From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 October 14 October >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Predictive Index

AfDs for this article:
Predictive Index (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a promotional article for a company that makes this product. The only sources are promotional pieces. It was previously deleted for basically the same reason. There is no significant independent coverage of this company or their products. Not notable. A lot of the edits appear to be from people who work at the company and end up getting removed or reverted. Pilotbob ( talk) 00:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - The current sources are suboptimal. I don't seem to find enough coverage of either the founder or the company in reliable sources. I have found one mention in a large paper, The Washington Post and it is only a mention, not coverage (which could even refer to something else under that general name). — Paleo Neonate – 06:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - The current sources are not RS. Quick Google search doesn't bring up much, or where it does, its use of the term in unrelated contexts. Seems to be used in science, but for unrelated reasons. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 07:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

}

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Eduardo Escalante

Eduardo Escalante (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack ( talk) 07:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Cowboys (artwork)

Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Cowboys (artwork) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement by the artist or somebody working for her; no credible assertion of notability Orange Mike | Talk 23:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 04:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that the sources provided by LM2000 satisfy GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

AWA Super Sunday

AWA Super Sunday (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am sure this event was reasonably important for wrestling, there are plenty of blogs that have blogged about it. However a google search shows no reliable sources. A Gbooks search shows a fair few mentions, but nothing substantial, mainly books talking about Hulk Hogans career. I daresay this event could be mentioned on his page if it is relevant enough. Dysklyver 22:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Dysklyver has withdrawn the nomination per WP:HEY. reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 22:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep yet another ridiculous nomination by an editor who is rapidly becoming very disruptive. So this is not a substantial mention? "This single match has often been identified as the reason professional wrestling would undergo such an enormous change over the next several years" and "The match that sealed the demise of wrestling in the Twin Cities and the AWA". Enough said. Fram ( talk) 12:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
And a few paragraphs in a book like this enough for an event to be notable? Dysklyver 12:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
When it gets plenty of other mentions for an event that is over 30 years ago? Yes. Note that the match gets written about in many other publications without always using the "Super Sunday" indicator, see e.g. pages 90 to the bottom of 92 for more about this single fight and night in this book. If two books find such an event important enough to spend about a full page of text on it (not just some statistics database), then for me it is clearly a keep. Note that there are plenty of sources which I can't access, like this one which calls it the "climax of a feud" but where the remainder of the text about the event is not visible online. Fram ( talk)
The first book you cite Hollywood Hulk Hogan, is written by Hulk Hogan so obviously he is going to talk about his own fight, a WP:PRIMARY source. The second source you cite is readable for me, it appears to be a single paragraph on page 28 that contains the sentence: The feud climaxed on April 24 1983 in St Paul, dubbed "Super Sunday" by promoter ... . Dysklyver 08:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
A paragraph in a book called "Top 100 pro wrestlers of all time" indicates the importance of this single night, most wrestling matches don't get paragraphs in such books. And I have seen you dismiss sources for being primary before, however this is not relevant for notability in cases like this. If Hulk Hogan (who is undeniably very notable, one of the few wrestlers even non-fans will have heard of) believes this fight was important enough to spend so much time on it (something he doesn't especially benefit from, he could have taken any of his many fights but choose specifically this one), then this is a clear indicator of notability. Now, if all we had was this source, then it would clearly fail the need for independent secondary sources; but since secondary sources exist, then receiving this much attention in a primary source (not profiting from it, e.g. not a press release or announcement) again indicates that this night was an important event in the career of Hogan (and in the existence of the AWA and the other fighters). By the way, it seems to get another paragraph in "The Encyclopedia of Professional Wrestling: 100 Years of History, Headlines & Hitmakers". Fram ( talk) 08:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
A couple of paragraphs does not make "significant coverage." Does it qualify under significant or in-depth coverage of an event? Hogan's book does not count for determining notability. It can be used in the article once the event is deemed notable, but it does not have any role to play in determining notability. I did a ProQuest newspaper search of Nick-Bockwinkel and Hulk-Hogan and didn't turn up any mentions of the Super Sunday match. At best, it could be a redirect and merge to American Wrestling Association. -  Mnnlaxer |  talk |  stalk 21:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, a couple of paragraphs usually is considered significant coverage. Fram ( talk) 04:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The event does not merit an article of its own because of the lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:GNG Super Sunday is not close to having significant coverage in reliable sources. One mention in a couple of books doesn't cut it. As the American Wrestling Association article and this mention make clear, Hogan didn't leave for the WWF until December, 8 months after Super Sunday. And he left because Vince McMahon offered him a WWF championship belt, not because Hogan hadn't won the AWA's yet, and certainly not because of what happened at Super Sunday. The quotes Fram provides are unsupported claims that are the dramatic license of the author, they are not evidence of significant coverage. Hogan leaving the AWA and how that helped the WWF nationalize pro wrestling is the significant event in the history of the sport. Super Sunday has a sufficient mention in AWA and thus it is included in Wikipedia. Just not its own article. -  Mnnlaxer |  talk |  stalk 05:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. Covered by reliable sources per WP:PW/RS: [1] [2] [3], and covered in this book: [4] LM2000 ( talk) 08:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
IMO these are passing mentions. Dysklyver 12:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
In what universe is this one or this one a "passing mention"? They may be reliable or unreliable, but calling them "passing mentions" when the article up for deletion is the sole subject of these two links is laughable. Fram ( talk) 12:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Zakhary Mallett

Zakhary Mallett (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not-notable, only sources show he is a board member for 'BART'. The sources could be used to note this fact on the Bay Area Rapid Transit District page. this article has no other content. Its creator is a now blocked sockpuppet. Dysklyver 22:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 22:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 22:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 22:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Serving on the board of a transit agency is not an automatic notability freebie just because the person exists — to deem him notable for this, there would need to be a lot more substance than just two sentences which only just barely go any further than "Zakhary Mallett is a person who exists". And the referencing here consists of three sources that glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being about a transit extension, and one op-ed that he wrote himself — but to get him over WP:GNG, the sourcing would have to be much more substantively about him than this. Bearcat ( talk) 23:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable. Unlike the references in the article, [5] is somewhat substantial, but the summary of that article is that he's not notable based on his tenure on the BART board. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ok, there's press that includes mention of him [6], but the press that exists is less about him than about the board he sat on. Outside of his work on the board, there's no question he fails our notability standards. I don't think his being on the board, nor his work in being on the board, helps him exceed our WP:GNG or WP:BIO, or more specifically WP:NPOL. Contrast another board member, Joel Keller, who is arguably notable for having been mayor of Antioch, California. Another board member for whom we have an article is Robert Raburn, is not a good example as that is a likely failure of our standards as well. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Alex Wood (journalist)

Alex Wood (journalist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. most the article and its sources are about the news site he founded. I doubt that news site is notable either. The creator of this page is a now blocked sockpuppet. Dysklyver 22:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 22:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 22:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 22:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Grippo's

Grippo's (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. The only independent refs appears to be about a minor food scandal which certainly does not convey notability. Searches only show own web-site, this article and advertisements for products. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   22:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Unclear why Grippo's article is being considered for deletion As a regional U.S. mid-west business, the relevance is legitimate. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia is frustrating. Focus on the FART and QUEEF pages, and maybe Wikipedia will have a little more esteem. Yobbo14 ( talk) 02:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

