Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Many sources were presented, and shot down as not meeting our notability requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Fournier

Connie Fournier (edit | 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. Article is a content fork of Free Dominion. Other than that she is the author of a self-published book which has not been reviewed by any reliable sources. Selwyn Floyd (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this deletion discussion not a multiple-forum abuse? There is an extensive unresolved merge discussion for this article: HERE. The latter discussion also addresses independent notability of the BLP article. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• The problem here is that the sourcing is not adequate to meet
  primary source that cannot support notability. Another two just namecheck her existence while not being about her in any substantive and non-trivial way, so yet again they cannot aid notability. And of the four remaining sources which are substantively about her in the manner necessary to count as supporting notability, all of them are covering her specifically in the context of the website. None of this suggests the need for a BLP of Fournier as an individual alongside a separate article about her website — it suggests adding content about Fournier to the website's article. Redirect to Free Dominion. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Maybe we are not reading the same sources? I see reliable independent sources about Fournier's contributions in matters distinct from Free Dominion: (1) on-going battle against Bill C-51, (2) opposition to Prime Minister Harper during a federal election using her book and despite being a known Conservative activist, and (3) successful campaign against the hate-speech provisions of the federal human rights code. In addition, she was the main self-represented defendant in major lawsuits tied to Free Dominion. The article's category is "Canadian activist" and few if any in this category have won three awards given for activism, including a national medal and a provincial civil liberties association award. I wonder if the WP notability test is not being taken too far here, especially in light of:

(A) the WP policy for proposed deletion of biographies of living people: "All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. The tag may not be removed until a reliable source is provided, and if none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after seven days. This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere."

(B) The WP practice for the "Canadian activist" category has not been to negate BLP pages in such cases as this one. In fact, as I examine the articles in the "Canadian activist" category, I find that approximately 30-50% of the articles are much less supported by sources and outward signs of notability than the Fournier article. For example: Mark Freiman, Sylvain Abitbol, Herbert Brownstein, Hershell Ezrin, Moshe Ronen, and many many others.

Keep Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal is not an award that can make every recipient notable enough for an encyclopedia article just for receiving it — as noted, it was presented to 71,000 Canadians nationwide, and was essentially presented to every single person who was nominated for it for any reason whatsoever by any nominator whatsoever. So it doesn't aid notability at all, because it doesn't inherently constitute a noteworthy distinction.

And as already noted in the talk page discussion, you're personally involved in the organization and administration of the civil liberties association award that she was given — which means you are

Academy Award, when an activist gets named to the Order of Canada

, and on and so forth — but if I can't find any article in any major media outlet in which "Connie Fournier named winner of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association award" is being reported as news in and of itself, then the award is not one that can get its winners over the notability bar in and of itself. The award's ability to get its winners over the Wikipedia notability hump is not something that the award's own organizers get to decide for themselves — the presence or absence of media coverage of that award, in sources independent of the award's own organizing committee, makes that decision for us.

(A) That criterion only makes an article ineligible for the {{

blp prod

}} process in particular. It does not preclude the possibility of an article being taken to AFD for a deletion discussion if there are valid reasons to reconsider its includability — it only makes it ineligible for one particular specialized deletion process, while not making it ineligible for our general deletion process. Did you miss, or misunderstand, the part of the quote you pasted where it says "This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere"?

(B) Read

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, nothing is stopping anybody from trying to create any article about any topic. I could try to create an article about myself, my best friend, my spouse or my cat if I wanted to — it wouldn't be a keepable article by any stretch of the imagination, but no process exists to stop me from trying, and even as a deletable article it could linger around here for weeks or months or even years until somebody noticed, and took action on, its deletability. The existence of a problematic article about one topic, thus, does not mean that another problematic article has to be kept just because it's not any worse than the other one — it means that the other one may need to be deleted too, and just hasn't been noticed yet. So that's an argument that just backfired on you, because all of the five articles you singled out just there are now going to get reviewed, and also nominated for deletion if they're really as bad as you claim they are and can't be salvaged with better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Update: I've now run sourcing checks on all five of the "comparable" activists. Four of the five each garner hundreds of coverage hits in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database, and thus are salvageable and have been flagged for referencing improvement. Only Herbert Brownstein was unsalvageable, as he garnered just 15 hits of which 14 were mere namechecks of his existence — so he's been listed for deletion. Connie Fournier, by comparison, garners just 16 hits, of which most are just glancing namechecks — and all of the ones that are more substantive are already in this article as written, so there's nothing that can be added that would change my original comment. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have both presented our arguments. Your arguments are informed and strong. There is no need to talk about "backfiring" because I am acting in good faith here. I continue to hold, as I would with any comparable article, that you are applying an overly high threshold, in light of all the BLP items taken together, and not leaving out this one, published in The Tyee, as you have done since it is presently not in the article, which is substantively about several aspects of Fournier's long-term activism. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider -- @Bearcat: Please reconsider your position in light of the following. I was prompted by your assertion "all of the ones that are more substantive are already in this article as written, so there's nothing that can be added that would change my original comment" to do more research. In addition to the eleven (11) sources presently in the article, which you have reviewed and interpreted, I have found the following:

