel an idiot and a dinosaur! I just needed a bit of help, because the story is of value to young people today wanting to get involved with crime. It had a devastating effect on my family and ended in all of us suffering so much and Dad was in a state of terror and in a psychotic episode so I want people to know it looks good from the outside but you pay and pay for crime. I speak in schools about crime and its effect on children. Anyway you have been very patient. My article needs tidying but I know now someone might take it down and that is a shame as to me it is a piece of British history. kareenzaKareenza (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - high profile notoriety - Independent refers to him as Terry "Lucky Tel" Hogan, a leading underworld figure, Who's Who of British Crime, Historical Heists, Biographies, Great Train Robbery (1963), Eastcastle Street, there's also The Sun, Mirror and Daily Mail which are not RS but I think they serve in this regard since "gang-style" criminals tend to attract the tabloids, and he is also mentioned as the mentor of Bruce Reynolds, in the book Crossing The Line: Autobiography of a Thief Bantam Press. ISBN 1-8522-7929-X, Reynolds’ friend, Terry Hogan, introduced him to The Star following the Eastcastle Street mailbag robbery of 1952 in which they both took part. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 10:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham al-Hashimi

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

No indication of notability. The sourcing looks impressive but usually is just passing mentions where al-Hashimi comments on some topic, without significant coverage of al-Hashimi himself. Significant parts of the "bio" section aren't confirmed by the cited sources. Huon (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what is around online in English, he clearly has some significance, although I don't think he would quite edge over GNG based on what I've seen alone, for reasons mentioned above. However, most of the references are in Arabic, and indeed I would expect there to be more sources about him in that language. He also has a page on the Arabic Wikipedia, which is possibly an indication of notability based on such sources. Unless we can find an Arabic speaker who can confirm all the Arabic sources are not significant enough to establish notability, I would err towards a keep to be honest. BubbleEngineer (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added many sources 185.88.24.150 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Can be equivalently construed as a weak keep.Gnome has put it nicely. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milovan Stanković

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

I didn't find any links, beside his personal site that he is laureate of Isidora Sekulić Award. Also, beside this award nothing adds to notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources....Sorry, but you can overdo it. There are so many articles where you can name the problem of really missing references. Everything is correct in the article. If You are interested in references: example 1...a meaningless action, sorry!!--AustrianFreedom (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles in Wikipedia may be lacking in sources is entirely irrelevant. You cannot use it as an argument. For more, see here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanković is laureate of the Isidora Sekulić Award: article of Večernje novosti. The process is absurd and not objective. What should be discussed? That someone quickly initiates a discussion on deletion? Sorry, that process is not okay.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Neutrality and objectivity apply. It is therefore completely unobjective and not neutral to put a correct article for discussion on deletion.An encyclopedia contains as much knowledge as possible. It should not include judgments that are only subjective and unobjective. I think, everybody could find another list to add for discussion on deletion. Sorry, that is absurd. No offense! I do not want to offend anyone. That was not my intention with my last statement.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: unfortunately the article on Isidora Sekulić Award in the Serbian WP also references Stankovic's biography. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: hi Arthistorian1977, i know the Isidora Sekulić Award may not be on par with the NIN Award but could you please elaborate on why it cannot be used for notability, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for me is that I didn't find any secondary sources confirming he received the award. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, look at the sources: article of the newspaper Danas (introduction: 2001 Nagrada Isidora Sekulić). Thanks.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hi AustrianFreedom, if you could provide more reviews (from reliable sources of course :)) of Stankovic's works that would be really helpful, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hallo, I'll try to find something. But it is a fact that already enough references are available. Many articles with much more text are not nearly written with such a number of references. Sorry, I can't understand this process. I wanted more factual behavior, rather than such action.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment searching made difficult by the other Milovan Stanković, described in a 1996 NYTimes article as a former soldier who founded a newspaper Alternativa in post-conflict Kosovo. Serb Fighter Now Fights Ruling Party In Bosnia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please, come on, what is so difficult? New Article? Milovan Stanković (politician) or (as you like it)--AustrianFreedom (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I guess. He did receive the 2001 Isidora Sekulić award according to:

"Harmonija i odgonetanje smrti". Danas. 20 January 2007.

I also found a 2013 interview concerning his Leptir novel:

"Potraga za srećnim ostrvima". Večernje novosti. 22 December 2013.

There's a review of Fuler in Serbian Studies:

Serbian Studies. North American Society for Serbian Studies. 2003. p. 154.

Combined with sources already in the article, I think the GNG and NAUTHOR are (barely) satisfied. No such user (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to state Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge, Userfy or Transwiki to help the person who closes this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a right mess. This discussion is an even worse mess. Almost all sources are non-English. And the subject's main advocate is behaving boorishly. Yet, we seem to (just barely) cover the WP:NAUTHOR criteria. So a (very) Weak Keep it is. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 14:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catrina Raiford

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

Does not pass notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of fluff sourcing, but the very tone with statements like "a regular at the gym" is just plain not encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's quite a lot of news articles from reputable sources about her online, so I think she's just about notable. The article is in a pretty poor shape, admittedly, but that's not a good reason for complete removal, and this could be fairly easily made an acceptable stub. BubbleEngineer (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Some parts of the article need to be rewritten to fit the encyclopedic style, but this is not a reason it itself to delete the article. Emass100 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is from tabloids. These are not reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as above. Wpgbrown (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: But the article needs substantial improvement. Agree 'regular at the gym' is not encyclopedic.Terristevens (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep terrible article at the moment, but as others have stated, "needs improvement" is not a reason to delete. I see a lot of coverage, and it's spread over a couple of years. Amsgearing (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is from tabloids. These are not reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some tabloids may be unreliable, but just because a newspaper is a tabloid doesn't automatically make it unreliable. Amsgearing (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naema Ahmed

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

She was put on the BBC 100 Women list but BBC honor is not enough to establish WP:N

Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 05:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm on the fence for this one. She was listed in the top 100 Businesswomen and that generated coverage. But, at the moment it's just that. We should wait until people capable of reading the Urdu press can investigate whether there is significant coverage of her in addition to that. Otherwise it might be WP:TOOSOON. Ross-c (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: I did tried to locate coverage on her in Urdu language RS but was unsuccessful. In-fact no coverage exists in BBC Urdu. --Saqib (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable entreprenuer. It's Wikipedia:TOOSOON --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram Patras