2019 FIA Formula One World Championship

2019 FIA Formula One World Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Way to soon. I can see no difference with the rationales presented for deleting the 2020 season article. No specific content for 2019 has been published (e.g. new tracks or new driver contracts starting in 2019). This is just as much listing the multiple year contracts signed for an earlier season as the 2020 article is. T v x1 12:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: there is a significant difference between the 2018 and 2019 articles—namely that five of the top six drivers (Ricciardo, Verstappen, Räikkönen, Bottas and Hamilton) are out of contract at the end of 2018 and it has been public knowledge that some of the top teams have been sounding out those drivers. On top of that, Carlos Sainz's one-year deal with Renault will expire, and Red Bull do not have an engine deal in place beyond 2018. The encyclopaedic value of the article is not so much in what is confirmed, but in what is unresolved (as opposed to there being no information available). A lot of the critical analysis I have seen (such as this) supports this. We have a section in the list of races that notes which events are contracted for 2018 but not for 2019, so I think a section on drivers and teams who are free agents in 2019 (for want of a better term) is not only justified, but adds to the article. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 12:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Prisonermonkeys ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AFD. reply
    • Comment: I have updated the article with details of drivers out of contract. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 13:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
      • So you are genuinely suggesting now that we create and keep an article because of an "important" lack of verifiable information?? That's the most ridiculous argument I have ever read. What is so special about this situation? A Mercedes and Ferrari spot being possibly available isn't even unique for 2019. Bottas and Räikkönen had one-year contracts for 2017 as well, so that situation exist for the 2018 season as well. In fact, prior to Vettel extending his contract this summer, no 2018 Ferrari spot was filled. And that article wasn't created until December when some new 2018 information was published (the return of the French GP). We should create this article when new 2019 driver and/or race contracts are being announced. At this moment there is no difference between the 2019 and the 2020 articles. Both exist solely to tabulate the remain years on multiple-year contracts. Information which is easily conveyed in the individual articles. The last time the 2018 article was deleted, you supported the deletion and stated that a season article should only be created up to eighteen months in advance if significant new information about is known. Well, I don't see any significant new information for 2019 yet. So you should practice what you preach. And by the way, Verstappen's contract is NOT running out at the end of 2018. T v x1 16:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
        • Comment: First of all, it is not a lack of verifiable information. We can verify that those drivers' contracts expire at the end of 2018 and thus there is currently a change for 2019. To claim so otherwise is to misrepresent the situation. Furthermore, removing reliable, well-sourced content to strengthen the case for an AfD is pretty under-handed. Secondly, why am I obligated to support this deletion simply because I supported a previous one? Why am I not allowed to change my mind? Why am I not allowed to assess each individual AfD on its merits and make a decision accordingly? Finally, in your AfD for the 2020 article, you said "One article on the upcoming season is already quite a task to manage. Two is already over the limit." which sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 22:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
How quaint. Just as you claim I don't like it, your position can summarized as WP:ILIKEIT. Your just perceiving the number of out of contract drivers as being "sensational" when in fact is just something that happens nearly every year. Prior to this summer Vettel, Räikkönen, Bottas, Pérez, Vandoorne, Alonso, Palmer, Massa, Stroll, Ericsson, Wehrlein and Kvyat were all without contracts. The 2019 situation is hardly unique as you can see. And if that wasn't enough you're requesting to keep this based on your speculation that there will be a "similarly sensational" set of driver changes will take place, while for all I know they (or at least most of them) might just stay put. The 2018 article was deleted in late august 2018 for the exact same reasons as everyone (including you) wants the 2020 article deleted and this one was nominated. There is no significant new 2019 information known yet and therefore I cannot see how the many delete rationales presented in the 2020 AFD'd don't apply here. And just because content is well sourced it isn't automatically relevant to the subject. That's why I removed. I'd say that inventing new, never before used tables in a misguided attempt to keep this article is much more of an underhand tactic. T v x1 09:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as this is exactly the same case as for the 2020 season article. Similarly there is no apparent policy-based reason for not keeping the article, and that is what is required for a deletion request to succeed. WP:TOOSOON has been mentioned, but that is an essay relying on this policy-based statement: "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." As it is clear that this article satisfies the policy on notability, specifically from WP:GNG that it has gained sufficient coverage in reliable sources, then there is no apparent justification for deletion. -- DeFacto ( talk). 17:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Yet there is no evidence of this significant coverage in reliable sources. As of yet, no new driver contract, new race contract or rule change for the 2019 championship had been announced. A passing mention of the year in an article discusding a driver or a team or a different season is not the same as significant coverage. In fact, when you click on the find sources button on top of this AFD. Barely 8 links are produced, none of which contain any meaningful information about the 2019 championship. So if you want your policy or guideline that is failed here, it's WP:Notability. Judging by your ridiculous claim there is significant coverage of this subject, it's safe to say that you did not bother to do even a quick search for sources before leaving your comment here. T v x1 10:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
      • There are currently 25 reliable sources used to support the driver and Grand Prix data in the article. And the search mentioned (even though it only looks for exact matches on on the complete article title, and not for other aspects of the 2019 season) turns up 8 hits. So clearly, the event is already notable per WP:GNG. -- DeFacto ( talk). 11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
        • None of these 25 uses reliable sources contains significant coverage of new information relating to the 2019 season. They just mention multiple-year contracts which are extrapolated to be also valid for this article. As I have explained before, passing mentions do not have any value in determining notability. And as I have also previously explained before, those 8 search hits do NOT contain any meaningful information about the 2019 championship. I'm beginning to think you do not understand our notability guidelines. There is literally no source right now which covers anything significant new thing for the 2019 championship. T v x1 12:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
          • WP:GNG defines significant coverage as coverage that addresses "the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." There is no requirement for the article to cover any "significant new thing". The 25 reliable sources used certainly provide significant coverage addressing the topic directly without needing original research and add up to provide the necessary significant coverage. -- DeFacto ( talk). 16:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: there is an almost identical AfD being discussed here for the 2020 FIA Formula One World Championship. -- DeFacto ( talk). 09:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: the outcome of one AfD should not affect the outcome of another. Reading the comments of both AfDs, it is clear (so far) that the community thinks it is WP:TOOSOON for the 2020 article, but not for 2019. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 11:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • It's a bit early to judge the "community"'s opinion just not even 24 hours after this AFD was launched, don't you think. There is a reason AFD's have a minimum running time of 7 days, you know. T v x1 12:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 21:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - We have had season articles about this event since 1950, and as long as there is some unique content to include, which there is, there seems no reason to delete this specifically because it has been created a bit early. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - In the grand scheme of things the 2019 season is not actually that far away, I personally don't think it can qualify as WP:TOOSOON as contracts and signings will be planned months and years in advance. Deleting the article at this point would be pointless as by the beginning of 2018 there will already be news coming for plans for the 2019 season. Theprussian ( talk) 16:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yet the information doesn't exist now. And the reality is that new 2019 contracts are most likely only to be signed twelve months from now. Right now they are singing up for 2018, not 2019. In fact right now, this article doesn't even pass the WP:GNG. It can always be moved to a draft and be republished as an article when specific information for 2019 becomes available. T v x1 16:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it's the season after next, which is not TOOSOON to have the article. There are drivers that have contracts for 2019 already. Mjroots ( talk) 16:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – I am an editor from huwiki, I only have a few edits here on enwiki but I am one of the main contributors to F1 articles in huwiki. I am also the one who started the brother page of the 2019 season in Hungarian at the end of September. Why do I think it should be kept? The article is already started. It is (or will be in a few months) without doubt notable, I think we can all agree on that. So if it is already started, why bother deleting it, just to create it like 3 months later again? It does not take up space or anything. There are millions of pages on enwiki, it does no harm if this one sole page stays here for 2-3 more months with this "little" content. When 2018 starts, new contracts will be announced for 2019, tracks and race calendar will be confirmed, new regulations will be announced. Also, if you think this article is too soon, what about 2030 FIFA World Cup? This article will slowly get into focus, and already has verifiable information, like 2 contracted top-drivers, or tracks who are already under contract. It just does not make sense to delete it. It is also easier to add pieces of confirmed information one by one to an existing article then to collect all of them like a year later. People might already be interested in 2019, they come here and see the drivers who are already contracted, the tracks, the new rules and so on. If you delete it, it is only a matter of time than you have to make it again. Then why bother? -- XXLVenom999 ( talk) 18:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Sameena Mustafa

Sameena Mustafa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a businessperson and comedian, not properly sourced as passing our notability standards for either endeavour. Her notability in business is limited to working for a local real estate company, and is referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence whatsoever of reliable source coverage, while her notability as a comedian is limited to founding a local comedy night for people of colour, and is referenced mostly to primary sources too but for two glancing namechecks of her existence in newspaper articles that aren't about her. And for added bonus, somebody recently tried to rewrite the whole thing as an advertorialized and completely unsourced campaign brochure for her candidacy in a forthcoming congressional primary -- but that's not a reason why a person gets a Wikipedia article either; she has to win the election, not just run in it, to be considered notable as a politician. But for the reasons I've described above, she doesn't satisfy the notability standards for her current work either. Bearcat ( talk) 21:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arguments against deletion are well taken, but from comments it's not clear if a plain keep or a merger is warranted; perhaps a merger discussion is warranted here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Museum of Particularly Bad Art

Museum of Particularly Bad Art (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A locale event with no obvious notability. Despite the name, not actually a museum. Dysklyver 20:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete with heavy heart, as a lover of high kitch, and a prime member of the target audience of this kind of thing, having a perverse interest in all things fugly. Note that Museum of Bad Art is FA...one of my favs on wiki, but alas this has not gotten sufficient traction and resulting available sources to be kept. Goddamn. Ceoil ( talk) 05:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I agree, it seems a shame to lose the content entirely. Dysklyver 12:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I tacked down several sources. A few are weak, but "the Age", a RS, has written a lot on them. I also found articles from der spiegel and NRK Norwegian radio. There are also many old, likely dead, rescued sources in the EL section which have been hidden, but which do serve to show wide coverage in RS. 96.127.242.251 ( talk) 07:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Well if its been covered by an RS in Norway then its not a local interest only event, which is good. Dysklyver 11:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I am now leaning almost to a weak keep. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Noms reasoning doesn't stand up to what the film actually is, showing a lack of WP:BEFORE. Consensus is that the film is notable internationally and the article should be speedily kept. ( non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 05:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Valley of the Wolves: Homeland

Valley of the Wolves: Homeland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable feature length Turkish TV episode-film. The main series article contains as much information as this stub. It was created by a now blocked user as part of a massive batch of articles. Dysklyver 20:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep and just STOP nominating articles for deletion. This is an internationally released cinema movie, getting attention in many countries. This is not an episode of a TV series but a real full-length film. Fram ( talk) 20:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Ganindu Nanayakkara

Ganindu Nanayakkara (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He doesn't seems to have recieved coverage in WP:RS. He fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 18:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 18:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Redirect, apart from proposing this article to be deleted I suggest to redirect or merge the page to Meanings of minor planet names: 26001–27000 which has a name of a planet called 26441 Nanayakkara. Thank you. Abishe ( talk) 09:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c ) ( m) 20:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Nancy Kimme

Nancy Kimme (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a political staffer, not properly sourced as passing a notability criterion. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for the fact of being chief of staff to an officeholder, unless they can be properly sourced as passing WP:GNG for that -- but of the ten acceptable reliable sources here (the other eight are blogs or primary sources which do not assist notability, and/or unnecessary reduplications of one of the reliable ten), seven of them are covering her in the context of an allegation of criminal impropriety which falls afoul of WP:PERP as she wasn't convicted — while the other three are solely in the context of her being named as a possible candidate for a vacancy but not actually appointed as the successor. But being a candidate for a job she didn't get is not a notability criterion at all, and two of the three sources for that just namecheck her existence while being fundamentally about the person who did get the appointment. All of which means that nothing here constitutes notability: dismissed allegations of impropriety are not in and of themselves a reason why a person would get an article if she didn't already clear any other inclusion criterion independently of that, and there's no evidence that she would pass GNG if that content were stripped. Bearcat ( talk) 19:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I think the article should stay up. The main WP:GNG requirement is "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." By this definition, because she has been well covered in a variety of reliable sources, such as Ballotpedia, NBC Chicago, Crain's Chicago Business, The State Journal and the Chicago Sun-Times, which are independent of her, she meets the Notability criteria in my opinion. -- Michael Powerhouse ( talk) 21:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Ballotpedia is not a reliable or notability-assisting source, but a user-generated source in which every candidate in any election will always get covered because they get to put that coverage there themselves. And we don't just grant an article to every single person who happens to garner three or more source hits: we also pay attention to the context in which that coverage is being given, and discount if it fails certain rules like WP:PERP — a rule under which coverage given in the context of a criminal allegation without conviction does not assist in making a person notable enough for an article if she wasn't already notable enough for an article before the criminal allegation coverage kicked in. So no, to make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article you would have to overpower the criminal-allegation sourcing with a lot more sourcing about her work outside of that allegation than you've shown here. Bearcat ( talk) 23:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 23:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