• Harper Races Against Cracks Eroding His Base, The Tyee, 22 September 2015. - Substantively about several aspects of Fournier's long-term activism (as I mentioned above).
• Disgruntled Tories consider rebuilding Reform Party, The Globe & Mail, 12 may 2007 and updated 13 March 2009. - Connie Fournier interviewed and cited about reforming the Conservative Party of Canada.
• Maclean’s Live: The public safety committee scrutinizes Bill C-51, 23 march 2015. - Article and video that includes Connie Fournier's intervention in the House of Commons committee on Bill C-51.
• Bill C-51: Sister of slain soldier Patrice Vincent testifies as committee review resumes, CBC News (TV and print), 23 March 2015. - Connie fournier intervenes on Bill C-51, as a representative of the Protect Our Privacy coalition.
• Ms. Connie Fournier (Founder, Free Dominion, Protect Our Privacy Coalition) at the Public Safety and National Security Committee, fedral government archives, 23 March 2015. - The Protect Our Privacy Coalition was also co-represented by Canadian Civil Liberties Association executive director Sukanya Pillay. The government report also describes Fournier's role opposing section 13 of the Human Rights Code.
• Harper is losing the argument on C-51 … with Conservatives, iPOLITICS, 26 March 2015. - Fournier is interviewed and cited regarding here oppositions to Bill C-51 and the CPC in the coming election.
• Federal parties tussle to pull ahead in a tight 3-way race, The Current, CBC Radio (national), 13 July 2015. - Connie Fournier interviewed about the coming fedral election.
• CHQR 770AM radio, Calgary, Alberta, 17-minute interview with Connie Fournier: Conservatives who oppose Bill C-51, posted 24 June 2015 and the sound recording on YouTube. - All about Fournier's opposition to Bill C-51.

Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a giver of soundbite in an article about something else does not assist a person's notability at all — she has to be the subject of the coverage, not a commentator within coverage of some other subject, for that coverage to count toward getting her over

WP:GNG. So exactly zero of these new sources are game-changers. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Individually (e.g. Tyee, 22 september 2015) and together the now nineteen (19) sources (mostly renown national media) provide "significant coverage" of Canadian activist Connie Fournier's activism. Contrary to your reading, the sources do not interview Fournier solely for information about other subjects unconnected to her. Rather, the sources expressly state and imply that Fournier is a main persona in these "other subjects", and describe and cite Fournier's own activism in these "other subjects". Look at all the sources, and the three independent prizes, together. Even fewer of these should be sufficient to pass the notability threshold. Her Queen's Diamond Jubilee award was reported in The Tyee as: "Long-time Conservative supporter Connie Fournier, left, received a Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal for her work on free speech in 2013.", with photograph of Fournier receiving the award. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or redirect to Free Dominion) as nominator and as per Bearcat's arguments. I think Denis.g.rancourt is somewhat embellishing Fournier's profile. She was one of tens of thousands of people who campaigned against Bill C-51 and as far as her opposition was notable it was through her temporary re-activation of Free Dominion and was not the key or even a main organizer (or as far as I can tell, an organizer at all) of the campaign. Similarly, she was one of many people who opposed Section 13 of the Human Rights Act and again was not an organizer of that campaign. Her notability as far as the lawsuits goes relates to Free Dominion and is covered by that article. Lastly, her opposition to Stephen Harper's re-election is no more notable than that of millions of other Canadians and the self-published book she wrote was not notable enough to be covered or reviewed by any notable media. Selwyn Floyd (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 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.
  WP:THIRDPARTY

There are many more than two reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject in this case. I can find no Wikipedia policy that states that a source weighs less toward notability if the media outlet has sought out the subject's opinion as an expert on a certain topic, as opposed to simply writing about the subject herself. Indeed, it would stand to reason that being sought by the media as a commentator would tend to point to greater notability, not less. Certainly, an interview is more than a "trivial mention", even if she is not the "main topic of the source material".