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

Actors who appeared in only one film is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia. Basically fails to meet WP:ACTORBIO. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person thus fails basic GNG as well. I can see some press coverage which mention the subject, but nothing significant. Saqib (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he appeared in a film in a notable role that was nominated for a pair of awards and he also appears on a notable television series. Seems to pass the guideline and article is cited to substantial coverage in reliable independemt sources which further meets the General Notability Guideline. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. To be notable he needed to have been nominated for major awards several times. Two nominations for the same awards ceremony is not what I think makes for 'multiple nominations'. But only just. If someone can show me that others have been considered notable for multiple nominations for the same award ceremony, then I"d be prepared to change my vote. But, for now: WP:TOOSOON. Ross-c (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:NACTOR and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Per Ross-c. Per WP:TOOSOON--VitalPower (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like it's too soon for this actor. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus after 1 month at AfD (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McKenna (Scrabble player)

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

Subject of the article appears to meet all the criteria for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Redirect~~ Single event. Redirect to World Youth Scrabble Championships#WYSC 2012 : Birmingham, England. Other "event", ie highest combined score, article subject was the losing party, and by a long way too, so not that important. Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In view of further referenced achievements, changing my !vote to keep. I am concerned though about the difficulty of finding any IRS outside of the "scrabble world" reporting, hence exposing a lack of WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG, although I do like the analogy below to WP:ATHLETE. Aoziwe (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I talk below about why the highest score "event" should count as a second event. But additionally, two more events have since been added and one is a world record to which Aoziwe's criticism doesn't apply.
- Speaking to the highest score "event", which Aoziwe believes is not sufficiently important, there are two points of note. Firstly, the record is replicated on the main Scrabble page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrabble), and that it was noteworthy enough to make it to the main page suggests to me that it should count as a second event here.
- Additionally, the winner's score of 729 has been achieved a number of times in the past (http://www.wespa.org/700club.shtml). None of those games have combined scores which approach the combined record (eg highest score by one player is 850-259 by Toh Weibin), because such games are almost always much more one-sided. So the implication that the subject's role in the record was unimportant is a misjudgement in my view.
- I will say I was too quick to publish this page and I had inadequately referenced the subject's records with secondary references elsewhere on Wikipedia which were subsequently deleted (and have now been replaced). Performance at the World Scrabble Championship and the now-beaten record for the highest score between two players in 24 hours is now added. Clearly WP:ATHLETE does not apply here, but by analogy, a world youth championship, or a world record, or participation in a world championship is sufficient by itself for presumed notability for many of those sports.Scrumpet97 (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have left a notification of this afd at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Insufficient participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that these records are important; "most Scrabble points in 24 hours" borders on the absurd. Performance in junior-level competitions never meets WP:NSPORT (and would be a WP:BLP1E concern here even if GNG is met), and I don't see any other coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Night Out

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

Non-notable upcoming film, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the one source in the article is a simple database listing. It previously also cited IMDb as a source. All but the first few edits by this user relate to this film. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The film is yet to be launched and the production house is not notable delete per WP:NFF.--DBig Xray 22:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could not find any reviews so it looks like this is on the way out. However, if after it is released, it receives at least 2 reviews, preferably more, in reliable sources such as press it can be recreated and G4 will not apply in that case, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: G4 only apply if the two versions are "substantially identical" and also do we count reviews by newspaper equal to nationally known critics e.g. Film Critics Circle of India as sugested by WP:NFILM ...and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics? Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 05:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment two full length reviews in national or regional newspapers that are considered reliable sources count as a pass of WP:GNG, which is enough for inclusion irrespective of WP:NFILM, although more reviews would be preferable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: How? GNG required "Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail but reviews don't give that coverage they basically talk about reviewers personal experience. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Full Reviews count as significant coverage that address the topic directly and in detail by an independent professional reviewer who is often an expert in the field if they are in reliable sources for films, books, albums, songs, video games, cars, products and many other topics.If you do not realise that it is your knowledge of consensus and policy that is lacking Atlantic306 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I said above there is a difference between coverage and sharing own experience, anyways this is not the right place for this debate so I will ping you once I post this at ICTF or somewhere else. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 03:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions. Consensus seems to be that only the one event of his flag design claim has substantial coverage, which is not enough. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Heft

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

If this biography's only claim to notability is that he claimed to be the only designer of the 50-star flag, this fails WP:ONEEVENT. As it is explained in Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions, he was one of three people to submit that exact design. This section sufficiently covers the subject and a separate article on him is not warranted. I have nothing against this man. In fact, I think this page tarnishes his name by making him sound like a liar when all he did was not understand the whole truth. This is exactly the reason WP:BIO1E was created, to protect people like this. ---Coffeeandcrumbs 21:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ---Coffeeandcrumbs 04:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to flag -- Not separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the flag section. Not the first to come up with the design, and his claim is already discussed there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions. WP:BIO1E. Coverage of this does exist - but not very wide - should not be standalone.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~(changing iVote, see below) to Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions. This one is so simple: he has no other claim to notability, his name is a useful search term, and WP:BIO1E, that this can now be a WP:SNOW REDIRECT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:BIO1E "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." It seems like there is more coverage lately, especially since it was hard to find anything back then. His flag was raised at many locations. StrayBolt (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Heft was the leader of many Lancaster County, Ohio social and political organizations throughout his life and was the mayor of Napoleon, Ohio from 1975 to 1989. He also had a prolific career as a speaker about the flag and its history. This part of his career was removed from his page in April.[49] Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put back the career section and expanded it a bit (and accidentally removed the AfD notice - sorry). His coverage is far from spectacular, but he had an interesting and long public career which was well covered in local and regional newspapers in the 1960s through 1980s as well as his speaking career which continued into the 2000s. There are a large number of in-depth articles about him which do and which do not discuss his claim to designing the flag, particularly in northwestern Ohio newspapers; a few of which I've added as sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet GNG per sources from Smmurphy. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to User:Smmurphy for noticing that "career" section hd been deleted and replacing it in article. There is now enough here (civic leadership, mayor of (small pop.) corn belt county seat,) combined with coverage of flag design, to make this a keeper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to flag or delete: Per above as not notable. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC since "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.". Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. A politician that has been a mayor with an otherwise mundane personal and professional life (does not advance notability) has claimed to be the "designer" of the current 50-star flag. The article states, "To date, there is no independent verification of Heft's account". Lacking the before-now-deemed-important criteria of sourcing this would be a no-brainer. Wikilawyering that WP:BIO1E cannot count because there is sufficient refbombing of insignificant sources related to; "Ohio Democrat Chairman Coleman Speaks At Annual Fall Luncheon" (Really!) or interviews or personal accounts such as; "Bob Heft Vividly Remembers Designing Flag" or "Flag Imput Noted From Mayor Heft", leaves us with nothing but the fact that there is "no independent verification of Heft's account". Where is the "national attention" sources? If there are conspiracy thoughts that the feds are just yanking the lime-light and credit then redirect to flag as an area of contention. If we wish to start including that "...(civic leadership, mayor of (small pop.) corn belt county seat,)..." adds up to notability, we have to change all the "rules" to allow every mayor (or politician) in the US, and the equivalent world-wide, an article. All they would need is one unverifiable and possibly interesting, yet actually unsupportable "fact" (interviews and primary sources don't count), to tilt the balance! If we are not going to "slide down that slope" then "my unverifiable claim to a possibly important event" is just that and the article does not deserve stand-alone status. Otr500 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to address the point about national attention. I do not find widespread coverage of Heft in newspapers.com in 1960, although there are a at least a small number of articles about him and the flag later in the century in newspapers far from his hometown (for instance in the Baltimore Sun in 1964). His obituary was carried in at least 36 newspapers outside of Ohio and Michigan (his home states)[50]. I agree with the points made that it is not correct to call him the "designer" of the flag (in some sources the wording about his relationship to the flag is a little different; this source says that he created the first flag, others note that his flag was the first made from fabric - if something like that may be more accurate, but that is a content issue that can better be addressed outside of an AfD). I'm sorry if my contributions to the article strike you or anyone as refbombing. It was not my intention, and I do not think I added references to material that was already adequately referenced. I also do not think I added trivial material in order to add unnecessary or subpar sources. In any case, I apologize that my edits struck you as bad form. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the wording of the claim can be worked out at talk. But I DO NOT see refbombing. I do see SIGCOV of this man and his flag design that began in the early 60s and continued into this century. Here are the first few hits on a news archive search:

A star among stripes ; Old Glory designer doesn't like to wave his own flag, Vince Bond Jr. Newhouse News Service. Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]22 Dec 2006: 01

It was his flag from first ; Robert G. Heft designed 50-star flag as a high school project in Ohio, Laurent, Julee R. South Bend Tribune; South Bend, Ind. [South Bend, Ind]21 Nov 2006: -- In 1958, a 17-year-old student named Robert G. hitHeft created... Heft's creation had 50. Little did either......the flag created on his mother's sewing machine would become our national flag.

THE FOLD, FLAG DAY, CELEBRATING OLD GLORY: [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]

KATIE MEHR. STAFF WRITER. Newsday, Combined editions; Long Island, N.Y. [Long Island, N.Y]14 June 2004: A32....restoring it. 2) Photo Courtesy of The Saginaw News - hitFlag designer Robert G.......by a junior. hitRobert hitHeft, then 17, was assigned a design project of his......hitflag. He then received an A on the project. hitHeft, who went on to become a..

Evolution of the U.S. flag. Page, David. Journal Record; Oklahoma City, Okla. [Oklahoma City, Okla]03 July 2001: 1. ...higher grade if Congress accepted the design. hitHeft sent the hitflag to his....Heft designed a 51-star hitflag with six rows of stars, beginning with a row of..., the Fourth of July, the American hitflag will be displayed at many homes and...

Visual arts: Star turn: Is it patriotic? Subversive? Both? Jonathan Jones on how Jasper Johns made a provocative masterpiece out of the American flag Jones, Jonathan. The Guardian; London (UK) [London (UK)]22 Apr 2003: 2.12....Robert Rosenblum asked of Flag: "Is it blasphemous or respectful, simple-minded...told the art teacher of a shy high-school student called hitRobert G hitHeft. In 1958,... tHeft took it upon himself to redesign the hitflag with 50 stars. He got a B+ for...E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions. Not independently notable and the target section already sufficiently covers the subject. Sourcing above is insufficient for a biography. Being a mayor in a small town / civic leader does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steaming (crime)

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

Dicdef, WP:BEFORE turned up nothing that goes beyond a dictionary definition. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flash rob. "Steaming" is the word used for this in the UK: [51], [52], [53], [54]. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article existed long before Flash rob, so under WP:ENGVAR that article should actually be merged to this. A British person is no more likely to know what a "flash rob" is than an American is likely to know what "steaming" is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Steaming has been a popular term for since the 1980s whereas flash rob seems quite recent. In any case, per WP:PRESERVE, there's no case for deletion, as it all belongs somewhere, even if it's just robbery. Andrew D. (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glória a Deus

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

A non-notable recording by a notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is rather a notable recording and should be keeped. All sources are reliable, and more will be added. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has primary sources. Since Portuguese is not a language I understand, it was difficult for me to find sources. It will also be difficult for us to determine that they're reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it The article is good and has good sources. It should be kept! --MilenaSword1 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) — MilenaSword1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 2) who has a close association with DavidStarIsrael7. This is an ongoing problem with these Brazian articles and I'm one step away from going to WP:SPI. 3) The sources are good, but they're WP:PRIMARY and so the subject fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If secondary sources are to be then I'd vote keep.--VitalPower | talk 12:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Gateway Worship is a notable producer of Christian worship music, this album lacks sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fail in WP:NALBUM. RS covarage not found. The article is only cited to industry and gospel publicity materials. Tendency of religious promotion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Reina

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

A non-notable recording by a notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article about the album is about something referenciable. It is about a important portuguese album, released in 2015 by the band in partnership with Diante do Trono. The article has reliable sources, and more will be added. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has primary sources. Since Portuguese is not a language I understand, it was difficult for me to find sources. It will also be difficult for us to determine that they're reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it The article is good and has good sources. It should be kept! --MilenaSword1 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) — MilenaSword1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 2) who has a close association with DavidStarIsrael7. This is an ongoing problem with these Brazian articles and I'm one step away from going to WP:SPI. 3) The sources are good, but they're WP:PRIMARY and so the subject fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Walter Görlitz, there already is an SPI--if you want to add Milena, that't be great. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the two keepers above are now blocked. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, based on the three references listed there is not much hope for this album - no.1 is an announcement from the album band, no.2 a playlist, and no. 3 is just PR ie. "play the album for free!". Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fail in WP:NALBUM. RS covarage not found. The article is only cited to industry and gospel publicity materials. Tendency of religious promotion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although Gateway Worship is a notable producer of Christian worship music, this album lacks sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete arguments, as well as the replies to the two blocked sockpuppet 'keep' comments (which weren't based on Wikipedia policy), are convincing. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pra Sempre Teu