List of schools in Jamaica

AfDs for this article:
List of schools in Jamaica (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even back when it was not expended with tons of unwikified text it still is a list with unclear inclusion criteria which theoretically lists all the schools of a non-dwarf country which is insane and violated WP:NOTCATALOGUE. ᛒᚨᛊᛖ ( ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 19:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jiten talk contribs 18:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Mohammad Aslam Khan Khalil

Mohammad Aslam Khan Khalil (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not much for him in multiple sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Greenbörg (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep His work and publications appear to have significant impact, especially in climate change science, in line with WP:NPROF. See for example this profile, which states he is "one of the field’s most widely cited experts". I can see several Book and Scholar refs dating back since at least the 1980s, this review from 1990 for example calls him one of the "world's most recognized atmospheric chemists". I also think the name of this page should be Aslam Khalil to reflect WP:COMMONNAME. Mar4d ( talk) 18:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think he is of sufficient prominence in his field to meet WP:NPROF. Looking at Google Scholar, I see that about 40 papers of his are cited over 100 times. His 1984 paper, Atmospheric methane in the recent and ancient atmospheres: concentrations, trends, and interhemispheric gradient, has been cited 566 times, and initiated a new field of atmospheric research by analysing air trapped in bubbles embedded in polar ice cores. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Cwmhiraeth; this is a clear pass of Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes. He is very frequently cited, as noted here. Finding information about him is complicated by use of variants of his name. For example, he is listed as "M. A. K. Khalil" at times. Looking up his contributions with that name, and you see literally thousands of citations to papers for which he is either the prime or secondary author [7]. It is readily apparent that he has had a significant impact on climate change science. A great deal of cleanup work needs to be done on the article, but that of course isn't a reason to delete. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 20:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

M. Shahid Alam

AfDs for this article:
M. Shahid Alam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not much to his credit. No in-depth coverage available. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Not previous discussion ended in no consensus. Greenbörg (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as WP:AUTHOR; author of multiple books with non trivial reviews. Sample reviews:
  • Taylor, Peter J.; Cameron, Angus, Progress in Human Geography, Jun 01, 2002; Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 405-431. Reviews books on human geography. 'Poverty From the Wealth of Nations,' by M.S. Alam, ... more
  • Challenging the New Orientalism: Dissenting Essays on the ‘War Against Islam’– By M. Shahid Alam. By Dallh, Minlib, Reviews in Religion & Theology, Sep 01, 2007; Vol. 14, No. 4, p. 496-499. The article reviews the book "Challenging the New Orientalism: Dissenting Essays on th... more
K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Tom Parker (darts player)

AfDs for this article:
Tom Parker (darts player) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, and no sources found to indicate notability. Of the two footnotes (which were previously bare links in the references section; I examined them, identified them, in the second case via an archived version, and inserted them where they seemed most applicable), the first is of uncertain relevance and the second covers only one of the matches referred to. Both are merely mentions within lists of scores. The External link establishes that he exists and has indeed not won anything of significance. The article was BLP-PRODded and subsequently PRODded; it was de-PRODded with no reason given by TomParker680, who subsequently nominated it for deletion. That was speedy closed as a bad faith nomination. Most recently the same editor moved the article to Ryan Meikle (darts player); Ryan Meikle is a different darts player. I reverted that move and redirected the disambiguated title to our article on Meikle. After searching for more sources and not finding them, PROD having been tried once, and AfD once, AfD number 2. Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-notable. Reaching the last 16 in two major tournaments, for any professional sportsperson, means they're competent at their profession, but doesn't establish notability. The problem with articles like this is that who gets into the top 16 in such events varies wildly each year; we purged a bunch of pool and snooker bios for the same reason. We would eventually end up with hundreds and hundreds of articles on "got into quarter-finals once or twice" people who never rise to that level again.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non notable, as per above user SMcCandlish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete no notability. Has only competed in very minor tournaments according to sources. OZOO (t) (c) 09:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Making it explicit that a ¨keep¨ close in this case is not an endorsement of the current or previous contents of the article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hameed Mohammed Yahya Aklan

Hameed Mohammed Yahya Aklan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Professor notable only as the rector of University of Science and Technology, Sana'a. WP:BLP1E applies, and the existing article is blatantly promotional. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • By definition, events have a duration, in this case 8 years. I take his tenure at Sana'a to be a single event unless he is shown to have done something notable during said time.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 19:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Regardless of your definition, my point still stands. The article subject has done one thing, occupy a post for a period of 8 years, and nothing else of measurable notability has been found in nearly a week (as seen through the comments below).-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 06:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Wrong. clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline ... is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline — Village pump (policy)/Archive 135, June 2017 DrStrauss talk 18:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Because it was about the specific issue of WP:PROF, because it was centrally advertised and because it was reached just 11 days ago. And I would have thought that you would consider the outcome of a discussion that you started yourself important. If not then why start the discussion in the first place? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • But the article doesn't just assert that the subject holds this position: it has a reliable source verifying it. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 12:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, I have said that we can verify that Aklan is rector of the institute. (Although even that fact is sourced to a primary source, the university's own website.) But there is no evidence that Aklan has received any significant coverage elsewhere from which we can verify the rest of the facts of his biography. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • But the quote that you gave from WP:PROF is about verifying that the subject passes the guideline, not about verifying other more trivial details. And what more reliable source than the university itself is there to verify that he is president? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ 86.17.222.157: You're missing my point. Yes, we can 100% verify that he is the president of a university. We can 0% verify anything else about him. So, we are left with an article that says:
Aklan is president of the University of Science and Technology, Sana'a.
When we have so little verifiable information to impart about a subject, the common practice is to simply redirect the subject's page to the page about that thing for which he is notable (in this case, redirect to the page about the university). WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are based on nothing else than asserting that a community consensus exists to keep all secondary schools regardless of what sources are available about them. In fact, the RfC concluded the opposite: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." The "keep" opinions must therefore be discounted because they offer no other argument for keeping the article.  Sandstein  15:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The Sheffield Private School

The Sheffield Private School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an ordinary primary and secondary school, slightly unusual only in that it caters to expats - per [8] "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Sources are entirely self-written or "it exists".

(It's also a mass of promotional junk with a bit of vandalism, but there doesn't seem to be much point in clearing that up unless it passes AFD). Pinkbeast ( talk) 13:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. You are daring and bold to nominate a school for deletion, Pinkbeast. Hold onto your hat. As to the merits of the nomination, I find it completely convincing. There are two unique sources for this article, one of which is the school's own website, which is not a reliable source for anything besides verification of existence, and a school review website. There is no assertion of notability anywhere in the article. The subject unequivocally doesn't meet the bar of the GNG. But it's a school, so... A Train talk 15:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as A Train says, you are being very brave nominating a school for deletion, considering the brigade of users who claim WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES makes all educational institutions inherently notable often shoot down such nominations. However, and many users (including myself until last week), are unaware that an RfC a few months back overturned this consensus ( link). The nomination is convincing in its interpretation of GNG and indeed at flagging up the clear spam. DrStrauss talk 17:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Eh, I don't lose any sleep when an AFD of mine doesn't pass, which they don't always (spammers made me a deletionist, and I don't always get it right). I think it'll help here that the article is such a complete load of junk. Pinkbeast ( talk) 17:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Among other things, the closers of the recent RfC noted that "because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media." I see no reference to any such search having been done here. In fact, there may well be substantial coverage of this school in regional media: a gNews search yields at least 450 potential sources. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 20:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
It is precisely the case that it has been overridden by the RFC. "We should keep this school because we always keep schools" is not a valid argument, and that's all precedent is. Pinkbeast ( talk) 13:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Discussed many times since. Very few secondary school articles have been deleted. So no, it hasn't been overridden. Please see current discussions in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools if you think this issue is now cut and dried. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
That's no more than saying "We should keep this school because we always keep schools", which is still a circular argument (and one which it is of no value to spam on every discussion there). Pinkbeast ( talk) 13:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Pinkbeast: it really is! Why is this school notable? Here's the logic:
P1) Schools are inherently notable.
P2) We often keep school articles.
-----------------------------------------
C) The Sheffield Private School is notable.
Both premises of the argument are flawed: the first, because of the RfC that overturned WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the second, because Wikipedia conventions are less important than Wikipedia guidelines. DrStrauss talk 17:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is a longstanding precedent to keep secondary school articles. Wikipedia should support educational institions because they create the next generation of Wikipedians. desmay ( talk) 00:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Shouldn't the next generation of Wikipedians be encouraged to make good, productive edits or use the sandbox? Adding a list of historic vice-principals to a non-notable high school is not exactly a great contribution. It's also entirely conjecture that making edits to a page about your high school is a "gateway drug" to useful Wikipedia editing. Has anyone ever offered any evidence to support that notion? A Train talk 08:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
By a similar argument we might say that vandalism is a good thing since so many of us started editing Wikipedia when we spotted some and wanted to correct it, so it helps to create editors. I wouldn't regard that as a sensible argument either. Pinkbeast ( talk) 10:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Also, in my experience, school articles are subjected to more vandalism than they are constructive edits. DrStrauss talk 13:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing this out, DrStrauss. I have a set of school articles on my watchlist that survived AfD. They are like flypaper for vandalism, promotionalism and unsourced additions. I would be a bit more sympathetic to "keep" arguments if those making them spent more time trying to ensure that kept school articles are maintained properly, but often they just come up with a source or two in the AfD and never actually edit the article concerned (sorry if this is a mischaracterisation based on an incomplete sample, but it has been my experience). Keeping school articles for which there are very few sources wastes editors' time further down the line, and I feel that this should be taken into account more than it is. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Cordless Larry: co-author an essay with me ;) DrStrauss talk 13:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I could certainly provide some examples, DrStrauss! Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Ha. Not really germane to the AfD discussion (sorry) but if I were King of Wikipedia, I'd delete anything which plainly no-one cares enough about to keep in good order. Spammers made me a deletionist... Pinkbeast ( talk) 23:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The Unilateral Supreme Overlord of Wikipedia... yes, I fancy that. DrStrauss talk 23:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete due to a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. This is a private school catering to expats, described as an "investment" of GFH Capital Ltd. If it was a regular company article, we would hold it to a higher standard, and I don't see why it should get a free pass just because the company is providing education. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence this meets WP:N. I found lots of first-party sources, blogs, social media, forums, directory listings, and the like. Nothing, however, which could be considered a WP:RS. RfC on secondary school notability makes it clear that Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:ORG, WP:NOTPROMO. While there may be a precedent for keeping unsourced school articles, there is no such consensus and it's contrary to policy. Pburka ( talk) 23:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It is a secondary high school. It exists, there is not doubt. The high-school related RFC didn't say what some wish it said. By long-standing practice, we keep these. Certainly debate about this one is longer than its article. Which is one good reason for keeping these automatically, and should be basis for topic banning those who would nominate more of these. what a waste. -- do ncr am 17:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
It says, Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. That seems pretty clear to me, but I do respect your opinion, so I'd be interested in your thoughts as to what you think it says. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Do you? Personally, I find it hard to respect an opinion that I should be topic banned for finding a page full of junk with no apparent sources and AFDing it. Perhaps anyone who disagrees with Doncram about anything should be topic banned from everything to save time. (Ironically, their user page is full of fine sounding words about culture, which apparently doesn't extend to allowing anyone who makes an edit you don't like to continue making edits.) Pinkbeast ( talk) 01:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Pinkbeast: <sarcasm>Yes. Silencing your opposition is the best way of dealing with their legitimate views.</sarcasm> DrStrauss talk 19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The Gospel Center of Norway