In any case, this article was barely created before it was nominated for speedy deletion and, when that failed, this AfD process was initiated. This is contrary to the policy on article quality that states that attempts should be make to improve the article, and to give others time to improve it rather than immediately propose for deletion.

All that being said, if there is no rough consensus, a page should be kept, so I say, "keep".

IP-175, I agree with you that those particular interviews in the media are valid sources for notability, not because Fournier is called upon to give "expert" information, but rather because she is called upon to comment on matters of public interest, which are connected to her person, such as her own opinions and activism on Section 13 and on Bill C-51. A specialized expert that simply contributes objective content is not necessarily notable. In the case in question here, Fournier is called upon not because she is an expert but rather because she is herself a prominent player in the political issues. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. She goood at getting her publicity published; we shouldn't appropriately be another source for her. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: Which of the 19 independent sources (many national media) are examples of Fournier "getting her publicity published"? And what exactly is "her publicity"? Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete she has a self-published blog and hosts a blog where people write foul things. marginally notable and the effort to promote her pushes this over the edge to deletion for me; we don't have bandwidth to maintain article of people of marginal notability who are being promoted in WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog: The question is notability. The characterization "she has a self-published blog and hosts a blog where people write foul things" is not a criterion and is not relevant. Likewise, an alleged "effort to promote her" is not a criterion, is not relevant to notability, and is a personal attack if it refers to an editor's work on WP. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best as this article is still questionable at best, despite the current article's appearance. Delete for now at best and restart later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Some folks seem to believe the majority of sources are reliable. Here's my assessment of them:
  • National Post: Written by her - as a primary source it's not reliable for establishing notability and only reliable for establishing that she said something specific at that
  • Macleans: Only one mention of her in the whole article, thus only a "passing mention", not reliable for establishing notability
  • CBCNews: Only one mention of her in the whole article, thus only a "passing mention", not reliable for establishing notability
  • iPolitics: Written by her - as a primary source it's not reliable for establishing notability and only reliable for establishing that she said something specific at that
  • The Tyee: Entirely an interview, even the non-quoted portions say "Fournier said..." or "...said Fournier" - as a primary source, it's not reliable for establishing notability.
  • Betrayed by Connie Fournier: Written by her - as a primary source it's not reliable for establishing notability and only reliable for establishing that she said something specific at that
  • Ottawa Citizen: This may actually be a reliable source, however it's regional news
  • Ottawa Citizen 2: This may actually be a reliable source, but it's only about the lawsuit that the above ref discusses, and it's regional news
  • Lawyers Weekly: Comprehensive coverage, seems solid enough, but again, only for the lawsuit (thinking
    WP:1E
    here)
  • Judgement for Appeal: This is just the judgement, not media/journalistic coverage. It's not a reliable source in the context of Wikipedia. Including it is
    original research
    and isn't really necessary.
  • The Diamond Jubilee Medal: It's not notable if it's awarded to 70,000 other people, as noted above.

So, for reliable sources (in the article), we're left with the two Ottawa Citizen articles (regional coverage only) and one industry specific article - all of which are specific to

talk) 23:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Chrisw80: You seem to have stopped reading too early. You covered the 11 sources in the present article. You were silent on the 8 additional sources listed and described above, for a total of 19. (Not that I agree with your evaluation of the 11 original sources.) Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Chrisw80: Thank you for your clarification, and for your reading suggestion. I fail to understand how you can justify: "I felt sticking with what was incorporated into the article was best". I think the 8 other sources merit as much attention a priori as the 11 that you chose to specifically critique. Since you have already read the other 8, please provide your assessment on them individually, for the benefit of this discussion. Otherwise, it is difficult for me to see how you can discount them, as I have already explained above why I think each one is a valid source that adds to the question of notability. Maybe you could explain where you think I am incorrect in my individual assessments. After that, maybe we could discuss the cumulative value of the 19 sources taken together, since most are unambiguously independent and reliable. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

talk) 05:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Chrisw80: Given the primary importance of quality, which you explain, let us start with one of the 8 sources that you did not expressly assess. This is what I wrote above about it: "Harper Races Against Cracks Eroding His Base, The Tyee, 22 September 2015. - Substantively about several aspects of Fournier's long-term activism (as I mentioned above)." What is your argument to discount this one, which you have already read? After we complete this one, we can move on to another. I see several quality sources that address notability. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that they meet
  WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Plummer