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

A non-notable recording by a notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is rather a notable recording and should be keeped. All sources are reliable. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has primary sources. Since Portuguese is not a language I understand, it was difficult for me to find sources. It will also be difficult for us to determine that they're reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it The article is good and has good sources. It should be kept! --MilenaSword1 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) — MilenaSword1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 2) who has a close association with DavidStarIsrael7. This is an ongoing problem with these Brazial articles and I'm one step away from going to WP:SPI. 3) The sources are good, but they're WP:PRIMARY and so the subject fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is really a live Portuguese version of their "Forever Yours" album with a few extra songs, interesting that that album doesnt have an article and this one does?, there is an article about this in the Portuguese WP, but the references there are not helpful. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is paltry on this 2017 album, although Gateway Worship is certainly a notable producer of Christian worship music. I might have suggested REDIRECT, but it would be UNDUE to redirect a common Portugese phrase like pra sempre teu to a record album. Album is mentioned at Gateway Worship#Portuguese albums which seems about right. anyone who wishes can certainly salvage useful sources and add them to the Gateway article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fail in WP:NALBUM. RS covarage not found. The article is only cited to industry and gospel publicity materials. Tendency of religious promotion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muralhas

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

A non-notable recording by a notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article about the album is about something referenciable. The article has reliable sources, and more will be added. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has primary sources. Since Portuguese is not a language I understand, it was difficult for me to find sources. It will also be difficult for us to determine that they're reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it The article is good and has good sources. It should be kept! --MilenaSword1 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC) this is a sock. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) — MilenaSword1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 2) who has a close association with DavidStarIsrael7. This is an ongoing problem with these Brazian articles and I'm one step away from going to WP:SPI. 3) The sources are good, but they're WP:PRIMARY and so the subject fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is good, but there is a lot to improve, so let's get better. Let's keep! --187.56.49.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC) this is a sock. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- — 187.56.49.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Funny how these Brazilian (specifically Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil) anons come to DavidStarIsrael7's support when there are AfDs and other problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i didnt know that nominators can strike out other editors words that they dont like? (if so, im in trouble:)), and if they are indeed socks it would be helpful for readers of this afd if that was stated. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- They can't, and I didn't. This happens to have been confirmed WP:SOCKs of the first nominator (who has now been blocked for the behaviour) and is standard practice. Feel free to confirm with an admin or take me to WP:ANI if you question the behaviour. There may be another page that discusses that very thing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks:))Coolabahapple (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC) ps. no thanks to ANI, thats scary:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is paltry on this 2017 album, although Gateway Worship is certainly a notable producer of Christian worship music. I might have suggested REDIRECT, but it would be inappropriate to redirect a common Portugese word like muralhas (it means "walls.") Album is mentioned at Gateway Worship#Portuguese albums which seems about right. anyone who wishes can certainly salvage useful sources and add them to the Gateway article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fail in WP:NALBUM. RS covarage not found. The article is only cited to industry and gospel publicity materials. Tendency of religious promotion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per the request of the creator here. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saints & Sinners Bingo

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NVG. None of these "sources" are reliable, in any way; most of them are just links to spam sites. theinstantmatrix (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i think there is still a chance to edit to save this article (update) i've changed some source. Personale (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the slim pickings in the WP:VG/SE. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Excepting User:Agathoclea, the keep arguments are very light on policy. A Train^talk 21:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave

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

This isn't the weather channel. A single day of record-breaking heat (at less than 30C) isn't notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this why oh why attempt at a belt notch. Creator could not even wait for April 2018 to be over before hoisting it up. -The Gnome (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Met Office summary notes only "a brief but very marked hot spell from the 18th to the 21st which produced the highest temperatures in April since 1949." [55] (Less scientifically, I was never out without a jacket, often zipped up, though perhaps the experience was different in the London area.) Nothing worthy of an article or even a partial merge into Climate_of_the_United_Kingdom#Monthly_temperature_extremes. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the Midlands and I was walking about without a jacket for those few days (have done today as well as a matter of fact), so it did extend beyond London and the South East. This is Paul (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was a historic 'very marked' hot spell. I think that anything to do with record breaking (or near record breaking) heat or cold is noteworthy because, it is historical. This story was published in many articles and shown on national television. The fact that you never stopped wearing a jacket is not my fault. I am in the North of England and it was hot here too. It isn't my fault that you didn't experience heat. 14:33, 5 May 2018 (BST)

Whose input is the above? -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new editor, and article creator, WilsonNorman37 (checked this afd history, they misentered the time of the edit as 14:33, it was 13:32), doesn't know about signing with tildes. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Record-breaking on its own does not confer notability. We need saw-rssa'z. Personal experience is well and good but Wikipedia's stone cold heartlessly indifferent about personal testimony. The meteorological service is quite clear, as competent authorities go: A small statistical blip. May you all walk about in full health, jacket or no jacket. -The Gnome (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's some to be going on with. They talk about the hottest April day since 1949, and the impact on this year's London Marathon:

UK temperatures top 29C in hottest April day since 1949, BBC News, 19 April 2018
Hottest April day in almost 70 years sparks marathon warning, The Guardian, 19 April 2018
UK basks in hottest April day for 70 years, Sky News, 19 April 2018
UK weather: Britain set to sizzle again after hottest April day for 70 years, The Telegraph, 20 April 2018
UK weather latest: Hottest April day in 70 years expected as warm air from Azores set to push temperatures to 28C, The Independent, 19 April 2018
UK weather: Sunday last chance to enjoy heatwave before temperatures plunge and April showers return , The Telegraph, 22 April 2018
Runners face hottest London Marathon despite overnight storms, Sky News, 21 April 2018

Hope this helps. This is Paul (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like it. See what a little needling can do? Carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. I see this is quite badly sourced, including a source from the Met Office Twitter account. I'll have a go at adding some of the references tomorrow. As I've mentioned in my post below this one, if we keep this it may have to move. I suggest something like Spring 2018 United Kingdom heat wave. Since there may be more than one to deal with there may be a better title than that. This is Paul (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Met Office is now reporting more record temperatures, with the hottest May Bank Holiday since the day was made a public holiday in 1978:

Early May Bank Holiday Monday heat record broken, BBC News, 7 May 2018

I'm slightly reluctant to begin work on this while the AFD discussion is open because I don't want to put a load of effort into it only to find it gets deleted next weekend. Instead I'm going to take a copy of what's there and put it in my userspace, because I believe the information here will ultimately need to be part of a wider article anyway. This is Paul (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's an April/May heatwave. With a little patience we can add June, too, in our Weatherpedia. -The Gnome (talk)