The Gospel Center of Norway (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still not convinced of this organization's importance after a Google/Google News search. Seems non-notable. Classicwiki ( talk) (ping me please) 16:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment, only reason I bring up Google News is because it was brought up in SoWhy's CSD decline, "see also Google News/Books hits for this subject." This is to acknowledge that I looked at Google News/Books and the article still seems NN. If it were to merge anywhere, Lunner might be a good location. Classicwiki ( talk) (ping me please) 16:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
You are woefully unknowledgeable about research if Google News is your only source for references. Geschichte ( talk) 21:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • User:Geschichte, please understand how unlikely it is that any editor at Wikipedia in English has ever heard of this Norwegian drug rehabilitation canter. A drug rehabilitation center can be notable according to our standards: WP:GNG. To pass those standards, there would have to be sources such as articles in newspapers, or materail about this center in books or in scholarly articles. I invite you to provide such sources. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Jim Esch

Jim Esch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Lost two congressional elections, but I can find no indications of notability outside of his past candidacy. Marquardtika ( talk) 16:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Laurie McClain

Laurie McClain (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not see anything that meets notability requirements either as songwriter or singer in WP:Band. Rogermx ( talk) 15:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Meeks

AfDs for this article:
Jeremy Meeks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted article that still doesn't rise to the level of notability. There's a lack of significant coverage. Most of the coverage is either run of the mill or narrowly focused on the novelty of a very brief "15 minutes" about his mug shot. In the end, it's just another non-notable model. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Abuse of the process? Are you serious? The first was a delete. The second was a no consensus. There has never actually been a keep result. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the process before you make any more bad faith allegations. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per the fact that a AfD was held in July. It is too soon to initiate another one. This person has recieved media attention beyond a one time event. Both national and international coverage. The sources in the article are good and third party. This makes WP:GNG covered. BabbaQ ( talk) 16:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I have no opinion yet but can editors stop using the legitimacy of this nomination as an excuse to keep? The second AfD closed as "no consensus"; if Niteshift (or anyone else for that matter) felt a definitive outcome could be reached, he could have re-nominated the article sooner. "No consensus" suggests the AfD did not garner enough support to keep, delete, or whatever else necessary but it does not mean the question of notability has been answered. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The man's personal history and the reason he's famous for may cloud the judgement of some editors who are in favor of deletion. I agree, it seems silly to have Wikipedia articles for people who are famous for their mugshots and then tabloid escapades after that fame (so not just one event) over accomplished scientists, but we operate by the standard Wikipedia principles of coverage mattering. In addition to the general tabloids that love him, his more extravagant escapades have netted him a place on the pages of more respectable publications as well. BBC has at least 6 articles about him, with his name in the title five times out of six. Mr. Magoo ( talk) 19:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  Insipid nomination, no research needed, just read the article.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Nope. The edit summarry is automatically generated by Twinkle. I didn't type it and the actual message says "Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you." So try again. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • How does a non-RS confer notability? GNG 's first line says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources..." The mirror source covering his uncovered arse is hardly significant coverage. I really don't call the US coverage of the same thing that significant either. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Not sufficient for notability, but is an indication of notability. But Meeks has in-depth coverage in RS (as might be seen on the bottom of my reply). He passes on British coverage alone. He even passes on Hebrew coverage - [15] (these are mostly in RS). Icewhiz ( talk) 15:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Please quit whining about it Jax. You already littered my talk page with your crying over a MINOR OVERSIGHT. Maybe you can start complaining to people about typo's or adding an extra space in their response. Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Reply - @ Niteshift36:, I asked you once on your talk page to sign your post, and my comment was ignored, so I posted here. I was sincere in my belief that the third nomination was an abuse of process, which was not intended as an attack. Many users are voting keep on this, which constitutes significant discussion. The first and second AFDs had significant input. I find the comment "complaining to people about typo's or adding an extra space in their response" to be inflammatory. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 13:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, you talked about it on my talk page, on your talk page and here. 3 places, hence "multiple times, multiple locations". Many are voting to keep. That's not disputed. The fact is, it is not an abusive nomination by any stretch. The first nom was a delete result. The second had no consensus. There was never a vote to keep this article. If this ends up being a keep, so be it, but thus far, there never was a keep result. If anything, you should be happy that there will finally be an actual keep result instead of complaining about it. BTW, I've asked you in the past to not ping me every time you respond to me. I clearly have the page on my watchlist. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per WP:Kardashian, or whatever you want to call the reality that when they pass WP:GNG - as this subject does, we keep articles on individuals with no personal merit aside from the fact that garner SIG and ONGOING coverage in WP:RS. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

*Weak keep - only because there are many scholarly independent sources that refer to his quick rise to fame in a way that consitutes notability. However, I'm not convinced that this article does no harm, which is a guidepost for biographies of living people. Scholarly sources reference him not because his actions, per say, but because of the media attention he gained as a result of the Stockton Police Department publishing his mug shot on their Facebook page, which in way, is notability for the concept of internet celebrity and attention, and the different sets of meanings that photographic representations of a face have (police archive versus social media). However, while it's a weak link, at this point, I believe the enduring attention over the years that his career has received -- despite being an example of social media fame -- satisfies WP:GN.

References that could be added to improve the article:

Academic / scholarly articles and books


Newspaper articles

  • ABBOTT, M 2014, 'Our Love Affair With the Mug Shot', New York Times, 20 July, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 October 2017.
  • HESS, A 2016, 'Popular Nobodies', New York Times, September, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 October 2017.

Shameran81 ( talk) 19:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 20:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government Institute of Engineering and Technology

Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government Institute of Engineering and Technology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined for no reason. No sourcing found, fails all notability guidelines Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep. Effectively withdrawn by nominator. No arguments for deletion, and no !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Lumus Rock

Lumus Rock (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

delete This article has very little information, and only one reference. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski( talk) 14:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

A lot of the Antarctica stubs could probably be merged but they're not deletable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I know you're a new editor and there are thousands of these short stubs to be working on, expanding and referencing them, maybe an idea to do that instead of nominating them for deletion? Tisquesusa ( talk) 18:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Jack E. Foley

Jack E. Foley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Jack E. Foley was an officer in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II. He was a late arrival to the company, arriving after Operation Market-Garden. Foley served honorably during the European campaign but his highest rank ( captain) and highest award ( Bronze Star) do not make him notable under WP:SOLDIER. After the war, Foley worked in the aluminum industry; his career earned him no significant coverage. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Yumnam

Yumnam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline. Source searches and news searches reveal no independent, reliable coverage of either the group or the term. DrStrauss talk 13:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Those are just passing mentions. Your argument boils down to passing mentions and it exists. That doesn't satisfy GNG. DrStrauss talk 15:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 13:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

List of South Park Elementary staff

List of South Park Elementary staff (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of students at South Park Elementary (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of South Park families (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable - a much more likely to be notable list is available at List of recurring South Park characters. Dysklyver 12:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, at worst merge (which would create a very long list, probably the reason this was split in four lists). The three nominated lists are characters explicitly not included in List of recurring South Park characters. The effect of this ill thought out nomination is that the most notable cast members (the families, Chef, ...) would get deleted, and the more random remaining characters in the one list not nominated would remain. This isn't the first dubious AfD nomination by Dysklyver, please take much more care and time to research what you are nominating instead of randomly selecting pages, adding bogus reasons (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Mountains in Manhattan) and thus wasting the time of a lot of editors (or worse, getting articles deleted under false pretenses). Fram ( talk) 14:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Fram mate, be civil! My nominations are well researched, and if you feel your time is being wasted, that is not my intention, and I apologize. My main thoughts on this subject revolve around the well discussed and settled List of Pokémon, which is a featured list. Currently each of these South Park characters which are not individually notable have extended unsourced 'biographies' as part of a extended list. There is no need for this list to be split into 3 basically unconnected standalone lists, nor IMO is there any need to write quite so much about each character. My AfD is basically a merge proposal to facilitate a better list similar to the one about Pokemon, which could hopefully become a featured list also. For this reason, the three lists I have nominated are not needed - and should be deleted - and the remaining article could be considered for renaming if needed. Dysklyver 15:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Then research first what AfD is for, and how a merge works. If you want a merge, suggest a merge at the talk pages, don't start an AFD. We may not merge and delete articles. And your deletion nomination has nothing to do with what you are saying now either. So yes, your AfDs are wrong and you should stop nominating them. This has nothing to do with being civil or uncivil, civility doesn't mean that we can't point out problems with the editing of others, certainly when they are so frequent. Fram ( talk) 20:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

List of Polish Nobel laureates

List of Polish Nobel laureates (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No need for such. Don't know why it exists? Greenbörg (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep:
– North America 1000 04:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 12:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Quadrafile