Winter Plummer (edit | 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 subject had a sad death, but with nothing to distinguish her from many thousands of other murder victims in the world every year. The refs all date to the time of her death and her killer's trial. Nothing to indicate the "persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources" required for notability of a crime victim in

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Much as I hate to say it, I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. I'd change my mind if others find such. Ross-c (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Meets
  WP:VICTIM. ~Kvng (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. NN murder victim. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete article appears to have been written in good faith by a new editor, and I do see how new editors can misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Of course, Winter Plummer's life was notable, and her death was a notable tragedy. The life of a human being can never be non-notable, certainly a murder cannot. However notability as the word is used in Wikipedia is a term of art applying standards of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. These are only met if a crime receives an extraordinary amount of attention in the press, or if it has a demonstrable impact on policy, or passes
  WP:GNG for some other reason, for example, if a notable author bases a screenplay on a specific murder. I do want to thank User:Nicolehood for creating thi sarticle, and encourage her to join us at Wikipedia. It takes a little time to learn how this crowd-sourced encyclopedia works, and I do hope you will join us.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak delete - I'm sorry, but neither any individual aspect of her life and death nor the totality of it crosses over the line for notability. I've seen so many sad cases like this where articles created by well-meaning students on a course end up in deletion discussions, and I wish that these courses could focus more on improving existing articles, the mainstay of most contribution to Wikipedia, rather than creating new ones of doubtful notability. Blythwood (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:VICTIM. We would need coverage beyond the crime itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep. Violence against women, especially in the military, is often hidden. While the article may be borderline, I encourage cleanup and addition rather than removing information about death and sexual assault in the military.Bellicist (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's simply nothing else I would imagine for a better article because of her death and thus there's no improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. We had informative discussion which shows that some of the nominated players may be notable while others may be no notable. I therefore close this as no consensus so that non-notable players could be renominated for deletion individually. Whoever wants to remonimate them, I recommend reading this discussion carefully, so that we do not waste our time for players which are clearly notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rasoul Najafi

Rasoul Najafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

sports person isn't notable according to notability policy for volleyball players Tomcat313 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:Tomcat313 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vali Alipour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reza Abedini (volleyball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vali Nourmohammadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alireza Nasr Esfahani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saber Narimannejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Parviz Pezeshki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nasser Rahimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ali Asghar Razmfar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hamed Rezaei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bahram Farid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ali Sajjadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vahid Seyed-Abbasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mojtaba Shaban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alireza Jadidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saeid Shiroud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iraj Mikaeilzadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reza Ghara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Behzad Heidarishahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mikaeil Tajer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello! All these pages are created by Sander.v.Ginkel and I know he/she creates pages for all volleyball players, who played in any FIVB or CEV tournaments... I wrote to him/her, but he/she thinks she/he do it right but it is not truth - ALL pages of volleyball players created by Sander.v.Ginkel has only information from the link of FIVB or CEV tournament even from few previous years and the informations are not right or complete. Please, someone should do intervention and stop Sander.v.Ginkel. - DariaPolonia (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the problem here is even more,most of people who Ive nominated hadn't played any FIVB tournament even on the bench, but because their name is on the expanded list (e.g. world league 25 names list), this user has created their page. Tomcat313 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DariaPolonia, just for the record, these pages are not all created by me. I created the pages of above nominated volleyball players who competed (for the national team) in the highest FIVB volleyball competitions. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Iran is 8th power volleyball in world, All players are prominent in Iran's Premier League.All players are members Iranian Volleyball Super League teams, this league is best League in Asia. and some players are member of Iran men's national volleyball team in a prestigious event.--Samək^Talk 21:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many players nominated, and I have several reasons to keep them.