Spring is here...I hear. This is Paul (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Event broke some records so is notable in that sense. At the time of writing more records are expected to be broken over the May Bank Holiday weekend, so perhaps this needs renaming and expanding to include that information if it happens. This is Paul (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The UK press is obsessed with the weather, and whenever anything a little unusual happens they manage to find some record that has been broken. I enjoyed those few days of good weather, as I am enjoying this weekend, but between times I had to turn the heating back on and, here in south-east England, we almost got a frost at night. This is all part of the wonderfully variable English weather, but nothing that belongs in an encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to List of heat waves. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple of hotter-than-normal days in the UK is a pretty standard affair. If it was more prolonged, then I'd lean towards keep. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine coverage existed for the brief duration of this heat wave. No surprise there. What would actually make this appropriate for an encyclopedia is indepth analysis and prolonged interest, but that can only be assessed in the future; hence, it is also too soon. I am certain a list could retain the essential details in the mean time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage. It wasn't even a real heat wave, at least not by US standards. Here in the States we need 3 days of 90 degree+ temps, and even then it generally isnt notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is wikipedia, not USpedia. US standards are irrelevant here. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you have a link for USpedia? -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If this title is standard for heat waves, is there a good reason why we can not redirect it with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post: [London has warmest April day in nearly 70 years, as enormous heat dome consumes Europe].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We better hurry up with this AfD, then, before the gods get even angrier. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant, "sustained coverage" to meet WP:SIGCOV. The news covering simply because it is a record breaking day is both routine and WP:109PAPERS. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all the above comments. Even in the UK a period of warm weather lasting five days isn't notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia. Neiltonks (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news, and this is what all the cold spell and heat wave articles add up to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "highest April temperatures since 1949" are hardly worth noting. Is the United Kingdom temperature so uniform that we are really to believe that the same records apply in northern Scotland as in London? I find that hard to believe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The argument "routine coverage" does not cut it, as this is not a systensis out of regularly published temperature data but coverage of reporting on an outstanding event. The argument "in the US this does not count as a heatwave" does not count. -5C in the Antartic might count as a heatwave. We count notability by RS-coverage and not by arbitrary values (Any SNG rules that we do have use arbitrary values as a presumption that such coverage exits). The British obsesion with the weather is also no anti-argument, only an explanation of why certain things get covered in the media that would not get covered elsewhere. But interestingly that obsession travels well as elsewhere we see coverage of the British weather when the same type of weather "at home" would not be covered. All in all - Notability != importance, only coverage. Agathoclea (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your conclusion? Do you mean that notability "does not equal" (or "signify") importance? And what does "only coverage" mean? Do you mean that just having sources/coverage guarantees inclusion? If so, it doesn't.

Let's all recall that notability alone does not a subject worthy of a Wikipedia article make. To quote from the relevant rule, 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. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (Emphasis in the original.)

Particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we are told. From what we know so far, the contested subject is but information indiscriminately wiggled inside Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant is also WP:NOTNEWS. Even if something gets a lot coverage in news sources, that coverage might not be sufficient to make an encyclopedic article, and WP doesn't have an article about everything that gets reported in the news, for example not every single one of Trump's tweets is reported on WP, even if they all get extensive mentions in news sources. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario FX (cancelled game)

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

There was no cancelled game, the article states that "no game titled Super Mario FX had ever entered development". It can't be cancelled if it wasn't even started in the first place. The article is based on a non-notable idea for a game with barely any information beyond rumors. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Super FX. -- œ^™ 07:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing more than a vague idea/tech demo that we know virtually nothing about. Not even worth a redirect considering the unnecessary disambiguation in the title, and the fact that Super Mario FX itself already redirects there. Additionally, most of the prose is already covered at Super Mario 64#Development. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Super FX. Not worthy of a standalone article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Serge. The redirect at Super Mario FX is sufficient. The target already covers everything mentioned in the article under discussion, so nothing to merge. czar 02:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Father's House Soup Kitchen

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

A good cause, but occasional mentions in local newspapers is less than is expected to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as stated above, a "good cause", but in the end, trivial and not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Every soup kitchen doesn't get an article, see nothing extraordinary about this one, fails WP:ORG--Rusf10 (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked list of Luxembourg cantons

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

This compilation of listicles article is superfluous. It simply gather's tables from the three existing list articles on Luxembourg cantons (population, area, and population density). It's superfluity is demonstrated by the fact that no one has bothered to copy data to it from those articles since 2005, despite them being updated in the interim, and this creates a confusing experience for Wikipedia users trying to gather information on the subject. Luxofluxo (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this is an unnecessary CFORK. It's existed long enough I'm neutral on a delete-and-redirect to Cantons of Luxembourg. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced statistics and, noted as being estimates from 2005, well out of date. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ian McCallum#Discography. Sandstein 06:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me as I Am (Ian McCallum album)

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

Not notable, obvious WP:NALBUM fail, no sourcing found. 25 hits on Google, most of which appear to originate from WP and nothing on Google Books or even AllMusic etc. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This is basically a (unsourced) track listing but redirecting is usually the modus operandi because they are cheap.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 20:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Sud Ladies Cup

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

Non-notable sports competition. I cannot find any sufficient sources to justify GNG. Furthermore, these matches are not listed by FIFA. For ex. the Haiti team [56]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third-party coverage. Changing vote to merge with Toulon Tournament as suggested below. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I feel it's a bit early to nominator the article, I would give it another month or so to see if anything news worthy or helpful pops up closer to the event. I feel woman's football needs a chance. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Toulon Tournament. Searching on L'Équipe, the french sport newspaper, yields no result, and the official web page is a subpage of the toulon tournament web site. Comte0 (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a senior tournament, it's a U-20 Tournament. Hence why it's not listed on the senior team's matches. Smartyllama (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again you fail to even remotely check. The link also shows u-20 matches. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who has once again failed to do an ounce of WP:BEFORE. That link doesn't even show the U-20 qualifiers. It's obviously not intended to be a complete list of U-20 matches. Smartyllama (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator asserts in this edit [57] that a subject is not notable if it's not proven to be so in the first few hits of a google search. So, presumably, if the first few hits are primary sources, mirrors, blogs, etc, there is no need to search any further, we should just delete it. That's a fallacious argument even when the subject is in your language, but far more so when it's not. It's a terrible approach that guarantees disruption, WP:BIAS against non-English subjects, bias against less recent subjects, and all sorts of other negative impact to the encyclopedia. At least he saw fit to remove the personal attack, in his next edit.Jacona (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why waste your and other editors' time. If it's deleted, it'll be re-created in less than 30 days. Hmlarson (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - could well be notable, but difficult to see how it is notable now when the tournament hasn't even started. Fenix down (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Can be restored if/when that time comes. Giant Snowman 15:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userify It doesn't appear notable yet but it may be WP:TOOSOON as it kicks off in under a month. Not worth keeping yet, not worth a full delete. SportingFlyer talk 01:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any benefit to deleting an article like this right before the event happens. The article is short and informational, doesn't seem promotional, would be helpful to someone interested, and the event takes place in nine days. It doesn't seem in line with the spirit of Wikipedia to delete it now right when the information would be most helpful to people. Lonehexagon (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foresight Institute Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