Quadrafile (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost certain GNG fail. The article has been unsourced throughout its existence (approx nine years) and has been tagged as a potential GNG fail for over seven of those years. A cursory Google search returned only 600 results, with most of them being duplicates of the Wikipedia article. GR ( Contact me) ( See my edits) 13:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Syrenka V ( talk) 05:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: the only in-depth coverage that imparts useful information is this which isn't sufficient to pass the general notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 14:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: the sources brought up by other users are promising and the depth of the coverage shows historical relevance. DrStrauss talk 22:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Deeply reluctant delete. This sort of thing is exactly the kind of history esoterica I love to discover on Wikipedia. Sadly, it does not seem to meet the bar of the GNG. Google Books suggests that the record gets mentioned with some regularity in Hi-Fi News and Record Review [16] [17] but that appears to be it. I sincerely hope that some hi-fi enthusiast shows up with an armload of good sources from the 1970s that haven't been digitized because I would love to change my position here. A Train talk 15:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ A Train: perhaps it could be mentioned in Quadraphonic sound? At least then it will be a useful redlink. DrStrauss talk 16:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
That's a very good idea! A Train talk 19:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
"Quadrafile: four way split" (PDF). Studio Sound and Broadcast Engineering. 19 (4): 46–50. April 1977.
Although Michael Thorne, creator of Quadrafile, was editor of this magazine at the time Quadrafile was created, he was no longer associated with the magazine at the time this article was written and published.
The Music Educators Journal also thought Quadrafile worthy of a paragraph on page 24 of an article on useful resources for music professionals (not open access, unfortunately, but on JSTOR):
"Professional materials". Music Educators Journal. 63 (3): 21–26. November 1976. JSTOR  3395093.
— Syrenka V ( talk) 04:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 12:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Fitch, Vernon (n.d.). "Quadrafile—four speakers, four systems, four sides". Pink Floyd Archives. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2017-10-14.
When I first saw this, I thought the Pink Floyd Archives couldn't be used because they are self-published, but it turns out that Vernon Fitch is a published expert on Pink Floyd. The Wikipedia article on Pink Floyd cites three books he authored, only one of which is itself self-published—and, no, the publisher of the other two books ( Collector's Guide Publishing) is not a vanity press. So his self-published archive should count as the work of an expert, and thus admissible as a reliable source by the standards of WP:V and WP:RS.
— Syrenka V ( talk) 01:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Kary H Lasch

Kary H Lasch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in the article proves he meets WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST Domdeparis ( talk) 12:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Auto Destruct

Auto Destruct (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of content & References With Thanks - Lee Vilenski( talk) 12:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Album One

Album One (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. The band is barely notable. Domdeparis ( talk) 09:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Oppose: The band's notability is not in question. The article for this album is in need of more citations, but I oppose its outright deletion. – Matthew - ( talk) 22:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
I am afraid the notability of the band is in question. I added a notability tag that you removed but the sources added are not enough to pass WP:GNG they are at best passing mentions. I will be adding it again and if nothing more is added the band's article will also go to AFD. There is nothing to suggest that this album will pass GNG without more sources. It was self released and does not have multiple reviews and did not chart amongst other criteria that it doesn't meet. Domdeparis ( talk) 08:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
I meant the band's notability is irrelevant in this discussion. If the band is notable, it would not impact the notability of the article tagged for deletion. That being said, the band's article is heavily flawed, and I will look towards doing major cleanup on it in the coming days. Most of that article's sources are primary or from things like Blogspot, and that ain't gonna do. Cheers. – Matthew - ( talk) 09:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
One of the criteria for CSD is A9. Had the band and band members pages been deleted beforehand then this page could have been speedy deleted. That was what I meant. In general a recording that is from a non notable artist gets deleted without discussion. Domdeparis ( talk) 10:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 12:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ansh 666 01:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Rainbow Kitten Surprise

AfDs for this article:
Rainbow Kitten Surprise (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG a search threw up nothing of note as per WP:BEFORE. Already soft deleted once as not notable. 1st album self released 2nd album released by a label that is part of a university music industry studies program. Domdeparis ( talk) 08:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Not sure why the article from Paste regarding Shaky Knees is not referenced [1] . Here's another article describing them as the best indie folk rock band ever [2]. More on the performance from Loufest [3],They certainly light up Spotify to the tune of over 800,000 monthly listeners, 67K followers. This lists Spotify chart accomplishments - [4]. They are embarking on a Fall Tour that includes both weekends at Austin City Limits Festival. !0 million listens a year and constantly being on the main stages of important festivals is certainly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc61 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/05/our-favorite-shows-from-shaky-knees-day-one-with-t.html
  2. ^ http://www.studlife.com/cadenza/2017/09/11/loufest-saturday-doesnt-disappoint-if-maybe-lacking-grass/
  3. ^ https://www.bmi.com/photos/entry/577991
  4. ^ http://www.minglewoodhall.com/event/1493956-rainbow-kitten-surprise-memphis/
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 20:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - agree it fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Limited secondary sources (the above persuasive argument on notability draws on Spotify data and appears to constitute original research). “X number of plays on Spotify” does not make one notable, nor does a self-released or minor-label album. Shelbystripes ( talk) 04:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

recent press on ACL fest [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc61 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  1. ^ http://music.blog.austin360.com/2017/10/08/rainbow-kitten-surprise-sweats-it-out-on-the-big-stage-at-acl-fest/
  2. ^ http://music.blog.mystatesman.com/2017/10/08/rainbow-kitten-surprise-sweats-it-out-on-the-big-stage-at-acl-fest/
  3. ^ https://www.redbull.tv/video/AP-1SHAEV1RH2111/rainbow-kitten-surprise-interview
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 12:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Erland Brand

Erland Brand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As is the article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG article created by a probable COI user (same name as subject] and largely edited by a user that has a declared COI for a member of his family Domdeparis ( talk) 11:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

PHPWind

PHPWind (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 21:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Gold Derby Award for Best Supporting Actress

Gold Derby Award for Best Supporting Actress (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Starting small on this one, but it does seem to be part of a fairly sizable collection of associated articles. I'm not at all even able to establish that the parent article about the awards in general is notable. Most or all of the articles on the individuals who were supposed to win these things fail to mention the award entirely.

I found passing mention about how this is a minor award and not very important, and plenty of passing mentions like this because they were talking about something else entirely, but nothing whatsoever to suggest that this is a notable award, and definitely not to suggest that we should have the giant mound of unsourced content about living persons that this sub-article is. GMG talk 17:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Underwater diving#Diving environment. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 20:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Freshwater diving

Freshwater diving (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant, all content already better represented in other underwater diving articles. Fresh water is just one of the many types of diving environment, and is not sufficiently differentiated to be worth more than a few words. Title should be redirected to Underwater diving, though aspects are also covered in Cave diving, Altitude diving, Ice diving and possibly others. There is no content worth merging, otherwise I would have recommended a merge and redirect. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train talk 09:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Merge, in terms of underwater diving practices there are differences between freshwater diving and saltwater/ocean diving. In particular, freshwater diving is generally at a lower depth thus requiring different practices in terms of weights and oxygen. As it sits now the article does not have enough information or references to be notable. I think the topic is notable if it were to be fixed with proper references and information regarding these differences. Randomeditor1000 ( talk) 14:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Nothing there worth merging.
      Buoyancy is different due to slightly different density of water. This is common knowledge and already covered in several diving articles.
      The depth is not relevant, both sea and freshwater diving are done to similar depths.
      There is no reliably sourced information in the article.
    • It is conceivable that a stand-alone article could be written about diving in fresh water, but this is not it. If and when that happens, the title will still be available, and it will be a trivial matter to re-use it. It is not worth doing this until someone has more to say than is already mentioned in existing articles, and assembles that content with sources. I am not proposing the delete and redirect and because it is not possible to create an article on this topic, but because the content here is basically not worth keeping as it is unsourced and already exists elsewhere. I could challenge the unsourced material and then later delete the lot, but that might cause some well-meaning person to waste their time sourcing the existing content, which as I have mentioned, is redundant. I could easily source most of what is already in the article, but it would still not be an article worth having.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge There is simply not enough information to be a good stand alone article. There are other articles in which this would be better suited. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski( talk) 15:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Underwater diving#Diving environment. Not enough for a stand-alone article. The content in this article is entirely unsourced and is best deleted. I added a sentence to Underwater diving#Diving environment but a primary source such as a diving manual will have better information. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as Peter says, there's nothing to salvage and merge. In truth, the only significant difference between freshwater and seawater diving is that freshwater may be found at higher altitudes, so modified decompression schedules are relevant. However, that's already well-covered at Altitude diving. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect nothing really needed, but as a search term I'd say redirect. Govvy ( talk) 19:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Underwater_diving#Diving_environment, where it is mentioned. I added a sentence about freshwater buoyancy to the target article and an RS book ref verifying. This is a plausible search term and the article has gotten 90 hits in the past 30 days, so a redirect is warranted per WP:R#KEEP. -- Mark viking ( talk) 20:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ansh 666 01:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Saif Group

Saif Group (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage. Name-checks only. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Greenbörg (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 08:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 08:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just redid the article with 9 references including many newspapers. Clearly a major conglomerate company of Pakistan with a lot of news coverage. It was just a 'neglected' article. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 21:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I've checked the 9 references added to the article. Normally Forbes is a poor source for references but in this case there at first glance, appears to be a substantial independent article that meets the criteria for establishing notability. The first problem is that the article mostly concerns the activities of Saif Energy and not the holding company, Saif Group (the subject of this topic), although later on in the article the contributor switches to talk about Saif Group. The second problem is that halfway through the article, we start to see quotations from Javed Khan, an officer of the company. That would call into question the intellectual independence of the article and I would say it fails the criteria ( WP:ORGIND) on that basis. The reference from nation.com.pk fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mere mention in passing and has no indepth details. the pakistan-stocks.blogspot.ie reference fails for many reasons - it is a blog and therefore not a reliable source, but it is also a normal business listing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH too. Similarly, the pagespak.com reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mere listing. The brecorder.com reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement and is not intellectually independent. The following three references fail as they are from the saifgroup website and therefore are a PRIMARY source. The dawn.com reference is an obituary for the "patron of Saif Group" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mere mention-in-passing. Finally, the pakistantoday.com reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is also a mention in passing. I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote if two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability can be found. -- HighKing ++ 14:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I see no reason to delete this article. It has references that are secondary, and is written ok. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski( talk) 15:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Nobody has submitted any new references since 30th September and no new arguments (or !votes) based on policy or guidelines have been put forward. I'm happy to wait a little longer to see if any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability turn up but it doesn't look like it is going to happen. -- HighKing ++ 14:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to closing administrator – I would recommend a no consensus closure if no more !votes are added as the arguments seem to be evenly split. J 947( c ) ( m) 20:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Snapped Ankles