1) Tomcat313 your reason for nominating is sports person isn't notable according to notability policy for volleyball players, but there isn't a policy for volleyball players. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2) Volleball is one of the biggest sports in the world (see for instance here and here). When we take a look at the notability guideliness on WP

WP:SPORTS, we see that for the popular sports the players who compete in the highest world competitions are notable. Even for the less popular sport lie cycling all UCI riders are notable competing in the UCI Women's World Tour, the same for all men's riders in the UCI World Tour and all track cyclists at the UCI Track Cycling World Cup. For volleyball the highest annual competition is the FIVB Volleyball World League. For that reason all the players who have played in the world league have been created. Many of the above nominated players are these players. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

3) As also mentioned by Samak Iran is a big volleyball country with a prominent national league. The national team qualified and competed in all the last World Championships, World Cups, World Leagues, Grand Champions Cup and won medal in the last Asian Cup, Asian Games and Asian Championships. These two reasons means that if you're part of the Iranian national team and have competed at international competitions, you have to be a really good player, meeting notability. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4) There are 1000nds of volleyball clubs worldwide. Only 6 teams takes part at the FIVB Volleyball Club World Championship. For that reason all the players who have played in the Club World Championships have been created. Many of the above nominated players are these players. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5) Above nominated players won (gold) medals at international volleyball competitions. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just looked and expanded two articles Vali Nourmohammadi and Rasoul Najafi to show these are obvious notable players. (Don't have time to expand them all) Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Dear Sander.v.Ginkel; Yes volleyball doesnt have a concluded notability discussion but there are some talks on volleyball project page that some users support, I hope they come here and express their opinion.

2. you think any player who have competed in world league should be considered as notable. I dont want to discuss it here, but players Rasoul Najafi and Reza Abedini didn't even played there and only their name is on the expanded list. being on the 25 names list of world league doesn't mean they've played there because for every match 14 players are chosen.

Reply, It would be good to indicate at the team squads pages the players played or not. However, I don't were to find this information. At least they are part of the national team and so one of the best 25 players of Iran. I think for Iran this meets already notability. Also, for others sports (is this also for volleyball?), players who didn't play also receives a medal if the team wins a medal.

It is the same as for instance with cycling. All cyclists at the List of 2015 UCI Women's Teams and riders are notable, altough they didn't all competed at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships or 2015 UCI Women's Road World Cup. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. I admit that I didn't make a good classification for this process. Rasoul Najafi and Reza Abedini dont have any national team appearance.

Reply Jajafi played at the Universiade for the national team (see here). According to the FIVB website Jajafi represented Iran 6x see here (yes I know, the 2 Worlds are the U23 champs). How do you know they didn't play in the World League? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Because Ive watched the matches! But if we want to prove this we should look at all the reports of the matches of world league (like this: http://www.fivb.org/vis_web/volley/WL2015-1/WL2015-1_p2-005.pdf) to find out who really played from those 25 people.(by played I mean be present there, even on the bench. But they wont give world league medal to all 25 people, they give it to 14 people) Tomcat313 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba Shaban, Hamed Rezaei, Vahid Seyed-Abbasi and Iraj Mikaeilzadeh (which are created by User:Samak and User:Princeofpersia1) didnt even have their names in a national team expanded list. They must definitely be deleted because they've only played in domestic league.

Reply What is the national team expanded list? Can you show where I can find it. I saw that a few of them were invited to play for the national team. It also looks like the articles have enough secondary sources. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply By expanded list I mean list of players that is more than need of that tournament, and normally is sent 1 month sooner to the organizers (and appears on the site of tournament), but for the matches, only 14 players will be announced. Tomcat313 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Others only played in club world championship, we can discuss it in the volleyball wiki project and wait until reaching an agreement. If current process wont be successful, then I will bundle these pages in 3 groups and again start deletion process.

4. If we look at basic criteria of notability: "person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject."

I think that having somebody's name only in one page of fivb site that doesn't have any special information doesn't have some of these conditions. (it is not multiple, non-trivial and secondary).

Reply I created the players with help of the FIVB information because I think that the players reaches notability on the bases of his performance. Most of the secondary sources of these players are in Farsi and I can't use them. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5. Your expantions contains wrong and without source information. Rasoul Najafi wasn't on matin's roster in 2014 asian club as this source says: http://iranvolleyball.com/Content/Content.aspx?PageCode=30925 , and wasn't in avc cup 2012 as this source says: http://www.iranvolleyball.com/Sport/Tournament.aspx?TournamentID=22. almost all the pages you've created have wrong or outdated information. Thanks. Tomcat313 (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I can't read Farsi, so I'm not able to use these sources :(.. This source says he was part of Pool B of the Asians Club Championship: here. But I changed it in the article as you say it is not sure. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Duplicate !votes struck. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here some individual notability reasons: Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reza Ghara - played in the 2014 World League
• Mojtaba Shaban - Added secondary source from news article ([6]). He is U19 World Champion 2007 (in most sports the a junior world champions are notable)
• Ali Sajjadi - won with the national team gold at the 2013 Islamic Solidarity Games
• Nasser Rahimi - Added secondary sources. He competed with the national team in international competitions (2012 Men Volleyball Asia Cup, 2013 FIVB Volleyball World League(?) and 2013 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Grand Champions Cup)
• Alireza Nasr Esfahani - Won with his club the gold medal at the 2014 Asian Men's Club Volleyball Championship. Also 2010 Asian youth champion and 2015 Asian U23 champion
• Vali Nourmohammadi - won gold with the national team at the Asian Senior Men's Volleyball Championship (Central Zone)
• Behzad Heidarishahi - Secondary sources 1, 2)
• Saeid Shiroud - Added secndary sources. Besides of that he competed at several international competitions for the national team and best outside spiker of the 2014 Asian Men's Cup Volleyball Championship. Gold medal at 2008 Asian Youth Boys Volleyball Championship.
• Alireza Jadidi - With the national team he won the silver medal at the 2012 Asian Men's Cup Volleyball Championship and was the best blocker of the championship.
• Parviz Pezeshki - Added secondary sources ([7][8])