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

This prize fails N; this is almost all sourced from SPS, and listing out all the winners sourced only from the website of the organization that gives it, just turns this Wikipedia page into a proxy for that organization, and this is not what WP is for, per WP:SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As of now, all of the article prose is supported by secondary sources, which support that this is one of the most prestigious and long-standing prizes in nanotechnology. The citation quotations are directly sourced from the Foresight Institute, as is the practice with other prize articles such as List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry. I feel that the Wikipedia article does have value-added over the Foresight Insitute's own website, in that it provides direct links to biographies, freely licensed photographs, and the rationales all in one place. Merging to Foresight Institute would be a second choice. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antony-22, in this diff you wrote Okay, couldn't find any secondary sources about the communications and government prizes, so I'll axe these and deleted a bunch of content. The sourcing of that content is not different, from the bulk of this page listing the winners. Advocacy is skewing your judgement as a Wikipedian; this is alarming to me, and it should be to you, as a Wikipedian. This is something you need to try to self-manage, and the best way to do that is to aim with sourcing, using independent, secondary sources as much as possible, and summarizing them. If you find yourself building sections based on SPS or primary sources, it is a good sign for you that your advocacy is at play and you should reel yourself back from that, so the community doesn't have to spend time on stuff like this discussion or the edit warring or COIN filing that preceded it. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main prize as a whole has ample secondary sources: eight of them are cited in the article, and they range from mainstream technical news publications to peer-reviewed journal articles. These sources would be satisfactory for any other topic in my long experience. I looked for secondary sources for the other prizes and didn't find them, so I removed them. So I'm essentially agreeing with you on that. But my impression of consensus is that secondary sources are not required for award rationales; this is the practice at the Nobel Prize list articles, on which the format of this article is based. No, there isn't a secondary source for every individual awarding of the prize, but I don't think that's required by WP:N or WP:SELFPUB. If this is wrong, then the required changes will go far beyond this article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources used in the body of the article:

"Foresight Prizes". Foresight Institute. Retrieved 2018-05-07.
Marcovich, Anne; Shinn, Terry (December 1, 2010). "Socio/intellectual patterns in nanoscale research: Feynman Nanotechnology Prize laureates, 1993–2007". Social Science Information. 49 (4): 615–638. doi:10.1177/0539018410377581.
Feynman Prize: Dr Amanda Barnard, ABC (Australia), 2015-04-30, retrieved 2018-05-12
"CSIRO nanotechnologist wins top science prize". The Australian. 2015-04-23.
Finkel, Elizabeth (2016-09-26). "Michelle Simmons: a quantum queen". Cosmos Magazine. Retrieved 2018-05-08. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
"Feynman Grand Prize". Foresight Nanotech Institute. Retrieved 10 April 2011.
"Diamandis to chair Feynman Grand Prize committee | Solid State Technology". electroiq.com. Retrieved 2018-05-01.
Nicolau, D.E.; Phillimore, J.; Cross, R.; Nicolau, D.V (July 2000). "Nanotechnology at the crossroads: the hard or the soft way?". Microelectronics Journal. 31 (7): 611–616. doi:10.1016/s0026-2692(00)00036-7. ISSN 0026-2692.
Marcovich, Anne; Shinn, Terry (2014). Toward a New Dimension: Exploring the Nanoscale. Oxford University Press. p. 60. ISBN 9780198714613.

#1 and #6 are SPS from the organization. Irrelevant for an N discussion:
#3 and #4 and #5 and #7 are churnalism based on press releases; #3 and #4 are based on the same press release, each discussing one specific awardee (this is actually classic reference padding, something that paid editors do all the time; paid and unpaid advocates edit the same way which is we why ask about COI. Use of multiple instances of the same story is discussed in Wikipedia:Notability#cite_ref-3 as well as WP:INDY)
#8 is the definition of "passing mention" and does not contribute to N. For those who cannot access the paywalled article, there are two sentences mentioning the prize: 1) "Eric Drexler and numerous followers, e.g. Merkle) proposed a more revolutionary approach towards nanotechnology. The Foresight Institute in its requirements for awarding the Feynman prize for two nanoscale devices epitomizes the vision of this branch of nanotechnology." and 2) "Furthermore, the Foresight Institute “manifesto” (i.e. requirements for the Feynman prize), although—to their merit—not restricted to solid state technology “solutions”, is extremely restrictive in terms of the treatment of noise."
#2 is very good, and #9 is meh. I found those as well when I did my BEFORE. In #2, a historian of science, Anne Marcovich, used these prizes as a lens through which to view the history and state of the field. #9 is a long paragraph in a book by Marcovich, basically rehashing what she did in #2, so it isn't independent of #2 (sources should be independent of the subject and from one another - same issue as the two churnalism pieces off the same press release above). btw I looked and found no connection between Marcovich and Foresight - these refs are both independent of Foresight as far as I can tell)

So what we have here is one kick-ass source that would be great for generating content in the Foresight page about this prize. The rest is not helpful toward notability.

btw, this is what I mean above, by allowing high quality, independent, secondary sources to drive content creation. Something someone who is an advocate should be especially careful to do. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it. I was going off of what I saw on other prize articles to gauge the consensus on sourcing, but I understand that sourcing requirements have become more strict over time, especially with the recent overhaul of the organizations notability guideline. I was asked to add secondary sources and I did so in good faith expecting that that would solve the issues, but I admit that I misestimated how stringently other editors would approach the sourcing. Nevertheless, as I've said before, I will accept whatever the outcome is of this AfD.