Snapped Ankles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A speedy was declined because they are 'associated with a notable label' (hardly blue note or Stiff) & that there are sources. Flavy sources imo. Theis is a bunch of non-notable wannabees. And post-punk?? Punk ceased to be interesting thirty snecking years ago. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 20:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Demographic surveillance system

Demographic surveillance system (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How does this pass GNG? Very few hits across journals et al.A redirect target may be sought after. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 04:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mark the train Discuss 05:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have rewritten and expanded the article to include several paragraphs backed by 10 reliable sources, all secondary for the basic facts they support. DSS are an important part of public health monitoring in developing countries. The multiple RS in the article, including two books, show notability per WP:GNG. -- Mark viking ( talk) 22:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep At presentthe article seems satisfactory; enough references to show notability. I'd be surprised otherwise .as I thought it was a well known concept. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album)#Tour as a compromise between keeping and deleting. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 20:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

LA to the Moon Tour

LA to the Moon Tour (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed without explanation. Not a notable tour (per NTOUR), which is understandable since it hasn't happened yet. The coverage is purely standard, consisting of little more than "She's going on tour" followed by a list of dates. Needless to say, the article doesn't pass the GNG either. Drmies ( talk) 00:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Consensus to delete is not clear, and an apparently reliable source was added after the last delete vote. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Bansuri Utsav

Bansuri Utsav (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG the sources are mostly routine what's on coverage. Domdeparis ( talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am not able to find a lot of coverage beyond the entries in the local entertainment section which usually contains a list of "what's on" in the city. For an event in mylumbai, the coverage is quite weak. Let me look for more.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 14:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  09:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Courier (email client)

Courier (email client) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 ( talk) 19:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • I am no Wikipedia guru and cannot reference specific articles or guidelines, but this topic is encyclopedic in that it documents the brief history of an email client that is still used by a following on a Yahoo group (as mentioned in the article). What is the specific concern? Dskirk ( talk) 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article states Calypso was older name of this E-mail client. There is a review of Calypso in the InfoWorld magazine:
  • Heck, Mike (April 4, 1999). "Calypso provides solid access to many accounts". InfoWorld. Vol. 21, no. 14. IDG. pp. 65, 67. ISSN  0199-6649.
There are also reviews of "Calypso Message Center" from the same company (Micro Computer Systems). Probably related, but not the same product:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Frederick Festival of Film

Frederick Festival of Film (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local short-lived film festival, with virtually no in-depth coverage. In fact, the only hits I'm getting are to this Wikipage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Found 6 additional news articles about the film festival and added as links under Further Reading section. Tjgrable ( talk)Tjgrable
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Enjoy Life Foods

Enjoy Life Foods (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Dysklyver 20:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

It would be useful it you actually said that source you are looking at. Dysklyver 18:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Well that’s not bad - but I still don't think this meets CORPDEPTH. With all due respect, companies like this are normally merged to their parent orginsation articles even with twice the coverage. Dysklyver 08:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
With all due respect, none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. In order to meet the criteria for establishing notability, a reference must be intellectually independent (therefore no based on company announcements or based on interviews with company sources) and must contain in-depth information on the company (more than a passing mention). Your references do none of those things. The progressivegrocer reference is based on a company announcement where they have added three new flavors to its Basked Chewey Bars line. Not intellectually independent, no indepth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The foodengineeringmag reference is a passing mention that Gray Construction rehabilitated a 200,000-sq.-ft. building into a bakery specializing in allergy-safe foods for Enjoy Life Foods, nothing more, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This mediapost reference is based on an article about the company "is a campaign to introduce a brand new positioning...", but contains no indepth information on the company and is not intellectually independent as it relies extensively on the agency charged with creating the new positioning and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The chicagotribune article is not intellectually independent as it relies on an organization that received a food donation from the company and relies on quotations from the company CEO. The article is also not a reliable source since it states that the item "was posted by a community contributer". It fails WP:ORGIND and WP:RS. Finally, [ the fooddive reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a mention-in-passing with no details on the company. -- HighKing ++ 14:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Starting Fires

Starting Fires (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, and no claim that it might be. Singles are rarely notable; B-sides even less so. Emeraude ( talk) 09:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) BangJan1999 21:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Lisa Ellis (executive producer)

Lisa Ellis (executive producer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Edwardx ( talk) 10:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Hello EdwardX, forgive my possible ignorance, but I thought Billboard (magazine) was uber reliable. Maybe it has gone downhill in recent years? FoxxyL ( talk) 00:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you FoxxyL. Billboard is a reliable source. On further reflection, the three online Billboard sources are routine announcements in the nature of press releases. However, the two Billboard sources accessed via Google Books are a bit more substantial, particularly the 2007 one for their "Power Players" list, which amounts to a degree of independent commentary. On balance, there is enough coverage in reliable sources to justify an article, so I would be happy to withdraw this nomination. Edwardx ( talk) 09:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow nominator to answer the question posed by FoxxyL
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hakainde Hichilema -The Economist- His Life Story (Memoir on Hakainde Hichilema)

Hakainde Hichilema -The Economist- His Life Story (Memoir on Hakainde Hichilema) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix ( talk) 04:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, with a brief mention in the article of the subject of the book (which doesn't seem to contain any mention of his memoir unless I missed it). Probably no need for a redirect, either, as this is hardly a likely search term. Notable figure, clearly, but not a notable book. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete any important information on this book can be included in the article on the subject, not indepdently notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't source it; I can't even find it in the library I searched, which does a copy of his 2006 political campaign book, Realise the dream of a better Zambia through real change : vision for Zambia. Book cam be menitoned on his bio page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. GAB gab 15:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Reactionary justice warrior

Reactionary justice warrior (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this is a notable pejorative term. I could find exactly zero reliable sources discussing it when I performed a search. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 03:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Paleo Neonate – 04:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Paleo Neonate – 04:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 04:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

January 2017 Azaz bombing

January 2017 Azaz bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can easily be covered by Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2017), violates WP:NOTNEWS and is quite lackluster in information. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk) 03:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 04:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

January 2017 Baghdad bombings

January 2017 Baghdad bombings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS, can be covered in Timeline of the Iraq War (2017) and is quite lackluster in information. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk) 03:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 04:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

2017 Sukma attack

2017 Sukma attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lackluster information, can easily be mentioned in Timeline of the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency and goes against WP:NOTNEWS. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk) 03:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment 26 jawans dead, worst attack in seven years in a major insurgency and not notable? Sounds like a joke to me. Just compare with, say, Harrods bombings or Deal barracks bombing. 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 07:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete If this is highly relevant to the insurgency then it can be merged with the insurgency's article. Dysklyver 08:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The issue here is whether this event is notable or not. If something comparable had happened in the U.S. or in the UK, it would certainly be regarded as notable (it's certainly far more notable than the events I provided above as examples). The fact that we are having this discussion is a symptom of pervasive WP double standards. 84.73.134.206 ( talk) 11:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
international coverage

*Delete - Body count has never been a very effective means to measure anything. Why are 26 Jawans -- with absolutely zero mention of the other side -- considered to meet the notability threshold? Would 25 just not cut it or is there something special about 26 that I am not aware of? Wikipedia is not news; if anything other than an editor's threshold for body count is notable, it can be merged elsewhere. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

No comment anymore. Nothing particularly unique about the coverage but I don't appreciate being associated with bias or disregard hence my strike out. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 04:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

April 2017 Lahore suicide bombing

April 2017 Lahore suicide bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small information. Can easily be covered by Timeline of the war in North-West Pakistan, which itself needs work done. It is also a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk) 03:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  09:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

2014 Dijon attack

2014 Dijon attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not news. I have to hand it to whoever wrote this article: they do a terrific job at making the reader infer something that isn't there. This was confirmed not to be a terrorist attack yet a single quote by BBC is used to uproot the "official line"; the deployment of troops was the result of a series of unrelated attacks, not this one individually; and only two people were dealt serious injuries, although 11 "looks better" for notability. Not so cleverly, the article bombards us with sources stacked together about other, actually notable, attacks to create the illusion of continued coverage. When we remove the synth and original research, we have no lasting impact. As usual, the media covered the same story but no further analysis was offered. Certainly, the brief, local impact fails WP:GEOSCOPE. Bear in mind, passing mentions don't count toward significant or sustained coverage. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
What's this actually? We all know how much research you do while involving yourself in any AfD. Your mass nominations to delete terrorism related information are likely to be ended as keep. Greenbörg (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Nom was wrong in assertion about the troops, as article now shows, impact was immediate changes in security protocols & more troops on the streets. Wrong in asserting that absence of terrorism was "confirmed - local prosecutor chose not to investigate for terrorism, but major media and terrorism experts see terrorism as causative, with ideological influences perhaps preying on a weak mind. Nom's asessment of ongoing coverage was a personal interpretation of policy. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Why was my opinion removed?