Dear User:Sander.v.Ginkel; I really appreciate and thank your hard work and effort to improve these pages; but our main difference is in point of view to consider people notable or not. I'm not saying Parviz Pezeshki and others didn't attend tournaments you are mentioning and I can find tens of interviews with them and articles about them in Persian sites (this doesn't mean they are notable internationally, and even in Iran, volleyball followers mainly don't know players out of main national team roster). But I and some other users on volleyball project generally support something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Osplace/Volleyball_notability in volleyball for notability. So I think it is better to start a discussion on volleyball project page about notability and try to conclude it this time. Then we can easier decide which page we keep and which we delete. Tomcat313 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deat Tomcat313, thanks for your kind reply. The notabiility guideliness you're mentionong will be players who will be kept without secondary sources on the basis of 1 performance (so for instance Vali Nourmohammadi and Alireza Nasr Esfahani). But this does not say that this are the only notable volleyball players! All volleyball players with secondary sources are notable, see guideliness. So including the players I summed above. To have a WP page you can be notable within a country without being notable international. Where did you see that a person has to be international notable? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - based upon current guidelines, these players do not pass notability criteria, either
  WP:NATHLETE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

* Reply to Onel5969 can you please expand your opinion, as several of the articles have been expanded with good secondary sources. Others are notable due to winning medals at notable International competitons. And my third point, as also stated above, volleyball doesn't have notabiility guideliness, so what do you mean with WP:NATHLETE?... Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 23:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Advice for administrators: close this one with not reached consensus, what is the case with only a few contributors. The nominator Tomcat313 can than nominate the players separately or in groups again as he indicated himself above.The above nominated players are completely different, and should be discussed with separate discussions. I think with a better categorization, a better discussion will be reached. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. The Article has References, but it does need to be expanded significantly. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Religion and Advertising of Controversial Products

Religion and Advertising of Controversial Products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very clearly

• Delete. I have always said that there needs to be a speedy deletion criterion for pages that are clearly not intended to be encyclopedia articles. I've seen social networking pages, resumes, and even
  WP:OR certainly give ample grounds for deletion in this case, but it's too bad that we can't take swifter action here. I would like to note, however, that there are Wikipedia articles about notable experiments (see, e.g., Milgram experiment, Stanford prison experiment), but Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing the results of new or novel experiments. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• We can now speedy delete this per
  WP:G7 as the author has requested deletion. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• delete per above. This is a research paper, not an encyclopedia article. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:NOTESSAY. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please delete. I have understood the reasons. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaymassey (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has resulted from this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Canova

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Tim Canova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. John Z (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion. Although the article obviously needs improvement, Canova's primary opponent, Wasserman Schultz, has drawn considerable criticism for what has been seen as using the DNC for inappropriate partisan efforts in the presidential primary to support Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Canova has also differed substantially with DWS on major divisive issues in the District such as fracking in the Everglades, for-profit prisons especially in Broward County, etc. That could put this safe Democratic seat into play. Activist (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support At best, that means that he deserves a solid mention in *her* article, since you're basing his notability purely based on her. He does not have any notability as per
  WP:NPOL. Blackbird_4 00:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose deletion. This isn't just some also-ran in some nondescript congressional race. This is a highly publicized run against the party chair who is highly controversial. I ended up here because I was seeking more info about this noteable and fascinating race, and who is the challenger involved. There will be a large amount of traffic just like me. Come back in November and delete it if he doesn't win. This is big news. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]