For the sake of explanation, I did avoid using verbatim copies of the Foresight Institute's press releases as sources, and I actually removed a few that another editor had added. I saw #3, #5, and #7 as original reporting independent of the press releases; in particular #3 is an entirely original radio interview by a mainstream media outlet. And in #8 I see two full paragraphs about the Grand Prize, not two sentences—maybe still not substantial enough, but certainly more than a passing mention. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Antony-22: As of now, all of the article prose is supported by secondary sources Are you joking? With two exceptions, every citation from 15 to 38 is to the website of the organization in question. Yes, this is largely not, strictly speaking, "prose", but that's a clever word trick if it's what you meant; if almost none of our article's content (not "article prose") can be verified in reliable secondary sources, then that raises serious questions... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the list portion of the article, it is now three exceptions (did you miss the Nature Nanotechnology one?), but there were others that were deleted because they were thought by Antony-22 to be unneeded. Again, should we delete the Featured List, List of Nobel laureates because ALL the sources come from Nobel? I was looking at an Oscar page and many of its sources came from the Academy, churnalism, or other non-independent sources. Is there some WP:??? which would clarify the guidelines for sources for award lists? If the list part was spun off into a "List", would that change the requirement? StrayBolt (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OSE: I've heard of the Nobel Prize, and you and your mother and her childhood dentist have as well; it is covered in millions of reliable sources, in quite a bit of depth, and honestly official sources are the best ones for who one what prize what year, given how much false information goes around about it because of how famous it is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree that having official primary sources are good, like this article has, for who won when, what and why. And the large number of refs are because FI has a page for each year (while Nobel has one page for them all). I(we) have added some secondary sources for various years of the award from a variety of source types. Doing it for every year seems like overkill. I am still looking for guidelines for sources for award lists. StrayBolt (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"So we agree" - this is you misconstruing someone's objection, and I must note that it comes across as deliberately disingenuous. If it were in good faith, it would indicate a huge disconnect from norms of discourse and ability to understand what other people are saying, and be a clear red flag that you are not up to the task of participating in discussions on Wikipedia. Which is it? - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 05:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the Foresight Institute is barely notable, if at all, and the sources for this award fail the test of intellectual independence. basically they are either the institute itself or pressreleases (churnalism). Guy (Help!) 09:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no substantive sources that this prize has real-world notability. If this is "one of the most prestigious and long-standing prizes in nanotechnology", then you'd expect third-party coverage to be more than passing mentions. If you look through the article's history and talk page, it's all desperate attempts to puff up its importance, and that of the fringe science in question. Paid fringe advocates repeatedly removing tags from the article and its bad sources - rather than finding good sources, because the good sources don't exist - are an extremely bad sign as well. If there was notability and substance here, none of that would need to happen - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Foresight Institute is notable. It is learned society like any other learned society, like universities, for example. It is not qualitatively or quantitatively different in substance, from a university like Cambridge University or something like the Royal College of Physicians. Different fields or subjects but same outcome, to advance mankind. The prize is not well known, which is unfortunate, as the Institute is at the bleeding edge of research, and as it has not directly benefited mankind yet, e.g. making nano machinery that will directly fix, e.g. arteriosclerosis, nobody is talking about it, so it not notable. scope_creep (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think WP:SOAP is an issue for this article. By Jytdog's argument, we should delete the Featured List, List of Nobel laureates. Sources can be better or worse than others and there is a gray area due to independence, reputation,… so I probably add more than other editors. When a receiving organization reports winning the prize, even if it just repeating the press release, it is imparting information acknowledging receipt. For almost any award, most sources would say, "X won Y prize" and then go on talking about X and what X did. They might use some superlative for the prize. Puffery is easily fixed, usually by deleting the word in question. I have problems with David Gerard's accusations,"… it's all desperate attempts to puff up its importance, and that of the fringe science in question. Paid fringe advocates repeatedly removing tags…". For me it is: attempts to rescue with sources, of an evolving fringe science that is now more mainstream, and volunteer advocate of Wikipedia (not sure if I removed tags). I have added a couple more refs (SciAm, newspaper) and will try to find more. At worse, this article should be merged with Foresight Institute. StrayBolt (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a merger with Foresight is a reasonable outcome. ~~It is definitely time to dissolve the "rescue" project. I will be filing an MfD shortly.~~ This is the most blatant abuse of that project for canvassing that i have ever seen, I believe. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC) (strike for now Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Jytdog: This is my first time listing an article on "rescue". What should I say so it isn't canvassing? I was summarizing the state and asking for help finding sources. I will post a correction. StrayBolt (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think about your intention. It is 100% WP:CANVASS. Since you are not a regular there i have struck my note about MfD, for now. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking for help finding more RS, if they exist. I recently found a couple more and had found #2 before. There seems to be many press releases, many variations of writing it, and many unrelated similar named items so it makes searching difficult. StrayBolt (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CANVASS and do not try to bullshit the community. If you continue behaving this way you will end up with your editing privileges restricted. I am not going to reply here further to avoid cluttering this up. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StrayBolt: Having come here because of your note on the canvassing board in question, I can say that your request "for help finding more RS" did not stand out at all as much as your claim to having already found several sources that "passed the critics", which regardless of your intent will be read by the ARS regulars similarly to how 1 John's intended readership would read "the world". Similarly, "satisfactorily" was an odd choice of words. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is absolutely non notable, and fails WP:SIGCOV and has to go the way of the dodo. scope_creep (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete The diligent source-hunting that has apparently turned up nothing to write home about makes me think this subject probably fails GNG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to Foresight_Institute#Prizes. Not independently notable and the parent article already provides sufficient information on the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- we'll need to keep an eye on that to make sure there isn't just a huge cut'n'paste of this text into that - David Gerard (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 10:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foresight Institute who haven't !voted yet. @Fixuture, Davidcpearce, SwisterTwister, Rhododendrites, Hang googles, DGG, and Northamerica1000: Feedback would be appreciated. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 10:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good secondary sources. Notability is always going to be partly subjective and dimensional rather than categorical. But IMO the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology makes the cut --Davidcpearce (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the technically weak referencing, this appears to be the major prize in the subject. The references are good enough to support that, and that is the practical and appropriate criterion for notability of a prize. The general terms in the GNG substantial & independent need to be interpreted with respect to what can be expected in the subject. The recent tightening of the requirements for them in WP:CORP is a reaction to the promotionalism in that subject area, and even in that area they need to be used with reason. The purpose of the notability guidelines is to separate out what makes sense to include in an encyclopedia . They have no fundamental significance--where they are a good guide, they are useful. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discussed some in textbooks and by universities.[58][59] Could the current references be improved? Sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are a bunch more [60][61]
- This lists the prize under nanotechnology developments[62] indicating it is fairly significant in the field.
- Anyway fair number more are[63] and [64]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Doc James rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contactually

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and routine funding news. Created by Special:Contributions/Kiwi0wl with few other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blackguard 03:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom nailed the reasons, agree to delete, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Lion (miniseries)

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

HBO decided not go forward with the series. BoogerD (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to confirm this? (you probably should've provided one before tagging the article). - ^theWOLFchild 03:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been a single update on the production in over two years. At this point the page should either be deleted or moved into draft space because it is clear that the secondary sources are outdated. The first ([65]) mentions that the miniseries was "set to start production next year" meaning 2016. The second ([66]) mentions that Phillip Noyce would direct a few episodes and that the series would "air on HBO next year" meaning 2017. We are now in the middle of May in 2018 (over two years after that last article) and there has been exactly 0 updates in the interim. It is very likely the production died during development as is common. This issue is worthy of at least a discussion. Oh and sidenote, Sean Penn was quoted recently two months ago as saying that he was thinking of quitting acting ([67]) for what its worth. – BoogerD (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, no source confirming "decided not go forward with the series.".