Not to mention the rationale for removing the PROD tag was ludicrous. AusLondonder ( talk) 14:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Contrary to nominating statement, WP:BEFORE shows two university press books (including a 2017 book by Philippe-Joseph Salazar) discussing this attack as an instance in which an individual is categorized by French authorities as acting out of mental illness, but by terrorism experts an a terrorist attack. These two assertions are, of course, not mutually exclusively; convicted criminals motivated by personal and political factors can also have histories of mental illness. My point, however, is that despite Nom's assertion, there has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
This is the sum total of coverage in one of these two sources " on December 21, 2015, an unnamed 40-year-old ran over 11 pedestrians across the city of Dijon, France, while shouting “Allahu akbar,” claiming he was “acting on behalf of the children of Palestine,” and brandishing a knife. Police knew the assailant for previous minor offenses, and he had spent time in psychiatric services. Due to the psychiatric history of the assailant, authorities deemed the attack not to be an act of terrorism." It does not say that 'experts' characterised the attack in any way at all, either agreeing with or disagreeing with Fr authorities. Even if it did, it would not justify the article since the content would be more useful elsewhere. Pincrete ( talk) 18:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep due to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and high quality at that, sourced by E.M.Gregory. Note that that whether the attack itself was terror or not is irrelevant for the notability - what matters is coverage, which in this case exists. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Passing mentions in other sources don't rise to the level of making this encyclopedic; the conclusion that it wasn't a terrorist attack seems well-founded. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 15:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note - Even now, with the recent "expansion" (as it will soon be claimed) by Gregory, the article has been bombarded by fragmented quotes and half-truths to create the illusion of ongoing coverage. Gregory has even attempted to frame this as a terror attack despite no evidence in reliable sources. Shameful and shady: the subject is not not notable, before or after the "expansion", but at least it was much more accurate than it is now. I am also citing WP:BLP concerns as a consequence of these gross inaccuracies. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note also that there was immediate impact, in the form of new orders to the French police to carry weapons and wear their protective vests, and the addition of 300 soldiers to security patrolling the streets of French towns. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note - More inaccuracies. The incident is "regularly discussed" as a case of mental illness; passing mentions do not change that and the official ruling suddenly. The impact Gregory claims was the result of a culmination of several (unrelated) incidents, not this one in particular. I'm very disappointed Gregory that you are manipulating the sources in such a way. I know you can do better and more honest work. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 20:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • According to reported articles in Le Monde, the BBC, the Times of London, the Times of New York and other media I did not add, as a direct response to the 20 December 2014 Tours police station stabbing, this attack on 21 December, and the 22 December 2014 Nantes attack on the city's Christmas market, those new security orders and measures were enacted. Also Note that it is the fact that French authorities ruled this non terrorism related, describing it as mental illness related, has in itself produced substantive, ongoing coverage of this attack as journalists and academics consider the idiocy of regarding motivation as an either/or quesiton (either he was motivated by ideology, or he was just mentally ill) when it can obviously be both. And, of occurs, incident is also regularly discussed and/or mentions as an ISIS-inspired attack, as an example of vehicle ramming as a terrorism tactic, and among recent terrorist attacks in France. Do note that these articles in mainstream media now seem to uniformly frame this as a terrorist attack, at least, every one of the dozens of articles form 2015, '16 and '17 that I scanned did so. there were many more that I did not read. Lots more info can be added to the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Mental illness, terror, or any other motive - is not relevamt assessing notability. In fact even if this were a non-crime (but origianlly though to be likely a crime) the actual turn of events would be irrelevant per wp:ncrime. What is relevant here is SIGCOV and NOT. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The sources do NOT say that there was any direct response by Fr authorities to these events. The BBC in particular simply says that changes were made "following" these events. Nothing in those sources implies causation, simply sequence. We have no idea whether there was any connection at all. Pincrete ( talk) 12:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • WP:HEYMANN Article has been expanded substantively, and note that except for the "impact" section sourced with 2014 sources, the expansion has been done with coverage in major media form 2015, 2016, and 2017. Nothing fancy, just some simple searches using keywords like Dijon + 2014 + attack turn up an enormous amount of coverage that editors who weighed in above will not have seen on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note - Editors do not be fooled by the inaccuries and passing mentions Gregory added to the article. If anything, all he did was create major BLP issues, framing the accused as a terrorist despite RS stating otherwise. "Nothing fancy" indeed, everything came from passing mentions, sometimes less than a sentence. It creates an illusionary presence of continued coverage but I hope any additional voters see through this. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
In what sense does the FT say this was "Isis-linked"? In that an actual link to Isis was discovered or merely that 'press' linked the event to Isis? or Isis claimed the event? The statement on its own is fairly meaningless. (££) I am unable to access the source. Pincrete ( talk) 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
here is part of the FT text: " One reason is what Francois Hollande, president, describes as the state of war between his country and Isis. France is the European nation that has most vigorously supported military action against the Islamist militant group. Also, as Isis's self-proclaimed caliphate is pushed back in Syria and Iraq, striking back against such "far enemies" has become central to its strategy. French bombs began falling on Isis on September 19 2014. Four days later Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, the group's chief propagandist, put France centre stage as he called for reprisals. "If you can kill a disbelieving American or European - especially the spiteful and filthy French - then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way, however it may be," he said. Three months later, as many French citizens began their Christmas holidays, the first Isis-linked attacks began: three policemen were stabbed in Tours, and two vehicles rammed into crowds of pedestrians in Dijon and Nantes." This is a reported article, not an opinion piece. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes thanks for the text, I note that the first (as claimed above and previously in the article) has miraculously now become among the first. I didn't say it was an opinion piece, I said it was vague as to what is meant by "Isis-linked". Linked in what way to Isis and by whom? The sentence implies much but conveys nothing in the way of substantial info. Pincrete ( talk) 20:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep This is part of a continuing pattern to delete information on terrorist style attacks. Such attacks are often planned and engineered to hide any obvious political motive to cause authorities to blame the attack on a personal issue or mental illness. The severity of the attack and significant coverage is what makes this attack notable. Such attacks should be just as notable regardless of whether a terrorist motive has been established. Under such strict rules, even the Las Vegas Attack cannot be classified as terrorist until a motive is established even though it's quite obvious creating terror, probably for some hidden political agenda we don't know about, was the motive. The point of a clandestine attack is to hide any connection to an identifiable political entity or movement and make it look like an accident or a lone crazy person so that there will be no target to retaliate against Bachcell ( talk)
Bachcell, the usual/legal definition of 'terrorist' is not simply that it 'causes terror', otherwise any school shooting or frightening crime or serial killing would be included. The usual definition is that the act had a conscious political intent. There would be no point in 'hiding' motives in such a case, since the whole intent is to 'send a political message'. Pincrete ( talk) 12:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Authorities of a locale facing terror attacks, may have an interest in suppressing that the cause is terror, as if the motivation is suppressed than the terrorist's message and intent to cause terror induced behavioral changes may be averted. So yes - there is a point (from a counter-terror viewpoint) to hide or obscure an alleged terrorist intent. That said - in terms of Wikipedia notability - it is completely irrelevant whether it is or is not terror - what really matters (if it is not NOT) for criminal or war acts - is SIGCOV. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Closing admin please ignore Bachcell's highly POV and inaccurate !vote. I recommend closing this within the usual seven days as I see no progress made from such inappropriate comments. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • E.M.Gregory, please pardon my French, but are you fucking kidding us? First of all, you're citing a publication that comes out of West Point, and if it's "academic" it's not academic in the sense that academic journals are academic. Second, and this really gets my goat since misquoting or partial quoting is one of the first things we discuss in Freshman Comp, you forgot to finish the sentence, like the part (also on p. 5, in the same column) where it says, Due to the psychiatric history of the assailant, authorities deemed the attack not to be an act of terrorism. Your authors, and you, are suggesting that "the authorities" (oh dear--THE DEEP STATE???) are somehow part of a conspiracy to re-categorize "real" terrorist attacks as mere psychiatric incidents? Oh, sorry, "the tendency to overuse mental health problems as a ‘silver-bullet’ explanation for terrorist involvement"--that sounds better of course. Sorry, but no--not until you find a much, much better publication than this. Until then, "the authorities" win. Drmies ( talk) 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is a respected publication with an independent editorial board, involving the academic social science department at United States Military Academy. Authorities downplaying terror event, wt least in real time, is actually an effective anti terror strategy (if no one knows it was a terror attack... no real impact if physical damage is small). Regarding mentally unstable, retarded, or children perps - there are legal issues with charging the perps (as opposed to whomever inspired them) with terror charges as they often do not understand their own actions. There have been several child (as young as 8 I believe) Boko Harem suicide bombers. In the Palestinian suicide bomber wave (1-2 decades ago) there were several retarded and mental perps (and some survived... low skill perps are unpredictable. Many of them were not trusted by their operators to pull the trigger, so they were remote\time detonated. Some were caught before. Some had botched bombs...)... When these perps are captured, charging them is complex - some really have no real understanding of their action. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    Icewhiz, that analysis is really exciting, but we're not in a seminar here. BTW "retarded" is a word used only by the insensitive. Drmies ( talk) 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
If this is the source being discussed here: Is there a Nexus Between Terrorist Involvement and Mental Health in the Age of the Islamic State?. The total content is 4 short lines long and is wholly sourced within that 'research' to a standard BBC news item describing the event, there is no original 'academic' content at all. Discussion about the use/misuse of this source is here. Pincrete ( talk) 19:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The authors of this article state plainly that this attack in Dijon is an example of the tendency to try to dismiss the possibility of terrorism altogether in cases where a confirmed diagnosis exists. That is the analysis of these two academics in a WP:RS. Please do not willfully misunderstand the fact that an individual can simultaneously be mentally ill and be inspired to commit a crime by an ideology. But the point is that this a WP:RS discussion of an aspect of this vehicle ramming attack by two academics in an academic policy journal. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • TheGracefulSlick, E.M.Gregory is a big boy/girl, just like me; that edit summary isn't very bothersome; by "attack" I am sure they meant "attack on statement about academic source supporting argument that this was a terrorist attack and thus should be kept". (I'm not sure why an event should be kept if it's a terrorist attack but not if it's by a mentally ill person, but I'm sure that's somewhere in our POV policy.) E.M.Gregory, I don't think you understand, really, what an "academic journal" is--this Sentinel isn't one, until proven otherwise. And Icewhiz, this goes out to you too. Have you seen the editorial board? Are you going to argue, somehow, that that editorial board is not tied to the militariness of one of the most well-known and oldest military institutions in the country? Who painted the lion? Take it to RSN; I have no doubt we can envisage the conclusion: it may well present reliable facts, but it is not going to be accepted as an unbiased publication. In no way. Drmies ( talk) 21:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)