Delete per nom. Announced series does not satisfy GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable since it has never officially entered production and any content is based on speculation. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is sourced and there is nothing supporting the nominator's opinion that the HBO cancelled the series. This shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. - ^theWOLFchild 06:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you that there might not be proof that the production is currently dead. I have no article to support that and I shouldn't have sounded so definitive in my nomination. However, there are other issues at play here as well. If the production has not had an update in over two years then Wikipedia:Notability must be taken into consideration. I'm not sure if the article needs to be fully deleted but it, at the very least, should be moved into the draft space until further news arises. – BoogerD (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft: - pretty standard way to handle shows that haven't been picked up/haven't had firm airdates announced. -- Netoholic @ 09:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some recent sources have been added to the article after it was tagged for deletion. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 04:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither cheatsheet.org not harshlight.org are reliable sources. They’re just reiterating information from the initial Deadline announcement. A planned series does not meet notability requirements; an actual series does. —- Wikipedical (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same as above, hasn't started production yet.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with other delete voters, this is a good example of WP:CRYSTAL Amsgearing (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of chess gambits

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Article is almost entirely unsourced, what sources it has are self-published. Article is WP:REDUNDANT as the material is better covered in the articles on the various chess openings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. INDISCRIMINATE does not apply: there are a finite number of gambits, and they are analyzed into the ground. Each linked article appears to be well sourced (from perusing a sampling). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively - Could you explain how it is indiscriminate? Is "gambit" ambiguous in a way I'm unfamiliar with? There are many books specifically about gambits/opening gambits (I had a few when I was a kid, in my desperation to avoid boring openings). That makes me think it's likely this passes WP:NLIST. It being unsourced isn't great, but is it controversial that the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit is a gambit? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources showing WP:NLIST (all books):
Gambit Chess Openings by Eric Schiller
The Complete Book of Gambits by Raymond Keene
Gambit Openings Repertoire for Black by Schiller (there are other books in this series)
Alterman Gambit Guide: Black Gambits 2 by Boris Alterman (there are other books in this series)
Key Concepts of Gambit Play by Yuri Razuvaev
Squeezing the Gambits: the Benko, Budapest, Albin, and Blumfeld by Kiril Georgiev
Gambits and Flank Openings by Sipke Ernst and Geert van der Stricht
Gambit Play: Sacrificing in the Opening by Angus Dunnington
Open Gambits by George Botterill
The Gambit Guide to the Benko Gambit by Steffen Pedersen (there are other books in this series) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess openings or Gambit#Examples. Some of these are openings with possible options that are gambits, that aren't discussed in the target article (the various Tarrasch Defense ones, for instance). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki Would you object if I closed this as withdrawn by nominator? There is obviously a consensus to keep and it will save time. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. I'm baffled how this can be described as "indiscriminate", and it's well verifiable or verified by sources at the articles on the specific gambits. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the greatest article in the world but the list can be defined by the entries in the ECO and sourced accordingly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that it's not the best it can be — barely any information for a non-expert — but this is absolutely notable. I don't play chess but having read a single history book a decade ago, I can recognize a number of these. Clear selection criteria, blue links for all the headers, and the list as a whole is certainly covered beyond just the individual items; that's a clear keep for a list. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doesn't look like I'll get consensus here, but I'll note that the classification of some chess openings as "gambits" is inconsistent. The Queen's Gambit is not a true gambit because there is no good way for black to hold on to the pawn. On the other hand the Two Knights Defence is usually not labelled a "gambit" even though the main line after 4.Ng5 (the Knorre Variation) involves the sacrifice of a pawn by Black; the term "Two Knights Gambit" is not used in any of the books I've seen. The list also includes some very silly openings and names which you won't find in any standard opening reference, e.g. Halibut Gambit, Colorado Gambit, Lobster Gambit. (Eric Schiller's poorly regarded Unorthodox Chess Openings doesn't count). This is why WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Edit: Quoting Hooper and Whyld's Oxford Companion to Chess: "The most general terms are Variation, Gambit, Defence, Opening and Attack; less common are Counter-gambit, Counterattack, Game and System..... these terms are not ... used consistently and they afford no basis for classification". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a content issue, or inclusion criteria perhaps, but not a notability issue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid list subject. Artw (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Kishere-1] Kishere, Jacob (January 18, 2018). "What is driving the rise of the 'Intellectual Dark Web?'". Conatus News.

[Rubin-2] Rubin, Dave. "What is The Intellectual Dark Web?". YouTube. The Rubin Report. Retrieved January 30, 2018.

[Beres2-3] Beres, Derek (March 15, 2018). "10 challenging books from the Intellectual Dark Web". Big Think.

[Daum-4] Daum, Meghan (March 22, 2018). "My Turn: Meghan Daum: Speaking truth to identify politics". Provident Journal.

[Harris-5] Harris, Sam. "The Intellectual Dark Web". Waking Up with Sam Harris. Retrieved April 16, 2018.

[“SmithMag”-6] Abhat, Divya (February 28, 2017). "Baboons Are Ruthless Reproducers". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved May 13, 2018. For decades Cheney has documented infanticide in baboons in Botswana, where the behavior accounts for at least 50 percent of all infant deaths.

[7] ttp://www.esselnewsletter.com/news/facebook-india-partners-with-zee-bangla-for-sonar-sansar.html

[8] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/bengali/Catch-Sonar-Sansar-Awards-this-Sunday/articleshow/46565569.cms

[9] ttp://www.ozee.com/videos/event/sonar-sansar-awards-2017-march-5-2017-full-event.html

[10] ttp://www.anandabazar.com/supplementary/anandaplus/meet-the-new-stars-of-bengali-daily-soaps-1.634215

[11] ttp://www.tellydhamaal.com/neel-bhattacharya-happy-with-his-role-in-zee-bangla-stree/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]