E.M.Gregory, of course it is possible for someone to be both mentally ill and a terrorist, however the source says nothing at all about whether that general proposition applies HERE. They could hardly do so since they aren't psychologists and have had no contact with the accused nor his medical records. You, are the only one WP:SYNTHing that the general proposition applies to the Dijon case. The source makes no such claim, it says nothing about his mental health beyond the fact that he had previously repeatedly been hospitalised. My previous post was trying to move detailed discussion about this source to talk, where it belongs, but you keep repeating the same quote in bold, as though no one had read it the first time. Do these authors not know that when a person has a certain degree of mental ill-health, no criminal investigations CAN proceed? Pincrete ( talk) 21:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Drmies, I think a bigger issue than the independence of this source is that it says nothing about THIS event. It is a general article about mental health/terrorism by two people with no medical training and no knowledge of this event or the accused's medical records. Pincrete ( talk) 21:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Pincrete, I saw your note above on the few sentences sourced to the BBC--yeah, that doesn't cut it. That's how you write an opinion blog piece, not an academic article. Drmies ( talk) 21:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
This discussion misses the point, which, as Drmies states, is that in re:notability, it is not relevant whether this was a crime committed because the perp was utterly deranged, or a crime committed by an individual with a history of mental illness who was not so ill that he was lost to reason and was inspired by propaganda. All that matters to this discussion is that sourcing exists to pass WP:NCRIME. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually the 'propaganda' to which he was 'lost', was apparently a news item about Chechneya. The content discussion is a direct result of attempts to attribute significance to this event which sources simply do not support. Pincrete ( talk) 08:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Responding to Grecefulslick's assertion by listing a few of the WP:INDEPTH source articles about this attack:
  • You give wall of text a new meaning E.M.Gregory. Can others be allowed to comment here without you trying to mislead them? You have already inserted your inaccuracies into the "article" (a fringe piece at this point) and I think the AFD should be spared these long lists and replies. How about we mutually agree to stop commenting unless we are pinged? TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 23:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is defined as coverage that consists of "further analysis or discussion" and of the use of an attack as a case study: "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." which, as you read here, is also a type of WP:LASTING impact. This attack has been cited as a case study in several academic sources, and in multiple pieces of serious journalism; some of the journalism is listed just above this comment. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No valid reason to delete. Though the attacker's motivation is suspect, the impression I get is that attackers are rarely the most stable individuals in most circumstances, and we can't just knock out articles on notable current events on that basis. Certainly the repercussions were significant enough regardless of motivation. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The contents of 2014_Dijon_attack#Impact are sufficient, methinks, to rise above being a routine auto accident in which the driver had too much on his mind. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
If anything, the contents of that section illustrate that the incident is not independently notable, only being mentioned because it was an incident involving a vehicle at a time when there were notable terrorist attacks involving vehicles. Cjhard ( talk) 22:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
(edit conflict) Coretheapple I appreciate the response even though I happen to disagree. Those immediate "impacts" (routine security measures) had no long-term significance to a wide region; none of the precautions were a direct response to this incident but rather a series of unrelated attacks. I understand it is somewhat deceptive and hope you will reconsider your assessment. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Exactly. A series of unrelated attacks, as I said. Thank you for remphasizing that. It's still an immediate impact as I stated with no long-term significance so thank you for not even notices that in your "fact check". TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • On the one hand, I understand your point. On the other hand, those aren't exactly parallel examples. The first two murdered a bunch of people, and the third guy conducted an intermittent terror campaign for many years. This article is about a much smaller-scale situation. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • User:Huldra's argument for deleting this crime is that perp has “serious and long-established psychiatric issues”. I was simply pointing out that this is not a valid argument. We have scores, possibly hundreds of such articles, but most are people you and I have never heard of - Garry David, Carroll Cole - so I chose to make the point by citing familiar names. Now can we return to discussion notability? Because User:Lepricavark's argument that the 3 I listed "aren't exactly parallel examples. The first two murdered a bunch of people, and the third guy conducted an intermittent terror campaign for many years.\" is irrelevant to the point of this discussion, which is to assess not the mental status of the individual who committed the 2014 Dijon attack, but whether the ensuing discussions of it by journalists and scholars meet WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Your representation of Huldra's rationale is a strawman. If you're going to make a point using examples that don't really match what is being discussed here, you should expect that someone will point it out. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • My citing “serious and long-established psychiatric issues”, was because that is was in the article. As for the examples Icewhiz mention above, as already noted, they resulted in several killings. Also, Anders Behring Breivik did not have any previous psychiatric history, and was found not insane by the court. However, my strongest argument against this article comes actually from the French authorities: They have never named the culprit. And they are usually not shy of naming terror suspects. That in itself should tell us that they think they are dealing with a mental patient, rather than a terrorist. There is no way this meets WP:GNG. Huldra ( talk) 20:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Moves can be discussed via WP:RM. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 04:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Gadk

Gadk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Source search suggests that the club fails club notability standards. Ineligible for speedy as it makes a credible claim of significance. DrStrauss talk 18:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep (probably) The search reported above was run on the abbreviated name only: a search on the full name of the club (Göteborgs amatördykarklubb) shows quite a nnumber of newspaper articles in Swedish--I have not yet tried to read them, but there is a sufficient number to make it likely that the club is notable . DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
@ DGG: the newspaper articles I've encountered doing a similar search, when translated, do not give significant coverage and are passing mentions only. DrStrauss talk 10:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: still very little discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 02:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Timeline of the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 20:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

2013 Bihar Maoist attack

2013 Bihar Maoist attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is very short and can easily be put into in the Timeline of the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency page. Sources are good but the page is extremely lackluster and small and only says an attack happened, when it happened, who died, where it took place and who did it. There is nothing else said about it. It also fails to specify exactly how it happened and the reaction, etc. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk) 02:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. No prospect of any other result per precedent and practice, plus total lack of support for deletion. Merging would unbalance main Harvey Weinstein article. Metamagician3000 ( talk) 13:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations

Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was discussion at the Harvey Weinstein article talk page ( here), and it seemed there consensus building was taking place, but an editor who hadn't commented at the discussion started the article. There was not unanimous support, in fact, four experienced editors (including myself) voiced that it was premature to create the article.

Like everything else controversial in the news, this incident blew up overnight and will likely die down soon. If it continues garnering significant and important coverage beyond the original story, like California's or New York's statute of limitations for rape allows for charges against Weinstein, if there's a trial, an uncovered sex ring, crimes were committed, and so on, then I would say this article is appropriate. This story really has no impact right now other than Hollywood and politicians covering their behinds. These people issuing statements in the days following the breaking of the story doesn't make for an encyclopedia article, the list of names of alleged victims seems to violate WP:LIST. I think WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS also apply. -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep or Merge with Harvey Weinstein - There is plenty of information there and it probably does warrant its own article. However, I also suggest merging it because I do agree with what you said about WP:LIST and WP:TOOSOON. The Ninja5 Empire ( Talk) 02:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - for now, at least. This is a notable scandal which has elicited responses from many high-profile celebrities and politicians (including former President Obama and Hillary Clinton) and has received extensive coverage from RS since the past few days which is unlikely to go away soon. For now I'd say it is independently notable, but I guess it would be a good idea to renominate this in some months to see how well it stood the test of time. NoMoreHeroes ( talk) 03:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - while there are certainly BLP issues with the article, Weinstein's statements are effectively conceding that at least some of the accusations are true. Given the number of topics that seem to be raised (accusers, his political and business connections, claims that he used his businesses to pay off accusers, responses/complicity accusations involving other people), I think that merging this into his main article would unbalance it massively. Blythwood ( talk) 05:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-relevant and sourced. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
I agree for the exact same reasons. Keep or merge. Merging makes more sense to me, and other articles should follow, IMO. -- Pinnecco ( talk) 10:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Owlsmcgee, the Cosby allegations article was created, I believe, after he had been charged, not before. The same should apply here. If there are charges, then it's an actual "incident". If not, then it's worthy of an article section in the existing bio. -- ψλ ● ✉ 14:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a decoy page. When I posted about Weinstein's harrassment on his page I was told by an editor to move to this page, but this page is slated for deletion so all the work to document the decades of harrassment will not be saved. This is a women's issue which the mostly male editors of Wikipedia may not have as a concern, but there is no reason to move the harassment information away from his main page unless a desire to draw posts here and then delete this page. Kmccook ( talk) 13:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Harvey Weinstein in order to keep it proportionate, reduce unnecessary duplication, and to keep the information in context with the rest of his life and career (this is now an essential part of that article, and it's not that helpful to have to leave the article to read about it on a different page). If the story develops such that the information becomes too large for the main article, that is the time to split it out per WP:SPLITOUT. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
One example of why it is helpful to read the current sexual allegations in conjunction with the whole article is this section in the full article: Harvey_Weinstein#Managerial_style_and_controversies. This gives a fuller picture of his aggressive manner. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Alec Wallis

Alec Wallis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor. Quis separabit? 01:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 05:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete No evidence for notability. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947( c ) ( m) 04:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Walter Maestri

Walter Maestri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible WP:N Bobherry Talk Edits 01:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Madeleina Kay

Madeleina Kay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Celerians ( talk) 17:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Clearly, doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines on notable people.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

She's an author and musician, published, and has had a fair amount of press coverage. Considering she has popped up in the news again recently for political activism I can't help but wonder if there is another motivation at play. 95.144.85.201 ( talk) 08:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

You can be an author and musician and not be notable enough for a wiki page. Can you show me where she meets the requirements for being an author WP:AUTHOR or a musician WP:BAND because the guidelines for both these areas clearly state that you require two works that have not been self-published? I voted to remain so please don't make bias accusations. Celerians ( talk) 19:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) reply

She's a nobody, one countless people who think they're more important than they are. She recorded two songs and listed them on iTunes, which doesn't make her a singer and printed two books, as can anyone who wants to spend their or in her case, crowd funders' money). This doesn't make her worthy of a wikipedia page, otherwise everyone who turns up to a protest will start wanting one! Once she's done something worthwhile she can have a page. I also voted remain, to avoid any accusation of bias. Cottrill93 ( talk) 15:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Has managed to gain some press for protesting Brexit, but it's WP:SINGLEEVENT (even though it's multiple protest events, it's still basically just for one thing.) The coverages lacks scope and broadness to merit encyclopedic notability; they essentially focuses on the gimmick of a protester in a super girl costume. Also Fails notability standards for WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICIAN, as all coverage is run-of-the-mill and trivial in solid sources, and/or insignificant blogs, promotional, self-download, etc. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 02:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Agree, pure self-promotion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_October_13&oldid=1142617628"